How much more accurate are the REVO shafts?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
There is no accuracy in any shaft........... there may be consistency
All the inherent accuracy is with the shooter.......
Kim
That's accuracy vs precision.
Although technically incorrect to say there is no inherent accuracy...it is limited by the user and subject to other parameters as well.
Only the skill of the user can realize any accuracy.
.
Sorry to tell you all this but, Its the Indian not the arrow that he used. :smile:
when the game is tight, the chance of winning hinges on 5% shots that one player makes while other misses.
we are all aware of the indian and arrow argument
p/s: i am a convention solid maple player
Does the data hold up in underwater testing?
Your statement makes no sense. YOU provide the accuracy,.
maybe "more accurate" to say:
deviates 5-10% less from the aiming line as compared to the other shaft, (whether the aiming line was correct or not.)....
I'm developing a new shaft with an awesomeness factor of 65. It's spingolity is 34 and the Kaibash-Nagasaki coefficient is 14.6! Can you believe that? I mean the spingolity alone makes it a true Cretaloan shaft, but with the Kaibash-Nagasaki being what it is, it makes it almost completely Cranilific!
Thanks, JoeyA. I am also interested in how much more accurate the REVO shafts are before paying that much money for a shaft.
It looks like the indians are looking for better arrows.
When Predator made the claim that their Revo shafts were more accurate than their 3rd generation shafts, I have to believe that they have some data to back that up.
What's more important, is that TOP PLAYERS & not so top players continue to move toward Revo shafts.
JoeyA
When Predator made the claim that their Revo shafts were more accurate than their 3rd generation shafts, I have to believe that they have some data to back that up.
What's more important, is that TOP PLAYERS & not so top players continue to move toward Revo shafts.
JoeyA
How much "more accurate" was the ld shaft that busted-up John Schmidt's game?
I really think "more accurate" is a poor choice of words......
...shades of Meucci's claim of "deflectionless shafts" 30 years ago.
I think both would've been wiser to use the term "user friendly"......
...and 'user friendly' is a very subjective term...for me, LD gives me the opposite problem
that the old 13 mm shafts with ivory ferrules did...they MASSÉ too much on slow spin.
All I know is this, I would play the Revo even if it deflected more than the 314 and was less "accurate"
only because I love the hit of it and also the feeling of how smoothly it glides through your fingers.
My game has stepped up, both ball pocketing and position.
only because I love the hit of it and also the feeling of how smoothly it glides through your fingers.
My game has stepped up, both ball pocketing and position.
All I can say is that it has helped my game. Very thin cuts with inside english are now effortless. I don't have to calculate how much the shaft will deflect and make adjustments. I like my Revo alot...
I play with a solid hard maple shaft. I went the LD route and went back to maple for good. Why complicate a complicated game? I am not being smart when I say I calculate the thinness of a cut with my eyes, not my shaft and I don't see where english has anything to do with it. I use the english to get to where I want to go. I look for the spot on the object ball that is furthest from the pocket. If I consider deflection it is done unconsciously through hitting a million balls.
