https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/shaft-material-vibration-damping 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/shaft-material-vibration-dampingThe only comparison between materials is a 2019 laboratory test, published as a preprint: shafts held in a rig and shaken by an actuator, from which a damping ratio is estimated. Carbon has the lowest values, from 0.32 to 0.51 depending on spine, aluminium the highest, from 0.53 to 0.67, and cedar sits around 0.5 whatever the grain orientation. The direction matches the claim, but the boundaries are blurred: the most flexible carbon arrow, at 0.51, overlaps with cedar, one aluminium model varies by ± 0.16 from one shaft to the next, the authors themselves write that measurements on the same spine vary a great deal and that the rig still lacks a full calibration, and after the fatigue test the aluminium 2219 shaft measured again drops to 0.35, below carbon. There is also a problem of scale: measured free, a carbon arrow has a Q factor of 400 and takes about a second and a half to lose nearly two thirds of its oscillation, longer than its flight; and the rig's resonances lie between 31 and 41 Hz, not around the 85 Hz of free flexing, so its values probably describe the test more than the arrow in flight. That carbon damps less rests on a single paper and a handful of shafts; how much it matters for the shot, nobody has measured.claim:materiale-asta-smorzamento:revision:2026-01-27:2Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/shaft-material-vibration-dampingclaim:materiale-asta-smorzamento:new_claim:2026-01-20:riportatoTue, 20 Jan 2026 08:00:00 GMT