So which design parameters of your test articles are you studying? IOW, are you trying various nose shapes, or various rod stiffnesses, or various fletch sizes or designs, or weight distributions or ???
Or instead are you testing finished articles to identify the “best” one to use in later competition?
My point being that some of these things have known answers and perhaps you can reduce the number of variables you’re testing against.
And as **GusNSpot **said if the differences are vary slight, you’re going to have a harder time separating noise from signal with a homebrew tool set & homebrew instrumentation. So anything you can do to bound the problem space will improve the quality of your conclusions for any given sophistication of your measuring tools.
As you say some of these items have known answers, such as the point shape. A rounded bullet nosed shape is considered best at the speeds listed. The builder of the arrow ( me) is always looking for places I can reduce weight without increasing drag or lowering the spind of the arrow. We normally do this by tapering the shaft. The thickest part usually ends up in the midddle of the arrow to maintain stiffness even though we allready know it would fly better with the nose being the thickest. Flying better often means flying slower because of increased weight. The stiffness of the arrow is not negotiable one it is determined for each bow. Arrow making is probably the most challenging aspect of this sport and has remained a point of contention for hundreds of years. The lighter bows that I shoot (50#) are much more difficult to tune arrows to and remain light enough to attain sufficient speeds. We are limited to wood.
I currently hold a world record in this class but I know with proper flight I can extend that record by at least 25%. I have come close to this in practice but can't seem to draw a paralell in what makes some of these arrows so successful and others fall flat on thier face. I am just looking for more ways to isolate variables.