Arrow Ballistics Study | 2026
In this section, we dive deep into the testing and data collection methods used for the 2026 study. Methods articles are organized by area of testing: component testing (drag, restorative lift, sound), front-of-center testing, and a shared write-up of the photo capture and analysis pipeline used by both the components and front-of-center tests.
How we extracted a drag constant for each build using downrange Doppler radar data and a fitted point-mass trajectory model.
How we measured an aerodynamic-recovery proxy by inducing a controlled lateral bow torque and comparing torqued field-point and broadhead group positions at distance.
How we measured arrow fly-by noise for each vane and broadhead in the Arrow Sound Testing Chamber, with calibrated 1/3-octave SPL processing.
What was physically built, measured, and shot. Build matrix, spine convention, measured static spine, insert-spec measurements, nock tuning, bow and torque setup, shooting protocol, and KPI definitions.
Why front-of-center cannot be isolated as a single experimental variable, how the matrix design works around that, and what the matrix cannot answer.
How the matrix is analyzed in plain language: a gentle introduction to regression, coefficients, confidence intervals, the three model framings, leave-one-out, and how to read a forest plot.
Technical details: weighted least squares model definitions, HC3 standard errors, collinearity, Benjamini-Hochberg and Bonferroni multiple-outcomes correction, leave-one-out mechanics, and the practical effect translation table.
How each slow-motion clip is captured and turned into a per-shot dataset of in-flight frames with ground-truth calibration.
How each TIFF stack becomes per-frame yaw and flex numbers, how those numbers roll up into per-build trajectories, and what the pipeline still gets wrong.
How impact photos are captured, annotated, and converted into level inch-space coordinates and group statistics. Used by the restorative-lift and front-of-center tests.
Are you a statistician, mathematician, test engineer, or someone else who does this kind of work day-to-day? We'd love to hear your feedback on our approach, our analysis methods, and anything else you notice.