Bow Speeds: Fact or Fiction? I was involved in archery from about the age of nine years old until the beginning of the split limb compound bow technology. Children, career, education and other distractions (including the pursuit of firearms) led me away from archery until five years ago when I again dug out my old PSE bracket wheeled bow, Ben Person alloy arrows and began practicing as a stress relief therapy. Low and behold, I was hooked all over again! Research on the net (non-existent when last flinging arrows) showed remarkable changes in limb, cam, string/cable, shaft, vane and release technologies. In fact, while I was away, the industry had completely evolved. Three things emerged as driving forces in advancing archery technology: 1: over-all bow weight 2: arrow shaft weights and materials 3: bow speeds The last category turned out to be the selling point upon which archery marketers hung their pointed little Robin Hood hats. Two common methods of measurement are commonly used in bow speed advertising, the IBO (International Bowhunters Organization) and AMO (Archery Manufactures Organization). We won’t go into the differences now but most advertising now centers on “IBO speed”. Current advertising using IBO “standards” leave much room for the application of those standards and fudging results. It is widely recognized that many bow manufacturers “stretch the blanket” either by calling 30 3/4 inch draw 30 inches, using lighter than normal strings and/or arrows or by boosting draw weight and still calling it the “IBO standard” of 70 pounds peak. In short, it is virtually impossible for the fellow behind the counter to reproduce advertised speed numbers in his/her clients’ set ups. The AMO testing standard is avoided like the plague because the speeds, with more realistic arrow weight/draw weight ratios produce much less sexy (slower) numbers. All of this leads me to an article I read in 35th Anniversary Edition of Archery Business Magazine (also available on-line) entitled “Bow Speeds: Fact or Fiction?” The Archery Trade Association or ATA has a technical board that reviews and attempts to institute industry wide standards that provide the consumer with the ability to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons between similar products. Their latest efforts center on realistic bow speeds using three standards based on 5 grains of arrow weight per pound of draw: 1: 30 inch draw, 70 pound peak weight and 350 grain arrow 2: 30 inch draw, 60 pound peak weight and 300 grain arrow 3: 30 inch draw, 50 pound peak weight and 250 grain arrow Interestingly, before the discussion was started, letters were sent to all of the bow manufacturers in 2008 and the only folks representing bow manufacturers were Bear, Hoyt, Mathews and PSE. The way I see it, the ATA standards are easy for the consumer and the manufacturer to understand. Any bozo should be able to set his bow to the ATA specs and then shoot over a chronograph and get the same results as the manufacturer. The way it stands now, the average Joe buys a bow and the local shop is immediately put in the position of making excuses for the client’s bow not performing as advertised. I don’t know about you but whenever a salesman begins dancing, I get the feeling I’m about to get hosed…and not with the garden variety type. It seems to me that it does no one any good to start a new archer out with trying to explain away a lie. We need more credibility in the archery industry not less. Of course, those familiar with my previous posts know the next area I think standards should applied are in the measuring of accuracy potential. I know there are work-around solutions for many technical problems for most bows to achieve acceptable accuracy; however, it still seems to me that a basic accuracy test could be applied across the board. From an advertising standpoint, who wouldn’t want to have the bragging rights of “Most Accurate Bow for 2012” in just the same way speed is contested now?
That was an excellent post. You made a lot of great points. I've always known the IBO speeds were almost impossible to achieve, I just always accepted that I would be getting 20 to 30 fps less than advertised. I would really like to see manufacturers use an everyday archer standard so we would have a good estimate of what speeds we would be getting.
Just like all other manufacturers claims, you have to do your own research, and as bad as it sounds, take most of these claims with a grain of salt. I sat here in my recliner watching TV and watched the truck commercials from the big 3; well guess what, all had the best fuel economy in their class. When I went to buy my bow I didn't look at the IBO speed and just pick the fastest. IMO if that's your plan on bow shopping, well good luck to you, you're not a real hunter.
I too would like to see something like this. However, it's nearly impossible. Differing draw lengths, arrow weights, weight added to the string, draw weight, even the type of string all affect arrow speed. IBO is probably the closest we could ever get, short of using an arrow in the 400-420 grain range for the standard.
I definitely agree with you. There are so many variables to take into consideration that it would be almost impossible to give approximate speeds since everyone would have their bow set-up a little differently.
My point remains: If one were to take a new bow from the box, set at the prescribed weight/draw length, with the factory string, nock set and D-loop and correctly weighted arrow, one should be able to duplicate or closely approximate advertised speeds. If a buyer were to change any of the variables, of course the numbers would change. I liken this to firearms and ammunition testing. Industry standards are set for maximum chamber pressure and barrel length is always listed. Easy formulae allow accurate estimation of speed increases for longer and shorter barrels. It is true that different manufacturers produce ammunition of the same projectile weight and different muzzle velocities are obtained from the same barrel; however, even those differences are miniscule when compared to archery deviations (when viewed as a percentage). We are, after all, only discussing a machine. There may be art in its manufacture and art in its deployment but it is still only a machine and can be evaluated as such. It may be rocket science but it definitely NOT black magic. At one time folks thought the world was flat and the very idea of a globe was seen as heresy.
