Main Discussion Area > Bows

English longbows can be tough!

<< < (6/8) > >>

Justin Snyder:
Trapper, I usually assume that people are referring to a D-tiller, unless the say Profile.

JD, A longer bow may or may not store more energy. But it is putting more back into the arrow that counts. A longer bow has more wood. This increases the mass, possibility for hysteresis, and possibility of string stretch. You just have to many variables. A 50" recurve with a low brace will without doubt store more energy than a straight bow of 70" if drawn to 10". But at a long draw may not put the energy back into the arrow because of stacking. It could in fact store more energy, but be less efficient.  I think it would be way to broad of a statement to say that any design is more efficient without discussing a million other factors.

You have to be carefull not to believe everything when reading about Native American bows. Some of the information is taken from bows they have seen, already finished. A lot is fill in the blank with your best guess.  I am quite sure that some people have legitemate info, but there are a lot more that are going on hearsay.  Go ask the local NA to teach you about making bows and to teach you their secrets.  You will get very little info.  You cant really blame the NA. Look at how they have been treated.  Look at the Lewis and Clark statement about finding arrowheads in every elk they shot.  I think we can all agree that the statement is somewhat bias. Even today traditional bowyers have a higher recovery rate than rifle hunters. And most of us cannot compete with the NA for accuracy in our wildest hallucinations. 

It said in TBB that they needed lots of bows and the narrow design allowed them to get more bows per tree.  It almost made it sound like the design was achieved by hap-hazard coincidence.  I would suspect it was a little more than an accident.
Justin

DCM:
I made the argument years ago that an elb limb shape is the most efficient use of material, not just from the obvious pov, but also in terms of mass to energy storage.  This based just on the superficial aspect, hooke's law.  Whether the extra lenght required offets the gains in width was the core of the question.  I resolved it would depend a lot upon the working qualities of the wood in question and the environment it would be used in, essentially the criteria for any bow.  I think it not an accident the elb shape evolved the way it did.  I think it would be difficult to demonstrate a broad generalization of whether it is "better" in any particular aspect, as it would for any bow, because context is the most critical consideration.

I like D bows, and elbs, but for different reasons.

Badger:
Dave, I think once a bowyer gets some experience behind him the wood starts telling him what is best suited to a certain extent. Some woods and draw weight combinations can be effectively done in a wide variety of ways. Right now I am working on a 120# 72" alb, stiff narrow handled and fade. It really feels odd and my instinct is telling me it would have been much better suited as an elb. I am going to try and finish it up just to see how it works out but am not real confident at this point it will work. I may just have to go for one of those
"as much as I can get out of it " type bows. Around 90# seems like it would be more feasable. Steve

duffontap:
Justin,

I am aware of the multitude of factors at play.  I assume that when I am talking to you, Badger, Mullet, Marc, Hillbilly, and other experienced bowyers that we are taking those factors into consideration before we present our perspectives.  I also assume that you know the advantage lies with high energy storage when shooting heavy arrows. 

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but there is video footage of an actual Mary Rose bow being pulled on a tillering tree.  They tested a number of them.  What they found was that they had perfect tiller and--despite a variety of bowyer's marks and sections--the draws progressed the same way with the handle bending in the last 3" inches of draw.  These were not mass-produced, short-lived junk bows.  They were masterfully tillered.  What impressed me as I studied them was that they were more complicated than I thought.  Every Mary Rose bow is unique as they were built by a lots of bowyers but they all follow a prescribed pattern that reveals a thorough knowledge of energy storage and mass placement.  For example, they could have used self nocks if they were willing to have 3/4" wide tips, but instead they added horn tips and scraped every extra grain of wood off that they could.  The result was a bow that outperforms $1,200 Blackwidow recurves with arrows @ 9 gr. per pound of draw weight. 

Free Speculation:  If the bow would have performed better with rectangular sections, it's hard to imagine the King of England saying, 'well, let's just build them the fast way anyhow.'  For my money, producing oval-D section limbs like the MR bows is way harder than building flatbows any day of the week. 

On the hunting bow subject:
Being the successful hunter that you are, and taking into consideration that you say you group arrows out to 30+ yards--you have obviously developed a system that works very well.  I'm seriously jealous. 

             J. D. Duff

Badger:
JD, the more I look at the english longbow the more I can appreciate the science behind them. As you were saying they require a thourough knowledge of all the factors involved, it goes way beyond just good tillering. The money and research that we put into military weaponry was undoubtedly considered just as inportant at the time of the Mary rose bows. I feel certain they had their best minds and best craftsman developing the most effective weaponry they could come up with. When you look at the growth rings on the belly of the mary rose bows it reveals exactly how they expected them to bend. That was interesting that you said the handle only flexed in the last 3 inches of draw, it makes perfect sense. Their limb timing was carefully planned. The limbs probably lay out like a flyline if examined under slow motion. I am really excited that we have some individuals that have taken this back up and are willing to put in the time and effort to rediscover these bows. Steve

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page