Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

MR sidenocks

<< < (6/13) > >>

alanesq:

--- Quote from: D. Tiller on October 18, 2007, 12:50:46 pm ---I still think they were using a loop on one end of the string though. In millitary sittuations it would be much faster to string the bow having one end with a loop. Though, I do think it was a tight fit on the loop and that they may just have lifted the string completly off the tip instead of sliding down the limb to unstring it. Just a bit of suposition on my part but I think it could be an argument for loops.

--- End quote ---

I was planning to experiment with a loop on mine but once I saw how well the knot grips the taper of the nock it seems to make so much sense that I no longer felt a loop likely to have been used on side nocks, a loop would not tighten around the nock so I am confident it wouldnt work.

if you have a knot on your bow string try it slightly up from the nock on your bow (on the tapered wood), it grips so well its possible to draw the bow even though there is no slot at all to hold the string in place (I wouldnt pull it too far though as it could damage the bow)

My first try at making a side nock was not tapered and it didn't work at all, the taper is very important for a side nock to work

Yeomanbowman:

--- Quote from: markinengland on October 18, 2007, 06:43:14 pm ---Jeremy,
when you say "I'm not sure he was talking about whip tillering, which is a 20C phrase?  From memory he mentions ‘whipping round’, and it's a separate action after shortening and pyking, all post shooting-in.  a common practice seems to be having the bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in but maybe only for private, not livery bows?" what do you think he meant then?
When I read that part, as it was talking about "dressing" the bow to make it a fully finished bow suited to the archer it seemed to me that this was talking about fettling the tiller, length, strength and cast of the bow to suit the archer. what does whipping a bow mean? Binding with thread? I am sure there is wording that really does seem to talk about tillering and lighteneing the limbs to get extra cast.
Mark

--- End quote ---
Hello Mark,
Well obviously we are working on the premise that our ‘theories’ can only be informed guesses.  However, I think it’s safe to assume that he is not referring to binding but who knows.  I posted this a while back…

What Ascham mean by pyking and shortening seems to be quite straightforward.  But then he talks of 'whipping' as well.  This is not a reference to either of the above as it's mentioned as a separate action and right after the other two in the text.  Is this a reference to recurving the tips?  As Jaro states in another thread, it seemed a common practice to have a bow 'dressed' after it was shot-in.  If the bow tips were recurved when purchased any later shortening would reduce the effect.  It could also be done to a straight limbed bow to counter string-follow.
There is limited evidence of this practice, but it is a theory Chris Boyton espouses, and is also mentioned by Hugh Soar in his last book (however how serious he considers this I don’t know).  The point is what one means by whip tillering.  If it’s re-tillering and lightening the limbs to get extra cast, yes.  Deliberately making the outer limbs do too much work, no.

D. Tiller:
Makes sence actually! If you pike it you will take away the thin tips. Then "Whipping" would be steaming or boiling the resulting tips and bending them then reshaping them. Could force more work from an already shot in bow and increase the range it could shoot. Otherwise taking a flaby shot out bow and making it servicable again if not better.

David T

Rod:
I think a more likely explanation of Ascham where he writes of whipping the tips would be that having a basically tillered bow, having shot in the bow and had it come round or broken to the string, if the tips are still unbending the tips would be "whipped" meaning that the tip tiller would be refined so that the tips also came to bend a little at full draw.
The final classic tiller would result in a full drawn shape where ALL of the bow does some work, ideally least at the tips and in the handle, most through the mid limb.
In the context of Ascham, whipping the tips and having the bow come to the string are related aspects of maximising the working of the final tiller.
Rod.

alanesq:
I paid a visit to the Mary Rose last week, had a good study of the sidenock there and I have now made as close as I can an exact copy of the nock
see   http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/

The Mary Rose nock: http://www.alanesq.com/temp/sidenock%201.jpg

There were two things surprised me about the nock;
1. It looked very big (I estimate 76mm long and 20mm wide at the base)
2. There is a lip on the lower edge of the string slot

As you can see from the pictures it doesnt look overly big when fitter to a bow

After some pondering I now suspect the lip is because its a lower nock and this lip will hold the bow string in place when using a stringer (as I have experienced problems myself of the stringer pulling the bow string out of the slot when stringing my bow)
I dont think the top nock would have one as it would make it difficult to de string
(this is all just guess work on my behalf though)

I have not tapered the bow enough (in the pictures) so the mark made by fitting the nock to this bow is too close to the end, but apart from that I think you will agree its a good match for the marks on the Mary Rose bows

Here is my 120lb  bow with the replica nocks fitted:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/warbow/nock/120lb/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page