https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/compound-spine-tolerance Changes to this claim in Matteo Campagna's evidence registry: its status, its year-by-year history, revisions of the page. en-gb https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/compound-spine-toleranceIt rests on a single piece of work, from 2011, which nonetheless combines two different tests. In the model, on a single-cam compound with a release aid, the recommended arrow, the ProTour 470, and two stiffer sizes, the 420 and 380, flex and take their angle of attack in almost the same way, and the difference stays minimal even when a typical archer error such as twisting the bow is simulated. On the shooting machine, at 35 metres, twelve arrows of each size shot three times all land in small, similar groups, well within a 40-millimetre circle, with only the sight setting changed for the difference in mass. From this the author concludes that with a compound and a release aid the archer has more freedom in choosing the arrow than with a recurve, but that second part is his inference rather than a measurement. The limits are plain: one bow, one shaft model, arrows only stiffer and never weaker than recommended, a distance of 35 metres and the machine in place of the archer; and the comparison with the recurve is not measured but inferred from what is known about the finger release.claim:compound-spine-tolleranza:revision:2026-10-03:2Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/compound-spine-toleranceclaim:compound-spine-tolleranza:new_claim:2026-08-21:riportatoFri, 21 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMT