Matteo Campagna
ITEN
Menu
Menu

Carbon arrows damp vibration less than aluminium and wooden ones

2 studies

ForContextAgainst20142016201820202022202420262015, context, n = 12019, for2019, context
Each circle is a study: its position gives the year, its row whether it is for, against or context, its size how many participants it measured. Light circles are studies on other populations or without archers.

The 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.

Also phrased as: "carbon vibrates more"; "arrow vibration damping"; "wooden or carbon arrow"; "aluminium arrows absorb vibration"; "shaft vibration after release"

In practice

It is said that wooden and aluminium arrows are "softer" and soak up vibration, while carbon stays lively and keeps vibrating longer after the release.

Evidence

  • 2015
    Context Equipment tests Published later

    A carbon arrow of 20.62 g and 0.696 m, set vibrating sideways: fundamental mode at 84.8 ± 0.1 Hz, Q factor 400 ± 30, damping time of about 1.5 s, longer than the flight time in target archery. If air damping is negligible, most of the initial oscillation is still there when the arrow reaches the target. Preprint.

    Applications of Physics to Archery · H. O. Meyer

  • 2019
    For Equipment tests Published later

    Carbon (spine 300, 500 and 600), aluminium (2219 and 1916) and cedar shafts, held in a rig and perturbed with an actuator: estimated damping ratio 0.32, 0.39 and 0.51 for carbon, 0.67 and 0.53 for aluminium, 0.50 to 0.55 for cedar, with no noticeable difference between vertical and horizontal grain.

    Dynamic Characterization of Arrows through Stochastic Perturbation · Ryan Fish, Youzhi Liang, Kyle Saleeby, Jonathan Spirnak, Mingxiu Sun, Xiang Zhang

  • 2019
    Context Equipment tests Published later

    Damping varies widely even within the same material and model: aluminium 1916 at 0.53 ± 0.163, against carbon 600 at 0.51 ± 0.026 and aluminium 2219 at 0.67 ± 0.015. The authors name three possible causes, manufacturing differences, inconsistent clamping of the ends and estimation errors, and write that the rig needs a full calibration. After about 600,000 fatigue cycles, on one arrow per material, the authors see no significant change, but in their Table 4 aluminium 2219 drops from 0.67 to 0.35 and ends up below carbon 500, at 0.42.

    Dynamic Characterization of Arrows through Stochastic Perturbation · Ryan Fish, Youzhi Liang, Kyle Saleeby, Jonathan Spirnak, Mingxiu Sun, Xiang Zhang

Status history

  1. 2015 Not studied The first measurement of arrow damping arrives, but on a single material: a carbon arrow set vibrating freely has a Q factor of 400 and takes about a second and a half to fall to just over a third of its initial oscillation, longer than the flight time of a target arrow. It says carbon damps little, not how it compares with aluminium or wood: the comparison between materials does not exist yet.
  2. 2019 Reported A laboratory test compares carbon, aluminium and cedar shafts using an actuator and a statistical estimate of the parameters: carbon has the lowest damping ratio, from 0.32 to 0.51, against 0.53 to 0.67 for aluminium and about 0.5 for cedar. But the measurements vary a great deal between shafts of the same spine, the rig is not fully calibrated and the paper is a preprint: it is a single test, on a few shafts per material, and the supporting evidence remains limited.

Related

Related articles

Research lines

Cite
APA

Campagna, M. (2026). Carbon arrows damp vibration less than aluminium and wooden ones (Version 2). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/shaft-material-vibration-damping

BibTeX
@misc{campagna2026_materialeastasmorzamento,
  author = {Campagna, Matteo},
  title = {Carbon arrows damp vibration less than aluminium and wooden ones},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
  url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/shaft-material-vibration-damping},
  note = {Version 2; accessed 2026-10-16}
}

Other claims in this domain

See all claims on equipment and tuning