We open this entry of our diary about performance claims versus test results with a disclaimer:
Dyna-Tek’s management team has very good expertise when it comes to specialty coatings. However, we are not archery experts.
That said, we’ve tried to keep our testing focused, so as to limit the variables that can skew the results.
For penetration testing, we focused on limiting the tests to how the arrow shaft (itself) affects penetration results. We’re not saying we created the only test method to show this, or that it represents real world circumstances. But we do think we created a test which limited the variables that can skew the results.
Performance Claims vs. Test Results
Using arrows manufactured by Victory Archery™; all within 2 grains of each other; we did comparison testing of:
- Raw arrow shaft.
- Victory™ arrow; ICE™ coated.
- Victory™ arrow; Dyna-Slick Shield only.
- Victory™ arrow; Dyna-Slick Shield and top coated with Dyna-Slick
Note: ALL arrows had uncoated field target points.
The results showed the ICE coated arrow penetrating 21% further than their raw arrow shaft. The Slick Shield coated Victory™ shaft penetrated almost 30% further, and the Slick Shield with the Dyna-Slick top coat penetrated 33% further than the raw arrow shaft.
This testing is admittedly a starting point to build from, but in this test matrix over a number of sessions, the results were consistent.
VICTORY ARCHERY and ICE are registered trademarks of Aldila Golf Corp. or its affiliates. Use of them does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement by them.
The Diary Series:
- Diary of a New Product Launch : Part 1 – Arrow Performance
- Diary of a New Product Launch : Part 2 – Performance Claims vs. Test Results