Sharp hooks ( a how to and lots of argument as to their merits )

[scp]

scp, People have actually made no lift off recurves. Someone posted a yew recurve on here once that still had full contact at full draw.
 The Scythian bows also arguably had full draw contact.
 Maybe Bryce will chime in whether that bow he posted is in action yet. Seems like unless it was drawn ridiculously far it would also have contact.

I guess it's a matter of semantics. For me, "no liftoff" means the string contact with the bow never changes. So long as there is a curve in the recurve, there would be a liftoff no matter how small it might be. If it means, as you seem to imply, any residual contact of sting with bow tips, you are correct. Used in that sense, I don't see any usefulness of such "no liftoff". Enlighten me, please. How does such a residual contact increase efficiency?

[sleek]

I'm all outta bark and charcoal and I won't stoop to the level of using a 2B and a sheet of printer paper on a primitive site.

Want me to carrier pidgon some to you or do you prefer fox?

[PatM]

I'm not saying it does. I'm just questioning if anyone has ever proven that a bow that is too sharply curved to lift off might as well just be a bow that is the length of the string contact points.


   Some of the bows I am mentioning miss total lift-off  by a mile.  if the string is in a groove it might just barely be getting out of the base of the groove at full draw.

[PatM]

I'm all outta bark and charcoal and I won't stoop to the level of using a 2B and a sheet of printer paper on a primitive site.

Want me to carrier pidgon some to you or do you prefer fox?

[joachimM]

   Hard to think of all the variables that can be changed, even accidentally. If you just use the same bow and back off the curves a little bit, brace height will then change unless the string is adjusted .

That's why we have mathematic models... But these don't seem to count here 😳
As for the liftoff in Scythian bows: see pic: total lift-off. And it should be drawn to 30" i guess, not 28".

I will make a new set of models asap, with equal final poundage but different fd-curve as a result of different angles of recurves, and different lift off during draw.

[PatM]

   True, but the real bows must still match the mathematical bows.
 That is no Scythian bow. I mean the actual historic bows.

[sleek]

I dont care what it is thats beautiful.

I have to say i have never had brace change by recurving a bow.

[PatM]

I have to say i have never had brace change by recurving a bow.

 What do you mean by change?

[PEARL DRUMS]

I want to see a static from you sleeky, I don't recall seeing one. I like 'em.

[sleek]

Pearl, I just got into them. So to be clear and fair, all my recurve to recent have just been reflexed tip to point of almost contact with the string. Never had to adjust the string after that. Neither  .  Have I had to on the most recent with 90ish degree hooks.

Pearl, I just made one with static and a proper recurve. Its 45"ntn weighs 60@26. You seen the thread?

[sleek]

http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,56318.0.html

This is it. First full around static I have made. Technically its the second but the first isn't finished yet and its 41inches ttt.

[PEARL DRUMS]

I just looked. They look good, but I question how long those dragsters will race. You know me! Holding together for a picture and shooting 2000 arrows is another thing. Good challenge and learning experiment all the same.

[sleek]

My goal is a reliable weapon. Experience is the reward of time and effort. I'm putting mine in now.

[sleek]

I have to say i have never had brace change by recurving a bow.

 What do you mean by change?

Well. Just that. Never had to adjust the string to drop brace because its always the same for me after recurring. Am I doing something wrong? Does everyone have to adjust the string after that?

[PEARL DRUMS]

Keep up the work.