https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/arrow-fatigue-vibration-cycles 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/arrow-fatigue-vibration-cyclesThe only test dates from 2019, a preprint by a group of engineers who measured arrows by vibrating them with an actuator and deriving stiffness, damping and natural frequency. One arrow per material, carbon, aluminium and cedar, was put through about 600,000 cycles and then measured again. The authors conclude that nothing significant changes and that with a single arrow nothing more can be said. Their tables, however, point the same way throughout: after the cycles the estimated stiffness is higher in every measurement, and outside the range the set of arrows had before, by 52 per cent in the carbon arrow, from 486 to 737 newtons per metre, by 15 per cent in the aluminium one and by 14 and 29 per cent in the two measurements of the cedar arrow, and the natural frequency rises with it, in the carbon arrow from 34.5 to 45.5 hertz. In the aluminium arrow damping halves. On the other hand, the estimated mass of the carbon arrow drops from 10.3 to 9.0 grams, which an intact shaft should not do: part of those differences is noise in the method, and without a control arrow measured twice there is no telling how much. The comparison, moreover, sets the mean of the set before against the single fatigued arrow after. The evidence that exists goes against the claim, but it carries little weight. The five years of use quoted alongside the study is the authors' estimate, ten cycles per shot and thirty shots a day, not a measurement.claim:frecce-usura-caratteristiche:revision:2026-09-02:2Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/arrow-fatigue-vibration-cyclesclaim:frecce-usura-caratteristiche:new_claim:2026-07-06:contraddettoMon, 06 Jul 2026 08:00:00 GMT