Point shape and vane type change the arrow's aerodynamic drag a great deal
18 studies
The summary today
The two halves of this sentence are not equally solid. On the vanes the measurements point the same way, and the effects are large when the fletchings really differ: in a magnetic suspension wind tunnel the vanes roughly double the drag of the bare shaft, from a coefficient of about 0.75 to about 1.5, and between two models of straight vane the coefficient goes from 1.56 to 2.05; outside that tunnel, untrimmed hunting feathers produce about three times the drag of parabolic ones, and with a wooden bow the energy loss over the first five metres runs from 1.93 per cent with four inch feathers to 7.5 with the shortest, and over 12 with flu-flu fletchings. It is also the vane, not the tube or the point, that switches the layer of air from the low-drag regime to the high-drag one. Between two competition vanes, one with three quarters of the other's area, the difference can vanish, though: shot by an archer from her recurve, arrows with Spin Wing and with Gas Pro vanes gave the same coefficient, 2.68 against 2.63, because the flexing of the shaft made the boundary layer turbulent in both cases; and a repeat run by the same Japanese group did not confirm the low-drag regime for one vane model. On the point the picture is narrower than the way it is told on the range. With the shaft held aligned with the airflow, bullet and streamlined points give the same drag; the difference appears when the point creates a step or a taper behind its widest part, because that is where the layer of air separates, and with that geometry the arrow slows down more. Even then the calculated effect stays at a few per cent: on a compound arrow the point accounts for 4 per cent of the drag, a bulge point lengthens the drift at seventy metres by about 5 millimetres out of 156, and a point designed to keep the first stretch of shaft laminar would shorten it by 8 per cent. Finally, nobody has taken the comparison to the target: there is no study in the bibliography that measures archers' scores or groups with different points and vanes.
Also phrased as: "small or large vanes for the wind"; "streamlined points and arrow speed"; "how much the vanes slow the arrow"; "arrow aerodynamic drag"; "spin wing or gas pro"
In practice
Small vanes are chosen for the wind and streamlined points to hold speed, and the shape of the point is taken for granted to count in itself, regardless of how it blends into the shaft.
Evidence
-
1933
Context Model Published later
The first aeronautical treatment of the arrow: drag is calculated as friction on the wetted surface, because with well-fitted feathers the arrow stays aligned and the wake is negligible, and the feathers come in as a factor multiplying the area of the shaft. The factor runs from 1.02 for the celluloid vanes of flight arrows to 1.12 to 1.27 for target arrows and 1.25 to 1.50 for hunting feathers. These are factors estimated from geometry, not drag measurements.
The aerodynamics of an arrow · George Judson Higgins
-
2007
For Equipment tests Published later
Two arrows with identical shafts and points, one with parabolic feathers and one with untrimmed hunting feathers, followed with three microphones in a room about 13 m long through the Doppler effect of the point's whistle: from the loss of speed the authors derive a drag constant of 9.4 against 3.1 (times ten to the minus six), about three times higher for the untrimmed feathers. One shot per arrow, and two fletchings very different from each other.
Measuring the flight of an arrow using the Acoustic Doppler Shift · Mark French, Tom Kirk
-
2011
For Equipment tests Published later
X10 and A/C/E arrows magnetically suspended in JAXA's 60 cm wind tunnel: with the vanes fitted and the arrow spinning, the move into the high-drag regime happens at a Reynolds number of about 1.5 by 10 to the fourth, twenty-five per cent lower than without vanes, and the drag coefficient rises by about half a point; with the vanes but no spin it drops only by ten per cent. Without vanes it is the point that decides: with the ogival one no transition is seen across the measured range, with the streamlined one it is, at around 2.0 by 10 to the fourth on the A/C/E.
A10 Aerodynamic Properties of an Archery Arrow : JAXA's 60cm MSBS Experiments · Yuta Komori, Keita Mukaiyama, Takeshi Miyazaki, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2011
Against Equipment tests Published later
The same work also gives the opposite result in one of the configurations tested: with the A/C/E shaft and Spin Wing vanes fitted, the layer of air stays in the low-drag regime across the whole measured range, from 0.3 to 1.5 by 10 to the fourth, whatever the shape of the point. And without vanes the two shafts, X10 and A/C/E, show no measurable difference in drag between them, even though cylinder theory would predict one.
A10 Aerodynamic Properties of an Archery Arrow : JAXA's 60cm MSBS Experiments · Yuta Komori, Keita Mukaiyama, Takeshi Miyazaki, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2011
For Equipment tests Published later
A 0.502 m, roughly 27.5 g crossbow bolt with three point shapes, tested in flight with a compressed-air launcher and in a magnetic suspension wind tunnel: with the streamlined point the layer of air stays attached and the drag coefficient is about 1.0 to 1.1, with the ogival and the blunt ones it goes turbulent and the coefficient rises to about 1.5 to 1.9. The test range, 25 to 49 metres per second, is that of arrows in real flight. A small difference in point shape is enough, though, to move the transition speed a long way, from 0.55 to 1.45 million Reynolds between the real bolt and an enlarged model, and with the blunt point the model's coefficient comes out about ten per cent higher than the bolt's. The specimen is not an archery arrow but a crossbow bolt, a limit the authors state themselves.
Aerodynamic properties of an arrow: Influence of point shape on the boundary layer transition · Keita Mukaiyama, Kazuhiko Suzuki, Takeshi Miyazaki, Hideo Sawada
-
2011
Context Model Published later
A model of drag as the sum of point, nock, shaft and vanes, checked with a chronograph out to 90 m on three compound arrows fired by a shooting machine. For a Protour 470 at 78.6 m/s the initial drag splits as follows: shaft 73%, vanes 12% (half friction, half frontal area), nock 11%, point 4%. On a modern competition arrow with small vanes, point and vanes therefore weigh little in the total, as long as the flow does not separate behind the point.
The aerodynamic drag and axial rotation of an arrow · J L Park
-
2011
Context Equipment tests Published later
Scale models of points in a water channel, with dye and particle image velocimetry. With a bullet point the flow stays laminar over a well-defined stretch of the shaft; with the short tungsten bulge point, which narrows from 5.3 to 4.7 mm over 4.5 mm, the flow separates on the rear taper, 1.61 diameters from the tip, and at typical arrow speeds the whole shaft is turbulent. In the worked example, with a compound arrow at 84.1 m/s and a 3 m/s crosswind, the drift at 70 m goes from 156 mm with the bullet point to 161 with the bulge.
Air flow around the point of an arrow · James L Park, Michael R Hodge, Salam Al-Mulla, Michael Sherry, John Sheridan
-
2011
Context Model Published later
A wind drift calculation using the drag data of the earlier paper: on the Protour 470 the vanes account for about 13% of the drag and the nock about 11%, up to about 16% with a large over-nock; turbulent flow starting at the point's shoulder adds about 5% of drag, and 50 mm of surplus shaft on about 700 about 7% of drift. According to the author a careless choice of components can worsen the drift by more than 10%.
Minimizing wind drift of an arrow · J L Park
-
2012
For Equipment tests Published later
Easton A/C/E arrows in free flight and in JAXA's magnetic suspension tunnel, with two point types and two vane types: with an ogival point and Spin Wing vanes the layer of air goes turbulent above a Reynolds number of about 1.2 by 10 to the fourth and the coefficient rises to about 2.6, while with GAS Pro vanes it stays attached at every speed tested. Even within the low-drag regime the smaller vanes slow the arrow a little less, with a coefficient of about 1.60 for the Spin Wings against 1.45 for the GAS Pros. Without vanes the shaft's value matches the theoretical figure for a cylinder, and aligned to the flow the arrow with vanes sits around 1.5.
117 Aerodynamic Properties of an Archery Arrow : Free Flight Experiments and JAXA's 60cm MSBS Experiments · Kyohei Okawa, Yuta Komori, Takeshi Miyazaki, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2012
For Equipment tests Published later
A 14.3 g Easton A/C/E arrow, magnetic suspension tunnel and compressed-air launches up to 75 metres per second: the vanes roughly double the drag, from the bare shaft's coefficient of about 0.75 to about 1.5 with 1 3/4 inch Spin Wings. In flight the point decides when the layer of air goes turbulent, with the ogival one above a Reynolds number of about 1.3 by 10 to the fourth and a coefficient of about 2.6, while with the streamlined one two values are found, about 1.6 or 2.6. The work also indicates why: the standard ogival point has a maximum diameter of 5.83 mm, wider than the front of the shaft, while the streamlined brass one reaches its maximum of 5.30 mm just where the shaft begins. It is that step which decides.
Aerodynamic properties of an archery arrow · Takeshi Miyazaki, Keita Mukaiyama, Yuta Komori, Kyouhei Okawa, Satoshi Taguchi, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2012
Against Equipment tests Published later
The same work sets the limit on the part about the point: with the bare shaft and the arrow held perfectly aligned to the flow, the ogival and the streamlined points give no difference in drag up to a Reynolds number of 1.35 by 10 to the fourth, with a coefficient of about 1.5 above 1.0 by 10 to the fourth, some 0.15 from the theoretical value because of base drag. Two further null results in the same study: the nock does not change the drag appreciably, because it sits inside the already thick layer of air at the rear, and the spin parameter, from 0.028 to 0.033, has no significant influence on the coefficient. The 36 arrows with Spin Wings shot by an expert national-team archer from her recurve, at 58 m/s, all fall in the high-drag regime instead, with a coefficient of about 2.65, which the authors put down to the flexing of the shaft.
Aerodynamic properties of an archery arrow · Takeshi Miyazaki, Keita Mukaiyama, Yuta Komori, Kyouhei Okawa, Satoshi Taguchi, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2012
Context Equipment tests Published later
A 0.51 m carbon crossbow bolt shot from a 150 lb crossbow at 45.72 m, with a sensor fitted in the tip recording deceleration throughout the flight, four shots for each of two hunting heads of almost identical mass, 6.48 and 6.54 g: mean deceleration from air drag is 1,385 thousandths of a g with the fixed-blade head against 1,441 with the mechanical practice head, and time of flight 552.02 against 555.33 ms. Energy retained on arrival differs by 0.75 percentage points, and the authors conclude that the choice between the two heads will rest on other criteria. Four shots per head, no statistical test, almost 15 g at the front between sensor, adapter and head, and one author working for the company that makes the sensor: it says that two similar hunting heads slow the bolt in a similar way, not how much point shape counts on a target arrow.
Arrow-mounted Ballistic System for Measuring Performance of Arrows Equipped with Hunting Broadheads · John Barton, Jan Včelák, Javier Torres-Sanchez, Brendan O’Flynn, Cian O’Mathuna, Robert V. Donahoe
-
2013
For Equipment tests Published later
A competition Easton A/C/E arrow, a compressed-air launcher from 28 to 73 metres per second and a magnetic suspension tunnel: the shaft with the point alone and no vanes stays in the low-drag regime across the whole range explored, while simply fitting the Spin Wings makes the transition appear and the coefficient jump from about 1.6 to about 2.6 in flight and to 3.1 in the tunnel. It is the vane, not the tube or the point, that changes the regime of the layer of air.
Free Flight and Wind Tunnel Measurements of the Drag Exerted on an Archery Arrow · K. Okawa, Y. Komori, T. Miyazaki, S. Taguchi, H. Sugiura
-
2013
Against Equipment tests Published later
In the same tests, in the wind tunnel as in flight, no qualitative difference is observed in the arrow's aerodynamic behaviour between the ogival and the streamlined point. It is the second study in a row from the same group to find this.
Free Flight and Wind Tunnel Measurements of the Drag Exerted on an Archery Arrow · K. Okawa, Y. Komori, T. Miyazaki, S. Taguchi, H. Sugiura
-
2014
Context Equipment tests Published later
Four commercial arrows in a water tunnel and a 2:1 scale model in a wind tunnel. At zero incidence the flow stays attached on helical plastic vanes and separates on flat straight ones, and the advantage of the helical vanes grows with incidence; changing the point does not change lift and moment beyond the repeatability of the measurement, whereas the presence and angle of the vanes change them clearly. The observations are largely qualitative, with no drag values, in a venue flagged as questionable.
Experimental Hydro- and Aerodynamics Research on Arrow Questionable venue · Xiao An Long
-
2015
Against Equipment tests Published later
A repetition of the free-flight tests on the same A/C/E arrows with GAS Pro vanes, at Reynolds numbers of 1.5 and 1.77 by 10 to the fourth: the drag coefficient is always at the high-drag values, against the low-drag regime up to 2.3 by 10 to the fourth reported by the 2012 work. The replication does not confirm, and it comes from the very group that had published the result.
The relation between the boundary layer transition and the attitude of archery arrow · T. Matsumoto, R. Ando, J. Ortiz, T. Miyazaki, S. Taguchi
-
2016
For Equipment tests Published later
A/C/E arrows launched with a forced angle of attack, that is in a non-ideal attitude like that of an arrow just out of the bow: with GAS Pro vanes the arrow stays at the high-drag value throughout, about 2.6, while with Spin Wings the values split between about 2.6 and about 1.8. With an imperfect launch, vane type does change the drag.
The boundary layer transition and the attitude of archery allow · Takamasa Matsumoto, Ryu Ando, Takeshi Miyazaki, Satoshi Taguchi, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2017
Against Equipment tests Published later
The same A/C/E arrow with Spin Wing vanes and with Gas Pro vanes, 36 shots each, shot by an expert woman archer with her recurve at about 58 m/s: the drag coefficient is 2.68 with the former and 2.63 with the latter, with standard deviations of 0.073 and 0.077, that is no difference. According to the authors the flexing of the shaft, 6.9 mm at the point at 87 Hz, produces an oscillating angle of attack of about 3.7 degrees that makes the boundary layer turbulent with both vanes. It is the only measurement in the bibliography on arrows shot by an archer with different vanes; the Gas Pro area is three quarters of the Spin Wing area.
Indeterminacy of drag exerted on an arrow in free flight: arrow attitude and laminar-turbulent transition · T Miyazaki, T Matsumoto, R Ando, J Ortiz, H Sugiura
-
2017
Context Equipment tests Published later
In the magnetic suspension wind tunnel, with the arrow aligned with the airflow, the coefficient stays around 1.5 with both types of vane, and the vanes account for about 0.75 of it, whatever the type: the same picture as the same group's 2012 and 2013 papers. Tilting the arrow by 0.75 degrees is enough to raise the coefficient from 1.6 to 3.1.
Indeterminacy of drag exerted on an arrow in free flight: arrow attitude and laminar-turbulent transition · T Miyazaki, T Matsumoto, R Ando, J Ortiz, H Sugiura
-
2018
Against Model Published later
A linear stability calculation on a model shaft without vanes, comparing a streamlined point and a bulbous competition one: along the shaft it is the streamlined point that makes the layer of air slightly more unstable, and beyond seventy radii from the junction the shape of the point can no longer be told apart. The bulbous point does create, upstream of the junction, an unstable recirculation zone with a growth rate of around 1.2 over some three radii, which the streamlined point does not have. The picture is more complicated than one point that slows the arrow and one that does not, and it is a model, with no new measurements.
Linear stability of the boundary layer flow along an archery arrow · Toshinari Hasegawa, Atsushi Serino, Takeshi Miyazaki, Naoya Takahashi, Reima Iwatsu
-
2019
For Review Published later
A review reporting water channel tests on large-diameter shaft models: with a point that has no shoulder and a smooth blend the flow stays attached along the shaft up to a Reynolds number of about 450,000 for angles of attack up to two degrees, while with bulbous points it is turbulent just behind the bulb in every case tested. It gives the mechanism and a threshold, but it is third-party material reread without the original data.
The impact of the atmosphere on target archery · James L Park
-
2020
For Equipment tests Published later
A/C/E 1206 arrows with a bulged point and straight vanes, measured in a magnetic suspension tunnel, in free flight over 55 metres indoors and in simulation: at a Reynolds number of 1.2 by 10 to the fourth the drag coefficient is 2.05 with Easton Diamond 280 vanes against 1.56 with the 175s, with everything else unchanged. It is the clearest difference measured between two competition fletchings.
Experimental and Computational Study of Archery Arrows Fletched with Straight Vanes · Julio Ortiz, Atsushi Serino, Toshinari Hasegawa, Takahito Onoguchi, Hiroki Maemukai, Takeshi Miyazaki, Hiroki Sugiura
-
2020
Context Model Published later
A wind drift calculation with a model that lets the shaft flex: a point designed to keep the flow laminar over the first stretch of the shaft would move the transition from 3 to 121 mm behind the point on a recurve X10 600 and cut the drift at 70 m from 253 to 232 mm, 8.3%; on the compound at 50 m from 75 to 72 mm, 4.0%. In a crosswind the point's angle of attack stays mostly below 3 degrees, so that laminar flow looks achievable in light or moderate wind.
The dynamic behaviour of an arrow in wind · James L Park
-
2020
For Equipment tests Published later
An elm flatbow of 48 lb held in a mechanical device, cedar arrows with different fletchings, two chronographs at 1 and 6 m. With three straight natural feathers the energy loss over those 5 m runs from 1.93% with 4 inch feathers to 4.65% with 5 inch ones and 7.51% with the shortest, 2.5 inch; flu-flu fletchings, made to slow the arrow, lose from 12.14 to 22.72%. Synthetic vanes lose slightly more than feathers of similar size (4.88% against 4.65%), but with more consistent speeds from shot to shot. Prehistoric-style bows and arrows, and the arrow masses are not identical.
The important role of bow choice and arrow fletching in projectile experimentation. A ballistic approach · Christian Lepers, Veerle Rots
-
2022
For Equipment tests Published later
A/C/E arrows with Diamond vanes launched by compressed air and tracked with high-speed cameras and automatic image analysis: at 57 metres per second the speed decays more steeply with the bulge point, because the layer of air is turbulent, while with the streamlined point the slope stays the same even at 60. With the bulge point the transition happens already at 50 metres per second. This is the outcome seen in the speed and not only in the coefficient.
Automatic image analysis of an archery arrow in free flight using high-speed video cameras · Riku Murakami, Hiroya Mamori, Takeshi Miyazaki, Naoya Takahashi
Status history
- 1933 Not studied The first person to treat the arrow with the methods of aeronautics calculates drag as friction on the surface and puts the feathers into a factor multiplying the area of the shaft: 1.02 for the celluloid vanes of flight arrows, up to 1.50 for hunting feathers. On that calculation large feathers would add up to half the drag, but the factors come from geometry and nobody has measured anything yet: not studied.
- 2007 Reported The first measurement comes from sound. Two arrows identical except for their fletching pass over three microphones, and the Doppler effect of the point's whistle shows how much they slow down: the drag constant is about three times higher with untrimmed hunting feathers than with parabolic ones. It is one shot per arrow, in a thirteen metre room, with two fletchings worlds apart, and it says nothing about the point: reported, on the vane half.
- 2011 Reported The first measurements in a magnetic suspension wind tunnel arrive. With the vanes fitted and the arrow spinning, the layer of air switches to the high-drag regime at a speed twenty-five per cent lower and the drag coefficient rises by about half a point, while without vanes it is the shape of the point that decides whether the flow stays attached. A second paper on the same rig, on a crossbow bolt, finds coefficients from 1.0 to 1.9 across three point shapes. The same year, in Australia, a water channel shows why the point matters: behind a short bulge point the flow separates on the taper and the whole shaft is turbulent, while with a bullet point it stays laminar for a stretch. But the same author's calculations put the effect in proportion: on a compound arrow the point accounts for 4 per cent of the drag and the vanes for 12, and the bulge lengthens the drift at seventy metres by 5 millimetres out of 156. Direct tests on the equipment, none on the target: reported.
- 2012 Reported The measurements spread from the tunnel to free flight and the picture sharpens. The bare shaft with the point alone stays in the low-drag regime and its value matches the theoretical figure for a cylinder; with the vanes the drag roughly doubles, and vanes of smaller area add less of it. With the same vanes, on the other hand, the shape of the point does not change the drag when the arrow is held aligned to the flow, and the nock does not count either, because it sits inside the already thick layer of air at the rear. In the same work an expert national-team archer shoots the arrow with Spin Wings from her recurve, and all her shots fall in the high-drag regime. In the same year, outside that laboratory, a sensor fitted in the tip of a crossbow bolt finds that two hunting heads of almost identical mass slow it in a similar way, with a mean deceleration of 1,385 against 1,441 thousandths of a g over four shots each: it is a small test, on something other than a target arrow, and it stays context. The status stays reported because the fullest tests come from the same rig and the same group, and the outside one from 2007 is a single shot per arrow.
- 2013 Reported The same group isolates the cause: the bare shaft with the point alone stays in the low-drag regime at every speed tested, and simply fitting the vanes makes the coefficient jump from about 1.6 to about 2.6 in flight, and to 3.1 in the tunnel. It is the vane that changes the regime, not the tube and not the point, which here too makes no difference between ogival and streamlined. These are confirmations from the same wind tunnel, so the status does not rise.
- 2014 Reported A water tunnel and a wind tunnel in China look at the flow over the vanes: at zero incidence it stays attached on helical plastic vanes and separates on flat straight ones, while changing the point does not move lift and moment beyond the repeatability of the measurement. These are mostly qualitative observations, with no drag values, in a venue flagged as questionable: the status does not change.
- 2015 Reported The first contrary result comes from the same laboratory: repeating the free-flight tests, with one vane model the layer of air is always in the high-drag regime and the low-drag regime seen in 2012 and 2013 does not replicate. It touches the part about the vanes rather than the part about the point, and it is an isolated contrary result among coherent tests, so it does not lead to contested: the status stays reported, with the failed replication written into the record.
- 2016 Reported A detail that brings the laboratory closer to reality: with a deliberately non-ideal launch, that is with a forced angle of attack as happens to an arrow just out of the bow, vane type does change the drag, because with one model the arrow stays at the high value throughout while with the other the values split between high and low. A single test, and the status holds.
- 2017 Reported The Japanese group has an expert woman archer shoot the same arrow from her recurve, 36 times with Spin Wing vanes and 36 with Gas Pro: the drag coefficient is 2.68 against 2.63, in other words the same. According to the authors the flexing of the shaft makes the point's angle of attack oscillate by about 3.7 degrees, and at an angle like that the boundary layer is turbulent with both vanes. It is the first comparison of two vanes on arrows actually shot from a bow, and it goes against the vane half, but it concerns two competition vanes not far apart, one with three quarters of the other's area, and a single archer, while the large differences measured so far concern very different fletchings: the status stays reported.
- 2018 Reported A stability calculation complicates the part about the point. The bulbous point creates an unstable recirculation zone just behind the junction with the shaft, which the streamlined point does not, but along the shaft it is the streamlined one that makes the layer of air slightly more unstable, and beyond about seventy shaft radii the shape of the point no longer counts. It is a model, and a complication with no new measurements does not lower the status.
- 2019 Reported A review adds the mechanism and a threshold, from water channel tests: with a point that has no shoulder and a smooth blend the flow stays attached along the shaft up to a Reynolds number of about 450,000 for small angles of attack, while with bulbous points it is turbulent just behind the bulb in every case tested. It confirms the direction, but it is material reread from a single source and the status holds.
- 2020 Reported A measurement in the magnetic suspension wind tunnel quantifies the most solid half, the vanes: a drag coefficient of 2.05 with large straight vanes against 1.56 with short ones, all else being equal. The same year, in Belgium, with a wooden bow held in a mechanical device, the energy loss over the first five metres runs from 1.93 per cent with four inch feathers to 7.51 with two and a half inch ones, and over 12 with flu-flu fletchings. From Australia a calculation sizes up the point half: a point designed to keep the first stretch of shaft laminar would take 8 per cent off the drift at seventy metres. Vanes change drag a great deal when they are very different; the point changes it by a few points: reported.
- 2022 Reported Automatic analysis of high-speed images closes the circle on the point, with an outcome visible in the speed and not only in the coefficient: with the bulge point the arrow slows down faster because the layer of air goes turbulent already at fifty metres per second, while with the streamlined point it stays attached even at sixty. Three coherent lines of measurement, but only one test with an archer and largely from the same tunnels: it stays reported.
Related
Related articles
- How much the air slows an arrow down, and what really changes the dragHow much speed an arrow loses in flight, how much the shaft, vanes and point add to air drag, and how much of it actually reaches the target.
- Vanes, feathers or Spin Wings: what actually changesLarge or small vanes, feathers or plastic, vane angle and orientation on the shaft: what the studies measure, and where research has not yet reached the target.
Research lines
Cite
Campagna, M. (2026). Point shape and vane type change the arrow's aerodynamic drag a great deal (Version 3). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/points-vanes-drag
@misc{campagna2026_puntealetteresistenza,
author = {Campagna, Matteo},
title = {Point shape and vane type change the arrow's aerodynamic drag a great deal},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/points-vanes-drag},
note = {Version 3; accessed 2026-10-16}
}
Follow this claim
RSS is an address you paste into a feed reader: each time this claim changes status, adds a year to its history or is revised, a new item appears there.
Registry updates by email
At most one email a month, sent only when something has changed: claims that change status, new claims, Lab predictions registered or resolved, new studies and new books.
Sign-ups are handled by Systeme.io, the service that runs the newsletter. Every email has a link to unsubscribe with one click.
Other claims in this domain
- CorroboratedAlong its flight the arrow loses an appreciable part of its launch speed12 studiesStatus since 2011
- CorroboratedAs it leaves the bow, the arrow flexes and snakes around the riser instead of leaving straight19 studies · 47 archers measuredStatus since 2012
- ReportedA camera-based scoring system misreads some arrows: the ones barely sticking out and the ones that shift the target face7 studies · 2 archers measuredStatus since 2017
- ReportedA chest band with fibre optic sensors measures breathing and mean heart rate with small errors, and an archer can wear it while shooting2 studiesStatus since 2019
- ReportedA compound bow stores between 70 and 100 joules and sheds about two thirds of the force at full draw4 studiesStatus since 2015