Iron Will Vane - Personal Feedback

[Trial153]

My take on them:
Field point groups out to 70, they shoot in the same groups as three max stealths .
Broadheads IW and regular they maybe have a slightly higher hit ratio then max stealths…I say maybe because I would have take about another 100 shots to be completely comfortable saying anything is significant better.

I find they are less durable then max materials, however plenty plenty durable for everyday shooting. I like them

 

[Zac]

The reason in theory that this vane should be superior to the Max Stealth, or the Max Hunter is mostly due to the material. Softer vane material will always be more forgiving with fixed blade flight. A fixed blade should always be the master of the shaft. A mechanical is just the opposite, the vanes are the master in that situation. So vanes like the Tac will always produce better results with mechanicals.

 

[Bill V]

I appreciate the feedback guys. Our vanes use the AAE Hybrid material. I have been using them for a couple of years of target shooting and shooting through animals without a durability issue, but I did bury one in a Powerstop bale recently and had some distortion after forcing it all the way through. I do think there are some more durable materials out there and I will continue to test and look for improvements. I chose this material because it performed better overall than the stiffer materials when we included drag, wind drift and sound testing.

 

[Billy Goat]

I appreciate the feedback guys. Our vanes use the AAE Hybrid material. I have been using them for a couple of years of target shooting and shooting through animals without a durability issue, but I did bury one in a Powerstop bale recently and had some distortion after forcing it all the way through. I do think there are some more durable materials out there and I will continue to test and look for improvements. I chose this material because it performed better overall than the stiffer materials when we included drag, wind drift and sound testing.

I'm not doubting your results, just wondering the why? I have always thought stiffer was better.

Do you think there's something about a softer material flexing more that it actually produces more drag?

Personally I have been gravitating towards stiffer vanes for broadheads. They just seem to work better for me, but I'm probably biased. Just seemed in playing with vanes a relatively stiff mid profile vane seemed to work best for me.

 

[TheViking]

I'm not doubting your results, just wondering the why? I have always thought stiffer was better.

Do you think there's something about a softer material flexing more that it actually produces more drag?

Personally I have been gravitating towards stiffer vanes for broadheads. They just seem to work better for me, but I'm probably biased. Just seemed in playing with vanes a relatively stiff mid profile vane seemed to work best for me.

I have found the same as well.

Last year I 4 fletched 2.25 Driver vanes from TAC and they flew the best with an IW head than any other combo.

 

[Zac]

From what I have gathered is that when the broadhead comes out of the bow that it needs to be the main player in the initial direction. The vanes are playing a secondary role in stabilizing. This may sound strange until it is compared to how feathers react when a bow is fired. Feathers actually collapse and do not provide any steering until the arrow is well out of the bow. The smaller the head, and the less weight up front the less vane pliability becomes a factor. However larger surface area heads with more weight are always going to require a softer rear end. If you follow Firenock products you will see that they endorse a very light front of center with very small cutting diameter and very stiff vanes.

 

[n8saki]

They aren't as stout as the Max, but definitely less noise. Easy fix for me with a Bitz, RH 2.5 degrees, load vane at back of the clamp using the AAE Bitz mod it's a prefect match.

 

[Billy Goat]

From what I have gathered is that when the broadhead comes out of the bow that it needs to be the main player in the initial direction. The vanes are playing a secondary role in stabilizing. This may sound strange until it is compared to how feathers react when a bow is fired. Feathers actually collapse and do not provide any steering until the arrow is well out of the bow. The smaller the head, and the less weight up front the less vane pliability becomes a factor. However larger surface area heads with more weight are always going to require a softer rear end. If you follow Firenock products you will see that they endorse a very light front of center with very small cutting diameter and very stiff vanes.

Feathers definitely lay down, and why I went away from them. Group after group with a shooting machine they were always bigger than vanes, even small vanes, and with heavier slower arrows too.


Hence why I wonder if a weaker vane is really the best option.


With bigger cut fixed heads I always used bigger vanes with more helical to offset the possible steer of the head coming out of the bow. Smaller vanes just weren't as forgiving. So I don't know that even if the broadhead is initially steering the arrow out of the bow, that we really want it to have much influence. Otherwise the argument would be to just use a bareshaft with a big broadhead on the front. I'm guessing that the pliable vanes could create more drag as they aren't as streamlined through the air, maybe that's the point.

I did play with Bohning heat vanes in comparison to Flex Fletch FFp 200's. While not a huge difference in size, the heat is way better for broadheads, and it's also significantly stiffer. Not that I expected the FFP-200's to work at all with fixed heads, I still wanted to try it. Wouldn't recommend it, very sensitive, just slightly better than bareshafts.

 

[Zac]

Feathers definitely lay down, and why I went away from them. Group after group with a shooting machine they were always bigger than vanes, even small vanes, and with heavier slower arrows too.


Hence why I wonder if a weaker vane is really the best option.


With bigger cut fixed heads I always used bigger vanes with more helical to offset the possible steer of the head coming out of the bow. Smaller vanes just weren't as forgiving. So I don't know that even if the broadhead is initially steering the arrow out of the bow, that we really want it to have much influence. Otherwise the argument would be to just use a bareshaft with a big broadhead on the front. I'm guessing that the pliable vanes could create more drag as they aren't as streamlined through the air, maybe that's the point.

I did play with Bohning heat vanes in comparison to Flex Fletch FFp 200's. While not a huge difference in size, the heat is way better for broadheads, and it's also significantly stiffer. Not that I expected the FFP-200's to work at all with fixed heads, I still wanted to try it. Wouldn't recommend it, very sensitive, just slightly better than bareshafts.

Yeah I don't entirely understand it, just hit was explained to me. Also Bill found that the softer vane had less drag.

 

[Billy Goat]

I guess the drag component to these tests is in trajectory.


I think of drag and vanes being the steering component on the back of the shaft, which generally results in more consistent flight (tighter groups). You can get too much tho.

 

[Zac]

I guess the drag component to these tests is in trajectory.


I think of drag and vanes being the steering component on the back of the shaft, which generally results in more consistent flight (tighter groups). You can get too much tho.

What I am regurgitating is from listening to Dorge. He was talking about the differences of steering a shaft from the back vs the front. Interesting thing was that he said they both could be done. I thought he was not a fan of high FOC, yet he seemed to think that as long as you built it with the parameters that I mentioned above that it was a legitimate option. Interestingly enough he did not recommend any of his vane options for non-vented fixed blades with higher FOC.

 

[Randonee]

I've been using the IW/AAE vanes for a few months. I have not had durability issues with IW vanes at all. But I use targets that my arrows don't go through, so no experience there.

I also run Blazers. Both are 3 fletched w/ 3 degree helical. I have found the point of impact to be very close (as close as I can determine) b/w the two to 70 yards with both field points and fix broad heads. I'll likely hunt with the IW vanes because they are supposed to be quieter. I haven't measured the noise levels personally.

 

[stan_wa]

I suspect the reason I have had durability issues is that I fletched half my arrows in max stealth's and half in the Iron will. As i have been shooting i think most of the damage on the Iron will vanes has been caused by the max stealth hitting near the Iron will and cutting the vane. If all the arrows were IW i my have gotten better results.
Thanks to @Bill V for working to make the best stuff, I appreciate the method he approached to choosing products, with the lab testing and the modeling he did I am pretty sold on the IW vanes. Please keep using the scientific method as much as possible its super cool to see.

 

[Syng2015]

What I am regurgitating is from listening to Dorge. He was talking about the differences of steering a shaft from the back vs the front. Interesting thing was that he said they both could be done. I thought he was not a fan of high FOC, yet he seemed to think that as long as you built it with the parameters that I mentioned above that it was a legitimate option. Interestingly enough he did not recommend any of his vane options for non-vented fixed blades with higher FOC.

Dorge will also laugh at you for hunting shoulder blades. Poor penetration on bone is your fault for bad aim. Bad shots aren't a thing that happens in the wild, they're the fault of a bad hunter.

He doesn't recommend his vanes for solid, fixed broadheads because they suck for solid, fixed broadheads. Even with a vented three blade, it'll go sideways after like 30 yards. This isn't conjecture, I've actually tested it.

Broadheads aren't designed to rotate like that. There's a rate of rotation where the broadheads stall and create a ridiculous amount of drag, and that's different per broadhead.

There are two schools of thought: what broadhead gets through the animal, and how do I make it accurate; the other is what setup hits where I'm aiming the fastest, and then how do I get through the animal?

Both *can* work in the right environment. I'll use AV2s for TAC arrows or similar target setups, but never with a broadhead.

Any solution is for a given problem, but if that's not the problem you have then the solution is not for you. If you need to change a lightbulb, you need a ladder and not a corkscrew. It's about solving the problems you have.

His selling point is that his arrows spin rate is so high that they transition from statically stable to dynamically stable, where gyroscopic stability plays a role. The issue this causes is that when gravity pulls the arrow by the center of gravity, the nock end resists more, and the point drops more than the nock. The inertia of its high spin resists that tilt, and deflects the rotation from the point going down to the point going left.

It's easy to be statically stable enough to resist the sideways deflection or dynamically stable enough to induce the deflection. If your FOC is lower, you get less deflection. Lower FOC is less statically stable, and can't resist the deflection as well.

There's also the claim that the arrow falls flat, in that it doesn't point down at all while gravity does its thing. Basically, the claim is the arrow is entirely dynamically stable. Because gravity does its thing, that means the arrow isn't pointing along the trajectory. If you follow the center of gravity, point, and nock, they do not all fall in line with each other. That means any real resistance upon impact will cause massive deflection of the shaft and poor penetration.

Most people just don't spin their arrows that fast and avoid this problem entirely.

 

[Zac]

Dorge will also laugh at you for hunting shoulder blades. Poor penetration on bone is your fault for bad aim. Bad shots aren't a thing that happens in the wild, they're the fault of a bad hunter.

He doesn't recommend his vanes for solid, fixed broadheads because they suck for solid, fixed broadheads. Even with a vented three blade, it'll go sideways after like 30 yards. This isn't conjecture, I've actually tested it.

Broadheads aren't designed to rotate like that. There's a rate of rotation where the broadheads stall and create a ridiculous amount of drag, and that's different per broadhead.

There are two schools of thought: what broadhead gets through the animal, and how do I make it accurate; the other is what setup hits where I'm aiming the fastest, and then how do I get through the animal?

Both *can* work in the right environment. I'll use AV2s for TAC arrows or similar target setups, but never with a broadhead.

Any solution is for a given problem, but if that's not the problem you have then the solution is not for you. If you need to change a lightbulb, you need a ladder and not a corkscrew. It's about solving the problems you have.

His selling point is that his arrows spin rate is so high that they transition from statically stable to dynamically stable, where gyroscopic stability plays a role. The issue this causes is that when gravity pulls the arrow by the center of gravity, the nock end resists more, and the point drops more than the nock. The inertia of its high spin resists that tilt, and deflects the rotation from the point going down to the point going left.

It's easy to be statically stable enough to resist the sideways deflection or dynamically stable enough to induce the deflection. If your FOC is lower, you get less deflection. Lower FOC is less statically stable, and can't resist the deflection as well.

There's also the claim that the arrow falls flat, in that it doesn't point down at all while gravity does its thing. Basically, the claim is the arrow is entirely dynamically stable. Because gravity does its thing, that means the arrow isn't pointing along the trajectory. If you follow the center of gravity, point, and nock, they do not all fall in line with each other. That means any real resistance upon impact will cause massive deflection of the shaft and poor penetration.

Most people just don't spin their arrows that fast and avoid this problem entirely.

I tried to finish your post but got to bored.

 

[TheViking]

This has turned into an ArcheryTalk post. Yuck.

 

[Syng2015]

I tried to finish your post but got to bored.

Should I turn it into a podcast, and make it an hour long? I'd rather read.

 

[TheTone]

Should I turn it into a podcast, and make it an hour long? I'd rather read.

Only make it a podcast if you’re selling a product or have some promo codes

 

[Pramo]

Following up after more testing, I'm getting slightly tighter groups at 50-80 yards with the iron will vanes compared to blazers. One thing I like is they will fold up going through an animal, I've had blazers and other stiff vanes hang up on the outside hide on what should be a pass through. The arrow still falls out but this should eliminate that problem

Passing into a target not great but I can work around it on softer 3d targets use a blazer. I am shooting 4mm arrows so that doesn't help with stopping resistance

 

[Bluto]

I think I’m going to stop testing this year and pick it back up. I may have set these up “other than intended.”

Of note - I practice at 60 (and beyond sometimes) but my live animal limit is 50 in perfect conditions, 40 otherwise. Just in case someone is applying my thoughts to 80 or 90 yard shots.


I shoot 125 solid IW broadheads, and at this point I honestly can’t tell grouping difference between the IW vanes and the TACs I already had built. Longer ranges could be a different story. But even to an untrained ear they are LOUD. Much louder than the TAC, to me. BUT: I also put a mondo helical on them with a mini max fletching jig, and I don’t think IW Bill set the test up with that much helical. I suspect that may be inducing more noise.

I’ve seen that with field tips (I don’t group broadheads) the IW vanes seem to have a touch less drop at a given range. So even with the high helical, it appears that they are maybe a tad more efficient? The TACs I’m using are 3 fletch 225’s, so they’re pretty small. Small enough I’m kind of nervous about using them with fixed blades but man they are quiet and drop BH’s within a finger width of my field points. (No real drop off with the IW vanes on accuracy.) I have definitely
Lost more IW vanes to damage than the TAC, as mentioned here.

TL;DR - Bill and his work through the U of Co has done more objective testing than anywhere I’ve seen or read about. I have no basis to doubt nor refute his work. But it’s now August and I’m out of time. I fully expect to be running them next year, but it’s almost elk season, folks!!