I always look forward to your videos and before I consider buying new heads I always check to see if you have tested it.
Seems like more and more objectively is being added into the testing. Perception of flight, bonus points ect.
Well, I am constantly trying to figure out a way to objectively quantify things that aren't so easy to quantify. For example, there are distinct advantages to certain design features, like having an ability to lock the blades closed for practicing, or offset blades for a better wound channel that deserve some sort of credit...so there is 1 point, out of 100, that goes to things like that. Also, for flight, almost every head I shoot flies perfectly well...but how does that help the average viewer? So using my experience and testing to rate the "Flight Forgiveness" seems more helpful than just saying every head flies great. The goal of it all is to help people get a more comprehensive, quantified score for each head...and mechs & fixed are both scored using the exact same tests & scales. The cumulative score correlates with a Golden Arrow Grade, so that is less subjective and more objective than my previous grading system.
Why not just show the test and results, measurements and let them speak for themselves vs assigning biased score. The things you mentioned are all subjective and quite frankly it’s ruining your “test” because it’s now longer a test when you assign arbitrary values.
I do see where trial153 is coming from - they're more a review or video Op-Eds not tests in the scientific sense - but I feel that is more so your goal actually.
For example. You been forgoing your “flight test” for mechanical heads because you repeatedly stated that they all fly good enough. However now your assigning a bonus point to a sponsors head because it can locked into the closed position for practice. So which is it? You also stated “ off set blades for better wound channels “ get bonus points. Who’s measurement is two inches of cut that is offset is better then two inches of cut that isn’t off set? And who’s to say that design that offsets the cut doesn’t add a weakness or negative influence to the structure? Again your adding subjective score to the ratings.
How about a typed summary??? I don't want to watch a 12 minute vid when I could read it in less than 1.
He has sponsors and such that means this would defeat his bottom line - even if it is small amount, the video content is his motive of delivering content companies deem worth sponsoring.
First of all, I am not sponsored by any broadhead company. I have had many ask to sponsor me, but I decline. To be sponsored they typically want me to shoot their brand exclusively. I am not willing to do that. Nor do I want the impression of subjectivity in that area. At present, I am only financially sponsored by Stay Sharp Guide, a broadhead sharpening company. For some broadheads, that sell direct to consumer, I can offer a discount code. When someone uses that, they save money and I make a very small commission. They are not paying me to shoot their heads. As for the testing, there is a small degree of subjectivity...based on my experience of analyzing & testing of hundreds of different broadheads. Regarding flight. It is very rare that a fixed blade broadhead can't group the size of a fist for me at 40 yards. It's much much rarer that a mech can't do that. I think the Sling Blade is the only mech I've tested that couldn't fly like that. I've even considered not doing the flight test at all because it is usually a forgone conclusion that the head is going to fly well. However, people want to see the flight, so I show it. But if I give every head a perfect score because they shoot perfectly for me and my bow, that doesn't help the average shooter, whose arrows and bow and form may not be as finely tuned as mine. That's where I add in a "somewhat" subjective variable of "flight forgiveness." I can usually tell how finicky a broadhead is when I shoot it...they pretty much all fly well, but with some, I have to be more careful than others. I can also tell how affects by wind they are. So I take that into account and give them a score based on their flight out of my bow, the feel of how they fly out of my bow, and the broadhead design itself, as some designs lend themselves to more planing than others. For mechanicals, the profile is typically so much less than it is with a fixed blade. So I know they are more forgiving in flight based on that and I reward their score accordingly. I give bonus points (which are very minor) based on my observations of what is a unique strength of the head that is not easily quantified in a stand alone test. For example, with offset blades like you've brought up. I show the picture of the wound channel and use a protractor to measure the rotation. When there is rotation of 50% at 10 or more inches, the blades are cutting approximately 15% more tissue than a head that does not rotate. That is not subjective, though it is a fairly good approximation. So I give that an extra bonus point. It would not be "fair" to not award a head for something like that. That measurement is not quantified in the penetration test itself or in the cut size itself...but it should be noted. As you suggested, that extra rotation may impede penetration...but the penetration is measured and scored as it is, so that is already taken into account. I have given a bonus point for heads that don't have O rings, just because I think O rings can be a pain. I have also given a bonus point for heads that can be locked in the closed position for target shooting, as you noted. I never even bother to shoot them in the locked closed position, but many people do like to practice with the broadheads they hunt with, to gain more confidence, so I consider that a "bonus" worthy feature. The most bonus points any head has received so far is 2...on a 100 point scale. For those who don't want my observations or opinions on things like that, then they can always just focus on the raw scores of the observed/measured results. But if I don't add my opinions, then those who may want to know them will not be able to. Seems wiser to include them and then let you, and others like you overlook them, rather than to not include them at all. At the end of every video, I encourage people to look at the score sheet and see how the head performed in the areas that matter to them the most. If those areas don't matter to you, then great...just don't focus on them.
You can basically do that in the Video Description. I always fill up the entire 5000 word limit with a detailed description of the testing. I cannot write the entire transcript, because there is a 5000 word limit. However one of my buddies, who runs N1Outdoors, writes up the transcript of all my videos and posts them on his website, like a magazine article. You can read them there. But for the nearly 10 million people who do have the time, they can watch the full video. I try to keep them around 8 minutes, but some take longer, especially if there are multiple heads being tested.
