Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Moen on May 30, 2009, 06:14:46 am
-
Hello. I have a #130@30" warbow made from Norwegian ash. Question: How many strands do i need for the string? (Brownell TS-1)
-
18 strands seems to be about the usual
although it has a breaking strength of 95lb per strand I believe - so there isn't any problem strength wise if you go much less than this
-
I use nothing but FF for any of my heavy bows. Dacron is too stretchy. For bows up to 80#, I use 16 strands. For bows up to 100#, I use 18 strands. For bows above 100#, I use 20 strands. I'm sure this is overkill and reduces cast a bit, but I like the fatter string, especially on the heavier bows.
-
I think there can be a risk using too strong a string.
A good measure for string strength has always been 4 times bow strength.
For a 100lb bow this would mean that 5 strands would be enough and 8 would give a significant safety factor. 16 wouldin my opinion be too strong.
20 strands would give a strong enough string for a 475 pound bow! There is some stretch factorin a flemish twist string but my feeling is that a string that is far too strong cannot be good for a wooden bow.
Mark in England
-
I have used 12 strands on a 170# bow and it was fine
-
Ok, Mark. So 10-12 strands will be enough for my 130#? I try to go over 300m/328yrd. And i`m very close. Shoot 290-295m with 18 strands B-50. 30" barrel shaped arrow with 1"x1/2" feather. The Norwegian flight-record is 356m/389yrd.
-
I have used 12 strands on a 170# bow and it was fine
TS-1?
-
i use 12 strands on my 133# bow D75
-
I like the fatter string, because it feels better on my fingers... less pinch. How could a string that is "too strong for a bow, be hard on it?" Better than the string failing, and the potential for the bow to break.
-
No I used the old FF, break strength 90#. You will need to lay a few extra strands in at the nocking point so your arrow nock fits
-
I like the fatter string, because it feels better on my fingers... less pinch. How could a string that is "too strong for a bow, be hard on it?" Better than the string failing, and the potential for the bow to break.
I agree with you adb, I always use a string that has more strands than necessary, simply to feel thick enough. I have always used fastflight or fastflight plus - never seen any problems. Linen and hemp also have virtually no stretch or elasticity.
Cheers, Dave
-
I use this bow for flightshooting. So its no point to use more threads than necessary, just to get the string thick. With a good arrow, i think its posible to take the Norwegian flight-record...i hope.. ;)
My friends was in Batsford, England last week. He tell me about a new flight-record for longbows? Enyone who knows?
-
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
-
Folks used to say that fastflight was a breaker of wooden bows because it stretched less than a Dacron or linen string.
Well, it does stretch a little less than Dacron, but it's real advantage performance-wise is that fastflight weighs less.
And to be honest the only bows that I have ever seen broken with a fastflight string on them were either radically overstressed or weak in construction.
They probably would have broken sooner or later whatever the string was made from.
Making a fastflight string overbuilt would in fact probably be safer inasmuch as the increased string mass would slow the bow down.
You might just as well say that shooting a heavier arrow will break the bow.
I have an old boo backed laminated target bow 56lb @ 30"(now honourably retired) that has shot a 15 strand fastflight string it's whole competitive life in NFAS, BLBS, EFAA and GNAS.
It has often been criticised by folks with fancier bows for it's 3 inches of unbraced string follow which arose from the boo overpowering the belly from day one, but these same folks have more than once then had the doubtful privilege of seeing this same bow finish in the medals whilst their "superior" bows were in the also ran category.
This bow has also survived the scary experience of a few days experimentally shooting flight arrows with a 6 strand fastflight string, something quite painful on the fingers and making a sound so strained and high pitched that it will not soon be forgotten.
The only reason I use 15 strands is that it gives me a perfect nock fit when served and I figure if I had one on a heavy bow, this and comfort in the draw might be the deciding factor for me in a choosing string thickness, unless I wanted to optimise the string mass by reducing it so as to maximise the cast.
I also use fastflight on a short osage recurve and have had no problems, although my drawlength with this short bow did cause the original Fullerplast varnish to check repeatededly in horizontal lines all along the whole length of the working limb on both back and belly.
This was made tidy by carefully sanding off the offending surface coat of varnish and rubbing the bow with emulsified beeswax.
The original horn overlays both popped off under the pressure of the string at different times, having been fixed in place with an unspecified superglue.
When reattached with Warn system epoxy no further problems were experienced.
What did surprise me was how well the fastflight held a properly made and waxed bowyers hitch, something I had been assured was not likely.
In conclusion, I guess I would have no worries about using fastflight on a sound well tillered bow, though I might make the string fat enough for comfort but light enough for durability on a heavier bow.
But I guess that I wouldn't feel right with fast flight on a single stave yew....
FWIW
Rod.
-
All my bows are single-stave Italian yew, and I use fastflight or fastflight plus because dacron is too stretchy and too elastic. It would be nice to use hemp or linen but I simply cannot obtain grades of this strong enough. Warbow strings were originally quite thick as shown by the internal width of the arrow nocks, hence archers 500 years ago would have had a pronounced reduction in performance, weight for weight, over what we see with thinner bowstrings made with modern materials today. I see no problem with thicker strings even with modern materials, hence I use 21 strands for bows of around 100lb draw-weight - it's safe and feels good on the fingers even if it is a bit slower.
Dave
-
Folks used to say that fastflight was a breaker of wooden bows because it stretched less than a Dacron or linen string.
Well, it does stretch a little less than Dacron, but it's real advantage performance-wise is that fastflight weighs less.
And to be honest the only bows that I have ever seen broken with a fastflight string on them were either radically overstressed or weak in construction.
They probably would have broken sooner or later whatever the string was made from.
Making a fastflight string overbuilt would in fact probably be safer inasmuch as the increased string mass would slow the bow down.
You might just as well say that shooting a heavier arrow will break the bow.
I have an old boo backed laminated target bow 56lb @ 30"(now honourably retired) that has shot a 15 strand fastflight string it's whole competitive life in NFAS, BLBS, EFAA and GNAS.
It has often been criticised by folks with fancier bows for it's 3 inches of unbraced string follow which arose from the boo overpowering the belly from day one, but these same folks have more than once then had the doubtful privilege of seeing this same bow finish in the medals whilst their "superior" bows were in the also ran category.
This bow has also survived the scary experience of a few days experimentally shooting flight arrows with a 6 strand fastflight string, something quite painful on the fingers and making a sound so strained and high pitched that it will not soon be forgotten.
The only reason I use 15 strands is that it gives me a perfect nock fit when served and I figure if I had one on a heavy bow, this and comfort in the draw might be the deciding factor for me in a choosing string thickness, unless I wanted to optimise the string mass by reducing it so as to maximise the cast.
I also use fastflight on a short osage recurve and have had no problems, although my drawlength with this short bow did cause the original Fullerplast varnish to check repeatededly in horizontal lines all along the whole length of the working limb on both back and belly.
This was made tidy by carefully sanding off the offending surface coat of varnish and rubbing the bow with emulsified beeswax.
The original horn overlays both popped off under the pressure of the string at different times, having been fixed in place with an unspecified superglue.
When reattached with Warn system epoxy no further problems were experienced.
What did surprise me was how well the fastflight held a properly made and waxed bowyers hitch, something I had been assured was not likely.
In conclusion, I guess I would have no worries about using fastflight on a sound well tillered bow, though I might make the string fat enough for comfort but light enough for durability on a heavier bow.
But I guess that I wouldn't feel right with fast flight on a single stave yew....
FWIW
Rod.
hello rod :)
ive hered this a few times now and it seems to be becoming excepted that linen stretches?
in my experience linen doesn't stretch, only as much as settling and fibers tightening in the twist from the making stage and when the string is first fitted.
d75 stretches and then retracts
fastflight + is exactly the same
and b50 is like knicker elastic ;)
this is alot easier to notice when shooting bows 130# + but not noticable on bows around 60#
real original fast flight is the way to go for performance, but i can't get any at a reasonable price.
so i use D75 with as little strands as i dare to keep the stretch and not allow it to retract and with serving to thicken at the nock
oh also d75 and fastflight plus also stretch more in the heat where as linen will not.
i hope this helps :)
ps. ive edited this post 7 times sorry :D
-
Hi Simon,
I am really happy to read your observations on fastflight plus - this is exactly what I see with my strings; some people have told me it's my imagination! I don't know whether it's true, but, someone told me that Angel Dyneema was the same material as the original fastflight - could be worth a try!
Cheers, Dave
-
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
The actual distance was recorded at 438yds, shot by Alistair Aston, this is an official record with the EWBS and a world record, just because it wasn't shot at a FITA event doesn't mean it isn't official. It was measured with laser range finders by Mark Stretton and the bow was checked by both Mark Stretton and Steve Stratton, both commitee oficials within the EWBS, this shot was witnessed by over 50 other archers from around Europe
-
The 438 yards would have been more if a tree had not got in the way! Even if it is not an official FITA record it was shot and shows how well a longbow can shoot. It was also amazing to see how far the heavy war shafts were shot as well.
Rod, there is a very real difference between the effect of a heavy arrow and and a very strong non-stretch string. Basically opposite effects. A heavy arrow will be efficient and take most of the energy out of the bow leaving relatively little to be absorbed by the bow or string. A light arrow on the other hand may leave the bow fast but is relatively inefficient in terms of energy transfer leaving more energy in the bow/string. Whatever energy is left after the arrow leaves the bow stays in the system and must be absorbed by the bow and string. If the string can stretch a little some is absorbed by the string. If it doesn't that energy is absorbed by the bow limbs. If shooting light arrows from heavy bows with too overbuilt a continous loop string without energy absorbing twist you approach a dry fire situation in a worst case scenario.
Some people advise using a flemish twist string because this does allow an overbuilt string to stretch due to the twist. This would appear to be an acceptable and sensible compromise. FF materials can be used, strings can be overbuilt but it seems to me that it may be best to design our strings to work well and safely. Some flight archers are prepared to risk the bow for the record shot, but some want a compromise of performance and durability. If the string is too narrow for the arrow nock it is easy to build the string up locally to fit the nock.
-
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
The actual distance was recorded at 438yds, shot by Alistair Aston, this is an official record with the EWBS and a world record, just because it wasn't shot at a FITA event doesn't mean it isn't official. It was measured with laser range finders by Mark Stretton and the bow was checked by both Mark Stretton and Steve Stratton, both commitee oficials within the EWBS, this shot was witnessed by over 50 other archers from around Europe
Well said Yew Boy.
-
I was at Batsford too - 438yds it was and stopped by a tree. We will need a bigger field! As to official records I've no idea what the rules are but there were plenty of witnesses to this shot. I didn't however get to see the bow or the arrow Alistair used - was it laminated or a self bow, does anyone know?
Stan
-
I couldn't remember the exact distance and even though it was witnessed by many I doubt that it will stand as a world record with fita, although I don't see why not
-
I couldn't remember the exact distance and even though it was witnessed by many I doubt that it will stand as a world record with fita, although I don't see why not
Marc,
We are not saying it should be a FITA record, clearly it isn't as it was not at a FITA event, but what we are saying is it is an EWBS World Record that (as far as I am concerned) is every bit it's equal. The standard of EWBS distance shooting is world class and I can think of only one British archer, not in the organisation, who'd stand a chance of bettering it's best.
-
Rod, there is a very real difference between the effect of a heavy arrow and and a very strong non-stretch string. Basically opposite effects. A heavy arrow will be efficient and take most of the energy out of the bow leaving relatively little to be absorbed by the bow or string. A light arrow on the other hand may leave the bow fast but is relatively inefficient in terms of energy transfer leaving more energy in the bow/string. Whatever energy is left after the arrow leaves the bow stays in the system and must be absorbed by the bow and string. If the string can stretch a little some is absorbed by the string. If it doesn't that energy is absorbed by the bow limbs. If shooting light arrows from heavy bows with too overbuilt a continous loop string without energy absorbing twist you approach a dry fire situation in a worst case scenario.
Mark,
I am aware of the principles involved.
I only observed that both a heavier shaft and a heavier string can produce a lower speed than a lighter shaft or lighter string (within certain limits in relationship to dry fire speed and with all else being equal).
And as I have already mentioned, it is a fallacy that fastflight is a "non-stretch" string.
Ratty,
I made no such assumption about linen, but mentioned a commonly held opinion which I personally do not subscribe to.
But thank you for the clarification, which I do agree with.
Rod.
-
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
The actual distance was recorded at 438yds, shot by Alistair Aston, this is an official record with the EWBS and a world record, just because it wasn't shot at a FITA event doesn't mean it isn't official. It was measured with laser range finders by Mark Stretton and the bow was checked by both Mark Stretton and Steve Stratton, both commitee oficials within the EWBS, this shot was witnessed by over 50 other archers from around Europe
I suppose that this comes down to a difference of opinion about what constitutes an internationally recognised World Record as opposed to an EWBS World Record.
I think it sufficient that it is an EWBS Record that surpasses anything done in the same class under FITA rules.
Like Bert Smith's BLBS record for the Clout, it stands upon it's own merit.
Equally one could make a case that World Record status is generally held to be within the purview of FITA.
Just let me say that I would not like to see bickering here about spheres of authority in such a matter, even though I have long held the opinion that matters pertaining to the English bow are no business of FITA or any other foreign or internatiional organisation.
I must admit, to my shame that I once shot a FITA round with the longbow at County level, but only after the distance had been converted into Imperial measure to the nearest 16th of an inch by a judge with a sense of humour, since I refused to shoot a metric distance as a matter of principle.
The fact remains however that as things stand, to gain "official" international recognition a World Record might be worth repeating in FITA flight competition, if that is what you wish.
Rod.
-
I agree with you adb, I always use a string that has more strands than necessary, simply to feel thick enough. I have always used fastflight or fastflight plus - never seen any problems. Linen and hemp also have virtually no stretch or elasticity.
Cheers, Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you folks no longer serve your strings, the traditional way to increase finger comfort and get a proper fit for the arrow nock as well as preventing wear on the string without increasing the total thickness of the string which was thought to reduce cast.
-
I agree with you adb, I always use a string that has more strands than necessary, simply to feel thick enough. I have always used fastflight or fastflight plus - never seen any problems. Linen and hemp also have virtually no stretch or elasticity.
Cheers, Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you folks no longer serve your strings, the traditional way to increase finger comfort and get a proper fit for the arrow nock as well as preventing wear on the string without increasing the total thickness of the string which was thought to reduce cast.
I always serve the string. How can you shoot with an unserved string? The strands will start to separate and wear through! When I serve a string the serving compresses the strands to a tight cylinder that is, on the whole, thinner than the unserved string; the only solution is to add extra strands just at that point or to have a thicker overall string. If you force me to be blunt about it, I'd say that by making strings thinner (by use of modern materials) than the originals would have been, we are gaining an advantage in bow performance that would have been unavailable to archers 500 years ago! If we want to keep bow performance roughly equivalent to what it would have been with a medieval bow, whilst still using modern materials, then we need to make strings thicker, even if this results in a loss of arrow cast.
Dave
-
I agree with you adb, I always use a string that has more strands than necessary, simply to feel thick enough. I have always used fastflight or fastflight plus - never seen any problems. Linen and hemp also have virtually no stretch or elasticity.
Cheers, Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you folks no longer serve your strings, the traditional way to increase finger comfort and get a proper fit for the arrow nock as well as preventing wear on the string without increasing the total thickness of the string which was thought to reduce cast.
I always serve the string. How can you shoot with an unserved string? The strands will start to separate and wear through! When I serve a string the serving compresses the strands to a tight cylinder that is, on the whole, thinner than the unserved string; the only solution is to add extra strands just at that point or to have a thicker overall string. If you force me to be blunt about it, I'd say that by making strings thinner (by use of modern materials) than the originals would have been, we are gaining an advantage in bow performance that would have been unavailable to archers 500 years ago! If we want to keep bow performance roughly equivalent to what it would have been with a medieval bow, whilst still using modern materials, then we need to make strings thicker, even if this results in a loss of arrow cast.
Dave
Sorry, I mistakenly understood that you were making the whole string thicker for finger comfort. To have a string the thickness of those on the MR bows, it would be a 1/8" thick at the serving if the width of MR arrow nocks has been correctly reported. Isn't that pretty much the thickness of bowstrings on more modern longbows and worldwide bows in general ? Also, archers of 500 years ago already had access to silk strings. The Book of Roi Modus states;" it will drive an arrow or bolt farther, and strike a heavier blow than any string made of flax or hemp: because it can be made of whatever strength and thickness the shooter pleaseth", so maybe you could have a thinner string in good conscience.
-
Quite so Bow-toxo, quite so. It is indeed possible that some of the the strings aboard the Mary Rose were silk and therefore thinner, but built up under the serving at the nocking point - we only have the internal width of the arrow nocks to guide us. I believe that something resembling a (linen?) bow string was found but its construction was unidentifiable due to degradation. I do not build up the centre of my fastflight strings, I merely use a thicker string for the draw weight of my bows than most people consider necessary, for the reasons that I've already stated, assuming most strings were originally hemp or linen and therefore thicker than we are accustomed to.
Dave
-
Thick strings are not uncommon in primitive styles of bow where either the materials dictate or where cast is not the deciding factor.
Every culture makes it's own choice within the context of common usage.
One way of dealing with finger discomfort is to make a thicker string, but being aware of the trade-off involved.
I use serving to protect the string and if necessary to make a minor adjustment to nock fit.
The string is made intially to fit the standard nock when served.
With a self nock, it can be cut to be slightly tight and each shaft then finessed to give best fit when worn in through repeated shooting.
On an unused shaft I prefer a slightly stiff fit.
If one gets too loose through heavy use I sometimes line the nock with a layer of glued on tissue paper.
Rod.
-
Hi Simon,
I am really happy to read your observations on fastflight plus - this is exactly what I see with my strings; some people have told me it's my imagination! I don't know whether it's true, but, someone told me that Angel Dyneema was the same material as the original fastflight - could be worth a try!
Cheers, Dave
cheers dave ill look into it ;)
-
Hi Rod and All.
[I think we met at the 3D Champs when you were admiring my other half's ash zigzag bow....]
>If one gets too loose through heavy use I sometimes line the nock with a layer of glued on tissue paper.
If my self nocks get too loose, I dip the nock end of the arrow into a pot of thin varnish, and then suspend the arrow by the pile end. This not only tightens the base of the nock slot, but forms 'lips' of varnish at the extreme open end of the arrow nock, holding the arrow on the string. I use subsequent dips like this, with plenty of drying time between, to ensure a good fit to my string. However, taken too far, this method can form a snap-like nock, which I'm not so keen on though. Experimentation rules.....
-
That was me. I recognised you from Co.of 60.
Rod.
-
A bit OFF but have to know, how much FF strech if use 6pl on a 45-50# 58 long flight bow?
Thanks! Zoltán
This is my simmilar question for 10pl on a 100# 75 long war bow too.