Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Tom Dulaney on January 08, 2021, 08:32:56 pm
-
Whip ended bows seem to have a poor reputation among internet bowyer forum posters. Why is that? I have seen claims like "they store less energy" -- but I've never verified that. Even if it is true, it would seem inuitive to me that a bow which bends closer to the tips is storing energy where the bow weighs less. Whip ended bows don't have to carry a large mass above the working portion, which could compensate for the lower energy storage.
As an extreme opposite example, in many types of composite horn bows with siyahs, it's always a chore to have to get your siyah weight exactly right, so that your siyahs don't weight down the bending limbs. Many bows traditionally used composite siyahs, with a wooden core and bone plates on the sides, to maximize stiffness-to-weight ratio.
Egyptian angular horn bow
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/0a/08/ec0a08501fd5a29814ecaa461748b1f5.jpg)
Good example from Stiliyan Stefanov, at the 11:20 mark in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-QouodSvC4
-
It's pretty hard to bend a small narrow piece of wood to a large degree and have much draw weight to store energy with.
When a whip ended bow performs well, it needs the rest of the bow helping it out, it can't be the primary provider.
-
That hornbow certainly isn't whip ended? Nor is it much of a problem to reduce outer limb weight on a hornbow? But the difference between a hornbow and a true whip ended wooden bow is vast :)
They certainly do store less energy and the main point is that you could've stored a lot more by simply having the bow bend correctly in the first place :)
If you have a bow with 20 ounces of wood and a bow of 10 ounces which can store more energy?
Or two elastic bands one 1/4"wide the other 1/2" which can store more energy?
A true whip ended bow drawn a normal distance and the bow of a normal length for the draw.........it will stack and take too much set.
The only plce for a whip ended bow is flight shooting with very light arrows. You can also use the principle on very long bows. A very long bow will have a low string angle and the 'whip' won't be so pronounced and anyway I still wouldn't call it whip tillered I'd call it highly elliptical.
Anyway the very term Whip tillered is a term that describes a bow that is bending too much outer limb.....
-
There are multiple factors involved in this with energy storage only being one of them. For energy storage there is definitely a difference even if you haven’t personally measured it. Stiff outer limbs can also be lighter than ones that bend. Recall that doubling wood thickness increases stiffness by 8 times where doubling width increases it by 2. A bending limb will need to be wide and thin enough to store energy for the bow and accommodate the smaller radius bend. Those working limbs are likely more massive than narrow rigid limbs could be made or even bending limbs that are of a smaller diameter bend due to increased thickness. Other components that I have less understanding of are limb vibration and leverage. Ideally any given bow should be tillered to match its front view profile. If a bow is designed to be whip tillered then it will shot best when tillered that way. You can’t tiller a mollegabet profile with a whip tiller and expect good results.
-
I agree about matching the front view profile and the tiller. If you do it right you could have a durable whip tillered bow, but it would have to have a lot more mass further out on the limb.
-
Of course, a stiff upper limb can be made lighter than the bending inner limb. However, it still weighs something, despite not actively contributing any energy at all to the cast (it's basically just a heavy lever).
That weight is important, and there's evidence from the fossil record in Asia that the composite bows with stiff outer limbs did not really become decent bows until the development of bone side plates on extremely thin wooden cores, to make the siyahs lighter will maintaining stiffness. Without the bone plates on the siyahs the velocity was hampered by the weight of the siyahs. These bows didn't really go places until people figured out that bone is stiffer and lighter than wood, and thus can greatly reduce the weight of the siyahs.
With a whip-ended bow, however, there's no weight on top of the limbs at all, other than the bowstring and the notch. That's an advantage. And yes, the lower sections should be made to contribute, as PatB noted. My point is that a whip ended bow more effectively maximizes the energy output to the arrow, or the net energy, which is what really matters.
The tips could be made to bend easier by decurving them, and the grip/inner limbs could be reflexed to increase energy storage. This intuitively seems like a better way to get the maximum amount of energy out of a bow in the optimal regions.
It seems this was a favored type of bow among Amerindians.
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/30729258_1718112378282194_7941177277973266432_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8024bb&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=HvsLaYs6s1IAX_voxxh&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&tp=14&oh=7dec06b47a0c05f9a7da1a3cd8c71c51&oe=6021A000)
)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/18/c9/bd/18c9bdb9f006d2e09e17b6f71991fd40.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/46/6a/e4466aa6d1b689580591c4ec0651de5a.png)
(http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27616/27616-h/images/songarro.jpg)
I have also seen bows on Greek vases that could be described as "whip ended":
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/4b/79/994b79f861d644e69e8f507ace0baec0.jpg)
-
It is true that whip tillered bows are more efficient at putting energy into the arrow but this certainly is not the end all be all as evidenced by the flight records with more stiff tipped bows. Higher energy storage, lower hysteresis, and low limb vibration seem to trump the efficiency of whip tillered bows. That’s my understanding at least. Can you provide evidence of the bone laminations? I haven’t seen that other than to enforce nocks.
-
It is true that whip tillered bows are more efficient at putting energy into the arrow but this certainly is not the end all be all as evidenced by the flight records with more stiff tipped bows. Higher energy storage, lower hysteresis, and low limb vibration seem to trump the efficiency of whip tillered bows. That’s my understanding at least. Can you provide evidence of the bone laminations? I haven’t seen that other than to enforce nocks.
A lot of these flight bows look rather whip tillered:
(https://www.archerytalk.com/attachments/131569788_zq5hr-l-jpg.1438180/)
As for sources on the bone plates see "Xiongnu archaeology" by Brosseder and Miller (2011) and "One bow is not equal to another" by Rumschlag (2018). The Xiongnu were the first to do it, their siyahs were a thin wooden core with two bone plates glued to the sides.
-
Bone is not lighter than wood. Plenty of composites did not have bone plates and worked just fine. There's also the whole fossil record thing but I'll let that slide.
Whip ended bows seem to make sense when compared to an actual whip or a fishing rod but bows don't quite work the same way.
Consider them like many other things that humans have done that seem like a good idea but are not really.
Don't let that stop you from making them and convincing yourself that they are the best.
-
It is true that whip tillered bows are more efficient at putting energy into the arrow but this certainly is not the end all be all as evidenced by the flight records with more stiff tipped bows. Higher energy storage, lower hysteresis, and low limb vibration seem to trump the efficiency of whip tillered bows. That’s my understanding at least. Can you provide evidence of the bone laminations? I haven’t seen that other than to enforce nocks.
Lots of siyah bone plates have been found but many composites did not have them, including the ones thought of as the best performers.
-
Bone is not lighter than wood. Plenty of composites did not have bone plates and worked just fine. There's also the whole fossil record thing but I'll let that slide.
Whip ended bows seem to make sense when compared to an actual whip or a fishing rod but bows don't quite work the same way.
Consider them like many other things that humans have done that seem like a good idea but are not really.
Don't let that stop you from making them and convincing yourself that they are the best.
Bone isn't lighter than wood but it is far stiffer relative to weight. So a very thin bone plate can be added to a thin piece of wood, and produce a siyah that is stiffer and and lighter than a thicker, all-wood siyah. After the Xiongnu started putting bone plates on their siyahs, everyone started copying them and the concept spread all over the world, and endured in Mongolia for over 1,000 years.. Before that however, nobody wanted a stiff outer limbed bow.
Later composite bows skimped on the bone plates, but had different quirks -- the Korean bow was unusually lightweight owing to its bamboo core and short siyahs, and the Manchu bow was unusually large and fired massive arrows at relatively low speeds. Turkish siyah wood cores are beautifully shaped and reinforced with horn and sinew.
-
I wouldn’t consider that bow whip tillered at all. Bends very much right up into the fade.
Your examples for your argument seem to be more outliers than what is consistent with the records, flight shooting or historical bow examples.
-
Bone is not lighter than wood. Plenty of composites did not have bone plates and worked just fine. There's also the whole fossil record thing but I'll let that slide.
Whip ended bows seem to make sense when compared to an actual whip or a fishing rod but bows don't quite work the same way.
Consider them like many other things that humans have done that seem like a good idea but are not really.
Don't let that stop you from making them and convincing yourself that they are the best.
Bone isn't lighter than wood but it is far stiffer relative to weight. So a very thin bone plate can be added to a thin piece of wood, and produce a siyah that is stiffer and and lighter than a thicker, all-wood siyah. After the Xiongnu started putting bone plates on their siyahs, everyone started copying them and the concept spread all over the world, and endured in Mongolia for over 1,000 years.. Before that however, nobody wanted a stiff outer limbed bow.
Later composite bows skimped on the bone plates, but had different quirks -- the Korean bow was unusually lightweight owing to its bamboo core and short siyahs, and the Manchu bow was unusually large and fired massive arrows at relatively low speeds. Turkish siyah wood cores are beautifully shaped and reinforced with horn and sinew.
The Mollegebet was stiff tipped..... Bone plates are a good idea on weak wood siyahs but there's plenty of bows after your supposed dates which did not have them. None of the three well preserved specimens recently examined had them.
In short your theory is not a good one.
-
Bone is not lighter than wood. Plenty of composites did not have bone plates and worked just fine. There's also the whole fossil record thing but I'll let that slide.
Whip ended bows seem to make sense when compared to an actual whip or a fishing rod but bows don't quite work the same way.
Consider them like many other things that humans have done that seem like a good idea but are not really.
Don't let that stop you from making them and convincing yourself that they are the best.
Bone isn't lighter than wood but it is far stiffer relative to weight. So a very thin bone plate can be added to a thin piece of wood, and produce a siyah that is stiffer and and lighter than a thicker, all-wood siyah. After the Xiongnu started putting bone plates on their siyahs, everyone started copying them and the concept spread all over the world, and endured in Mongolia for over 1,000 years.. Before that however, nobody wanted a stiff outer limbed bow.
Later composite bows skimped on the bone plates, but had different quirks -- the Korean bow was unusually lightweight owing to its bamboo core and short siyahs, and the Manchu bow was unusually large and fired massive arrows at relatively low speeds. Turkish siyah wood cores are beautifully shaped and reinforced with horn and sinew.
I'm sorry but the assumptions you make about hornbows are wrong. I KNOW for a fact that perfectly functional outer limbs can be made with just wood. The core is what gives hornbows their shape :) Fading the horn out on the belly will give better performance. Wood at around 0.65 sg or horn that is less stiff and 1.3sg......No need at all for bone....The outerlimbs only need a little sinew on the back and require no horn or indeed bone plates on the belly/sides at all. Wood is stiffer than both horn and sinew.
When you say 'whip tillered' I think you actually mean elliptically tillered.
Why do you think that a bamboo core is lighter than a wooden core? It isn't. The bamboo used is actually quite dense....
Is it just because they are beautifully shaped that Turkish bows do not need bone plates?
At the end of the day we don't actually know why bone plates were used extensively BUT they were not needed to lighten outer limbs.....wood alone will provide the stiffness without any 'excess' weight. No discussion needed on that point no matter what the historians say :)
If the historians had to make something to prove their hypothesis then there wouldn't be so many iffy at best theories around :)
That picture you posted is most certainly NOT whip tillered- it is elliptically tillered. If I had a picture of a true whip tillered bow this would be a good time to post it :)
-
I've seen some old bows that were whip tillered and the outer limbs were severely chrysaled
-
I’m going to guess here string angle. And Sleeks wave theory. That I think there has merit.
-
I'm sorry but the assumptions you make about hornbows are wrong. I KNOW for a fact that perfectly functional outer limbs can be made with just wood.
Ok. Nobody doubts that. But for what kind of bow? For a really powerful horn no? No. For the best wood bow? Possibly not.
The core is what gives hornbows their shape :) Fading the horn out on the belly will give better performance.
Apparently not, according to multiple hornbowyering cultures around the world.
Wood at around 0.65 sg or horn that is less stiff and 1.3sg......No need at all for bone....The outerlimbs only need a little sinew on the back and require no horn or indeed bone plates on the belly/sides at all. Wood is stiffer than both horn and sinew.
It is true that horn is less stiff than wood and has a higher SG. Nevertheless it is a necessary component on the siyahs of several different types of composite bows, as we shall see, because it is stronger than wood..
When you say 'whip tillered' I think you actually mean elliptically tillered.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be an auhority out there who has defined what a whip tillered bow is. You guys said the Dan Brown flight longbow I posted was not whip tillered, but it is more whip tillered than several bows on Google's image search engine, which are described by forumites as "whip tillered".
Why do you think that a bamboo core is lighter than a wooden core? It isn't. The bamboo used is actually quite dense....
It is considerabl less dense than the typical woods used for hornbow cores (i.e. maple).
Is it just because they are beautifully shaped that Turkish bows do not need bone plates?
Well, the Turkish siyahs (or kasan) couldn't use the bone plates, because their cross sectional area is so different from other bows. Instead, the Turkish bow siyahs/kasan are reinforced with horn and a liberal layer of sinew (thicker than on the working limb). This diagram shows the unique shape of the Turkish bow kasan:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/51/d0/3451d0925d3d894f7ba94afa5d3dcb82.jpg)
As we can see, the kasan (or siyahs) have a strange shape. They are cupped near the belly, and have a tall center ridge, that looks like a "nipple" in cross section. This essentially maximizes the stiffness of the siyah by giving it both thickness and width, but with a much greater surface area -- less mass.
Nevertheless, it is clear this design would never be stable in an all-wood construction, it has to have horn on the belly and a lot of sinew on the back. The siyah actually consists more of horn and sinew, than wood. It even has a thicker layer of sinew than the working limb. Try carving a shape like that out of wood alone, and how far you can draw it before it detonates.
So while the Turkish bow didn't need bone plates, it most definitely needed sinew and horn....
-
The insane level of detail that goes in to a delicate Turkish bow kasan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytr-9sui31M
-
You realize Mike is an expert in making Turkish bows.?
You are out of your depth in this discussion.
-
I disagree with the actual premises of the title. I never knew no heard if whip tillered bows being spoken poorly of.
-
I disagree with the actual premises of the title. I never knew nor heard of whip tillered bows being spoken poorly of.
I'll add, understanding the efficiencies of a whip tillered bow can actually lead to optimizing certain designs. The knowledge that a whip tillered bow is the most efficient helps me with making my short bows work.
-
You realize Mike is an expert in making Turkish bows.?
You are out of your depth in this discussion.
That's funny coming from the guy whose sole contribution to the thread has been "look at this mesolithic wood bow" that belonged to a people who got exterminated by the Corded Ware culture using these:
(https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/article267_files/image087.png)
So far bownarra has revealed himself to be an expert in diddly squat.
-
You realize Mike is an expert in making Turkish bows.?
You are out of your depth in this discussion.
That's funny coming from the guy whose sole contribution to the thread has been "look at this mesolithic wood bow" that belonged to a people who got exterminated by Western Steppe Herders using these:
(https://indo-european.info/indo-europeans-uralians/article267_files/image087.png)
So far bownarra has revealed himself to be an expert in diddly squat.
That’s a pretty disrespectful response for someone with less than 100 posts and a very weak argument.
-
I learned post count doesn't matter. There are lurkers ( Hey guys, we know you are out there ) who are better bowyers than many on here who enjoy talking. However...
Its rather arrogant to say a person must "reveal himself" to you, aka convince you and you only, that he has merit before you take any merit to his input. Never mind the ENTIRE crowd here vouches for him. Now I personally had no clue Bownarra made horn bows until this post. But I see the people I do know not arguing with him and that tells me right there, the man has clout and I will open my ears, shut my yap, and turn my ego off.
-
He was AKA as mikekeswick.
-
He was AKA as mikekeswick.
Ahhhhh, well see there, my intuition served me well. Mike is most probably the biggest resource on horn bows outside of Adam, and thats only because I don't think Mike has written a book. Hey Mike, you have work yet ahead of you.
-
The idea that steppe herders exterminated Neolithic Danes is a new one. The must have built time machines as well as bows.
-
Whip tillering increases the string angle making for more stacking which decreases the string angle. That can be counteracted by making the bow longer. Jawge
-
I have nothing to contribute except to say that those examples are not whip tillered. The horn bow is shaped that way. Similar to a gull wing bow. And the other picture with the flight record also don’t seem ship tillered. Wouldn’t that horn bow stack like crazy which would mean it isn’t efficient.
-
I used to prefer bows that were slightly whip tillered as they seem to be more efficient for shooting light arrows. Overall I don't think wood lends itself very well to whip tillering. It takes a lot of bend in the outer limbs to give much draw length. You will see a lot of modern bows recurves that are basically whip tillered, I think what they are basically accomplishing is less working limb and more efficiency because the limbs have less room to distort or vibrate.
-
They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?
-
They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?
Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.
Mark
-
I think originally people lacked understanding that a strung bow and a whip can't operate the same way but they made them under the assumption that the ends of the bow would function like a cracking whip.
It's virtually impossible to make a part of a bow weaker and not just have it max out its movement potential right off the bat.
It takes a working recurve to work around that, not a straight end bow.
-
I used to prefer bows that were slightly whip tillered as they seem to be more efficient for shooting light arrows. Overall I don't think wood lends itself very well to whip tillering. It takes a lot of bend in the outer limbs to give much draw length. You will see a lot of modern bows recurves that are basically whip tillered, I think what they are basically accomplishing is less working limb and more efficiency because the limbs have less room to distort or vibrate.
I don't know if you remember Steve but I suggested this to Dan Perry. He scoffed at the idea
-
They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?
Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.
Mark
If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows? Is it just that FG is more massive? It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.
-
If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows? Is it just that FG is more massive? It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.
PM sent, we aren't to speak of the devil material on the forum.
Mark
-
They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?
Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.
Mark
If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows? Is it just that FG is more massive? It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.
They do consistently outperform most wood bows.
-
It's rather surprising to see so many well intended and informed replies to a rather hastily formed and vague assertion from a relative newcomer. It's about time ask the original poster for clarification of his theory and position. I like to see his whip ended bows that perform above average.
-
Tom doesn't actually seem to make bows to any great degree. He's more of a toenail collector.
-
I've seen a few wood bows outdo glass, and depending on the glass bow, it can be an easy task.
-
I have nothing to contribute except to say that those examples are not whip tillered. The horn bow is shaped that way. Similar to a gull wing bow. And the other picture with the flight record also don’t seem ship tillered. Wouldn’t that horn bow stack like crazy which would mean it isn’t efficient.
You have no idea what you're talking. All of the bows I posted sre whip tillered.
-
I think originally people lacked understanding that a strung bow and a whip can't operate the same way but they made them under the assumption that the ends of the bow would function like a cracking whip.
Archaeology paints a much different picture. As you pointed out, the earliest surviving bows (holmegaards) had stiff outer limbs. In all of Eurasia, these bows then get replaced by whip-tillered bows from the Corded Ware complex. Whip tillered bows and working tips then flourish for thousands of years of the age of classical civilization and cultural progress, until people start figuring out that you can strengthen stiff outer limbs without a weight penalty by laminating thin pieces of bone on to wood.
And in the Americas, the oldest paleo-eskimo bows likewise have stiff recurved outer limbs. These then evolve in to bending outer limb bows with stiff midlimbs and static decurves, and the Indians down south freqently use whip tillers.
So basically, humanity got it right (in your mind) early on, then ditched the correct bows for the crappier ones. Twice, on two different continents.
Man, it's gotta be PTSD-inducing to realize that your ideas were rejected by all of humanity, twice, thousands of years before you were born. It's time to start smoking heroin.
-
You have an ingrown toenail, Tom. See a doctor.
-
Man, it's gotta be PTSD-inducing to realize that your ideas were rejected by all of humanity, twice, thousands of years before you were born. It's time to start smoking heroin.
Hasty generalization is useless; but it's dangerous if used for personal attacks. How about this hasty generalization itself pretending not to be an attack! Is it dangerous enough? ;)
Is there a simple rule to apply to decide whether a bow is whip tillered or not?
What is the maximum percentage of the outer working limb that can be bending more than the inner parts, for the bow to be called "whip ended"? Is a bow whip ended only if less than one tenth of limb at the end is bending more than the inner rest? How about if the outer third of limb is bending more than the rest? What if the outer half of the limb is bending a little more than inner half? Isn't that just a normal bow?
What is the point of making hasty generalizations using such a vague word?
BTW The term is not useless as a description of some bows compared to "normal" bows. But how are we going to define normal bows? IMHO we just love to pretend to know something even if we have no idea what exactly it is that we believe we know. But that's the normal way we manage to live our lives without becoming too neurotic. It's better to actually know a thing or two instead of pretending to know millions of things.
Give me an example of a good whip ended bow that performs better than other similar but not-whip-tillered bows, please. Then we might be able to discuss whether it is its whip-ended-ness itself that makes it perform better. Case by case first, always.
-
Are you asking Tom to make a bow?
-
Or collect several bows. At least collect some full specs and illustrations.
-
They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?
Err nope!
-
Very easy to solve this if people won't believe facts.
Make a couple of bows, plot f/d curves, weigh some arrows and shoot through a chrono.
Come on now.....
-
If it is facts I am denying, that means the experiment was already performed, hence no need for another experiment.
What you speak are not facts, but merely ideas. Other people had different ideas. Let us read them:
From Saxton Pope, Hunting With the Bow and Arrow, page 66:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Xn6rpcU32CEC&pg=PA66
In fact, while the actual work of making a bow takes about eight hours, it requires months to get one adjusted so that it is good. A bow, like a violin, is a work of art. The best in it can only be brought out by infinite care. Like a violin, it is all curved contours, there is not a straight line in it. Many of my bows have been built over completely three or four times. Old Horrible first pulled eighty-five pounds. It was reduced, shortened, whip ended and worked over again and again so to tune the wood that all parts worked in harmony. Every good bow is a work of love.
^Note the beauty of this language and purity of thought, so unlike that of modern Americans.
From Richard Middleton:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DVnY8C9KSqkC&pg=PT234
Another point of departure might be the quadrupling of limb-tip velocity which can theoretically be achieved by halving the limb length. Short limbs need not shorten the draw length of any bow; all that is required is a long stiff section between them - hence the whip ended bow of Ascham, and hence too most modern recurve bows with their cast metal hand sections.
The classical bow:
(https://www.tradgang.com/rob/ta/eoa/p20.jpg)
From Charles Longman and Henry Walrond, Archery, page 208:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yvRAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA298
Several of the best shots never use a self bow, and probably the best backed bow for all-around purposes is the three-piece yew, fustic, and hickory bow, made quite straight and "whip-ended". This bow will cast well,
is soft in the hand, lasts longer and keeps its cast better than most of the two-piece bows, while the price is moderate, and it will give more even results as to range than a self-bow, unless the latter is invariably drawn to the same place.
From C.N. Hickman, Archery: The Technical Side, page 192:
On the basis that a bow weak in the middle is inefficient, a whip ended bow is in the right direction, the "circle" bow separating these two classes.
Everybody has different opinions but it looks like "the Godfathers" all wanted whip ended bows -- all the people against them seem to be anonymous blobs and teenagers who couldn't think for themselves
-
Oh dear... I'm glad I've kept out of this discussion... until now >:D
We have a classic case of someone (Tom Dulaney) criticising those with first hand experience by quoting what he's read and not realising the subtleties and linguistic problems of the subject. :'(
It's like the old thing of "ellipitcal" where no one ever defines how eliptical, and after all a circle is just a special case of an ellipse.
What do we mean by whip ended?
If we take an arc of a circle tillered bow, cut it at the middle and insert a rigid 12" section... is it now eliptical? Is it whip tillered? Or is it just a bow whose limbs are arc of a circle tillered, but with an added riser?
The above is largely rhetorical.
Remember, for everything you read saying whip tillered is advantageous, you can find something else saying stiff levers on the end are advantageous!
(I'd kept out of it 'cos I don't profess to know the answer!) ;D
Del
PS, to try and bring hornbows into a discussion about whip tillered bows is simply crass
-
This is probably goodbye, Tom. Good luck with your toenails.
-
None of those were experiments or had any factual data, they are just the opinions of the authors that those bows have "good" cast
-
Tom, are you capable of making a bow?
-
You can review his posts.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
-
When he said anonymous blob and teenager he was probably projecting.
-
I'm just wanting to know if he is capable of making a bow, and if so I want to see whip tillered bows he has made that justify his point of view. Arguing with someone else's opinions using knowledge from another individual seems disingenuous. If his point is that someone said a whip tillered bow is superior, then ok, sure. If his point is to argue with us based on someone else's supposition, then his only motivation was to come here looking for an argument, not an answer and for that, I have no use.
So I am calling him out. Make a bow. Not just any bow. Make a whip tillered bow and then tell us why its superior to whatever it is you think its better than and why.
-
Id also request that this individual remove the insults and drug based comments from his replies, I dont want that to become representative of our community.
-
Actually the issue itself is not a worthless one. The first several good replies are rather helpful in understanding the issue. They all assumed a reasonable person who at least tries to understand those kind replies. But the original poster does not appear to be interested in making pro and con arguments more clear. If still interested in the issue, someone need to start a new thread. The Hickman's statement quoted would be a good starting point.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
You already contradicted yourself. You touted whip ends and then said bone tips are used on the best bows.
Make your first bow, then offer opinions.
-
I'm just wanting to know if he is capable of making a bow, and if so I want to see whip tillered bows he has made that justify his point of view. Arguing with someone else's opinions using knowledge from another individual seems disingenuous. If his point is that someone said a whip tillered bow is superior, then ok, sure. If his point is to argue with us based on someone else's supposition, then his only motivation was to come here looking for an argument, not an answer and for that, I have no use.
So I am calling him out. Make a bow. Not just any bow. Make a whip tillered bow and then tell us why its superior to whatever it is you think its better than and why.
Sleek, why don't you read the original post? I asked the question: why do whip tillered bows have a bad reputation? Some people gave their opinions and I responded with my own. It was when I responded that PatM became indignant and began telling me that I can "believe whatever I want" and that I was "out of my depth in this discussion". Shortly after most people just started calling me a newcomer, telling me I've never built a bow before, etc. As if they were perturbed that someone would not accept the Gospel.
I think what really happened is some "experts" around here felt needled when I revealed that their fetishes have no basis in logic and aren't supported by experts. Also pretty damning was when you yourself were mentioned by another poster as having come up with a theory that would discourage whip tiller -- only to come in here and acknowledge that whip tillered bows are more efficient and that the myth surrounding whip tiller is unjustifed.
To put it bluntly, static recurves were in fashion the past couple of decades, a lotta "experts" around here promoted them, and I just came in here and popped the bubble. The 2020s will now be the decade of whip tiller.
-
You're out of your depth and likely just a post or two away from not being able to discuss things much more.
-
Sorry, it was not Hickman. It was Forrest Nagler in "Bow Design: Random Notes and Discussion" section of the book. He writes:
"I am not an advocate of the circular arc but there is no getting away from the fact that we must try to approach uniform stress over as much of the limb length as possible. On the basis that a bow weak in the middle is inefficient, a whip ended bow is in the right direction, the 'circle' bow separating these two classes. A whip ended bow may be bent somewhat in the form of an ellipse having its minor axis about in line with the arrow. Such a bow will taper in thickness from the handle to tip to give uniform fiber stress in accordance with simple mathematical relationships, once the shape of ellipse is chosen. The width at all points is likewise fixed by the same laws if the desired pull is given and the special characteristic of the wood used."
It does not say what the original poster thinks it says. It just says that if the handle section is not bending, any bending tips need to be somewhat whip tillered. But that does not apply if the tips are not-bending or recurved.
Now I have to read the whole section. I just hate assigned readings almost as much as copy-typing. ;)
-
All we can gleam from that quote is the following:
1.) A bow that bends through the handle is inefficient
2.) A whip tillered bow is more efficient
3 ) An elliptical profile (or "circular") is somewhere inbetween
I believe it does say what i think it says. I do not think it says what you said it says.
Another Saxton Pope quote from Hunting With The Bow and Arrow:
https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/pope/hunting-with-bow-and-arrow/chapter05_2.html
A bow should be light at the tips, say the last eight inches, which is accomplished by rounding the back slightly and reducing the width at this point. This gives an active recoil, or as it is described, "whip ended." This can be overdone, especially in hunting-bows, where a little more solidity and safety are preferable to a brilliant cast.
The obvious counterpoint to make here is that Saxton Pope is early 20th century and therefore outdated. What i want to know is: did a credible source deconstruct the concept with a detailed analysis? In searching all over the web all I never found anything of the sort.
-
To put it bluntly, static recurves were in fashion the past couple of decades, a lotta "experts" around here promoted them, and I just came in here and popped the bubble. The 2020s will now be the decade of whip tiller.
This appears to be the main cause of your confusion. "Whip ended bows" are supposed to have bending tips.
The efficiency of whip ended tips does not apply to static recurves and stiff lever bows. The latter two types are usually more efficient than whip tillered bows with bending tips.
What do you think is the relationship between working recurves and whip-ended bows? Are they the opposites?
-
I'm just wanting to know if he is capable of making a bow, and if so I want to see whip tillered bows he has made that justify his point of view. Arguing with someone else's opinions using knowledge from another individual seems disingenuous. If his point is that someone said a whip tillered bow is superior, then ok, sure. If his point is to argue with us based on someone else's supposition, then his only motivation was to come here looking for an argument, not an answer and for that, I have no use.
So I am calling him out. Make a bow. Not just any bow. Make a whip tillered bow and then tell us why its superior to whatever it is you think its better than and why.
Sleek, why don't you read the original post? I asked the question: why do whip tillered bows have a bad reputation? Some people gave their opinions and I responded with my own. It was when I responded that PatM became indignant and began telling me that I can "believe whatever I want" and that I was "out of my depth in this discussion". Shortly after most people just started calling me a newcomer, telling me I've never built a bow before, etc. As if they were perturbed that someone would not accept the Gospel.
I think what really happened is some "experts" around here felt needled when I revealed that their fetishes have no basis in logic and aren't supported by experts. Also pretty damning was when you yourself were mentioned by another poster as having come up with a theory that would discourage whip tiller -- only to come in here and acknowledge that whip tillered bows are more efficient and that the myth surrounding whip tiller is unjustifed.
To put it bluntly, static recurves were in fashion the past couple of decades, a lotta "experts" around here promoted them, and I just came in here and popped the bubble. The 2020s will now be the decade of whip tiller.
You remove your comment about drugs and the insults and we can talk later
-
All we can gleam from that quote is the following:
1.) A bow that bends through the handle is inefficient
2.) A whip tillered bow is more efficient
3 ) An elliptical profile (or "circular") is somewhere inbetween
I believe it does say what i think it says. I do not think it says what you said it says.
Another Saxton Pope quote from Hunting With The Bow and Arrow:
https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/pope/hunting-with-bow-and-arrow/chapter05_2.html
A bow should be light at the tips, say the last eight inches, which is accomplished by rounding the back slightly and reducing the width at this point. This gives an active recoil, or as it is described, "whip ended." This can be overdone, especially in hunting-bows, where a little more solidity and safety are preferable to a brilliant cast.
The obvious counterpoint to make here is that Saxton Pope is early 20th century and therefore outdated. What i want to know is: did a credible source deconstruct the concept with a detailed analysis? In searching all over the web all I never found anything of the sort.
Pope never cracked 300 yards with his bows.
Dummies on here push 400 and more.
Do the math.
-
All we can gleam from that quote is the following:
1.) A bow that bends through the handle is inefficient
2.) A whip tillered bow is more efficient
3 ) An elliptical profile (or "circular") is somewhere inbetween
I believe it does say what i think it says. I do not think it says what you said it says.
Another Saxton Pope quote from Hunting With The Bow and Arrow:
https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/pope/hunting-with-bow-and-arrow/chapter05_2.html
A bow should be light at the tips, say the last eight inches, which is accomplished by rounding the back slightly and reducing the width at this point. This gives an active recoil, or as it is described, "whip ended." This can be overdone, especially in hunting-bows, where a little more solidity and safety are preferable to a brilliant cast.
The obvious counterpoint to make here is that Saxton Pope is early 20th century and therefore outdated. What i want to know is: did a credible source deconstruct the concept with a detailed analysis? In searching all over the web all I never found anything of the sort.
Pope never cracked 300 yards with his bows.
Dummies on here push 400 and more.
Do the math.
I ain't hit 400 yet, must not be dummy enough hahaha
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
-
Simmer down everyone, and stop taking things so personally. Tom, some of these people are world class flight shooters and have been here a long time. You may be a great bowyer for all we know, but you would do well to be respectful as a relative newcomer.
You have to ask what the bow in question is meant to do before you decide weather a whip tiller or stiff tips are best. Like with any machine, there are different forms for different purposes. The only general rule I can bring to the table is that all bows need even strain across the limbs. This can be done in any type of bow if the front view profile is appropriate for the tiller.
Tom, I think the simplest answer to your original question is that stiff tip bows don't stack as hard, so they are much more enjoyable to shoot.
-
I can’t say much on this subject.... but in my personal (not much real evidence) whip tillered bows are less efficient.... and without doubt a static recurve will be faster. And as far as using the old archer legends like Saxon pope and young, I believe most of the old timer bowyers on this sight have far more. Knowledge then most of the old time legends.... simply because we have learned lots since Saxon Pope. When I read his book I recall him saying that the English longbow is far superior to all others. Or something to that extent ( I can’t be bothered to find the quote) and we do know that there are far more effective designs out there, ( nothing against the English longbow) ... anyways I would like to see some of your bows, Tom, maybe start a new thread to show some of them off with stats and such.... anyways. ;)
-Fox
-
"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.
Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'
Saxton Pope
-
Saxton Pope said, way more importantly and still true; Every bow is a work of love. Discussions about what's best are always fine, of course sometimes it gets a bit heated, but let's not forget everyone is on the same side here;
Making bows, is making works of love that we may shoot or let others enjoy, which is admirable with a whip tiller or not, with a wholly circular tiller or not and u name it. So let's discuss respectfully definitely, but really everyone here is making a little work of love, so let's be honest and not dump on each other's works or step on each other's toes too much. All this is talking we're doing, is about and on the subject of, these lil personally made works of art and love, imho it'd be good keep this in mind too, when discussing/critiquing/comparing to the bows of others.
Ps, it's only so much one can do anyway, if we truly want maximized efficiency, best to find a compound bow or a rifle (;
-
"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.
Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'
Saxton Pope
Exactly, unfortunately Mr Pope was wrong Turkish bows war or flight will cast a heavy arrow with as much authority as a longbow.
There is a difference between believing and knowing.........you know?!
I know because I make lots of both types :) Where Turkish hornbows differ to longbows is that they can shoot very light arrows AS WELL as heavy shafts. The elb is best suited to medium/heavy arrows.
Tom please stop you are making yourself look a little foolish. Anyone reading this would think you were doing this on purpose....you wouldn't be trying to troll everyone now would you......? A wee bit transparent :)
-
Saxton Pope said, way more importantly and still true; Every bow is a work of love. Discussions about what's best are always fine, of course sometimes it gets a bit heated, but let's not forget everyone is on the same side here;
Making bows, is making works of love that we may shoot or let others enjoy, which is admirable with a whip tiller or not, with a wholly circular tiller or not and u name it. So let's discuss respectfully definitely, but really everyone here is making a little work of love, so let's be honest and not dump on each other's works or step on each other's toes too much. All this is talking we're doing, is about and on the subject of, these lil personally made works of art and love, imho it'd be good keep this in mind too, when discussing/critiquing/comparing to the bows of others.
Ps, it's only so much one can do anyway, if we truly want maximized efficiency, best to find a compound bow or a rifle (;
+1.
——————-
Thanks pat, that was the quote I was looking for ;)
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
-
"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.
Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'
Saxton Pope
Nothing out of the ordinary.
From page 174 of Traditional Bowyer's Bible, vol. 4 (a frequently quoted book around here):
Horn-sinew composites
Good hunting-weight straight self bows outshoot most present hunting weight Asiatic composites. Occasionally an expensive imported composite will appear at a wood bow meet where bows are being chronographed. It's a difficult moment, because we know our simple wood bows will outshoot the composite, and know its owner doesn't know this, and that he doesn't want to know this. We try to avoid the comparison. Possibly the best hunting weight composites from the past would outshoot same-weight best wood bows by a few fps. The potential is there.
It is highly doubtful that Saxton Pope ever got a hold of a good Turkish bow. Turkish archery declined long beforehand and has been revived since, with a probable increase in performance and variety of draw weights compared to the bows made in the 19th/early 20th century. It doesn't seem like Saxton Pope was wrong based on the evidence available to him at the time. It may be that his actual assertion (that English longbows make for better artillery is correct. And in any case this has nothing to do with our discussion about whip tillered bows.
It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
So if I get published saying you are wrong, would you accept that, or would you just argue?
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
So if I get published saying you are wrong, would you accept that, or would you just argue?
Get published saying whip tillered bows are less efficient than static recurves. That's the evidence I'm asking for.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,
-
"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.
Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'
Saxton Pope
Nothing out of the ordinary.
From page 174 of Traditional Bowyer's Bible, vol. 4 (a frequently quoted book around here):
Horn-sinew composites
Good hunting-weight straight self bows outshoot most present hunting weight Asiatic composites. Occasionally an expensive imported composite will appear at a wood bow meet where bows are being chronographed. It's a difficult moment, because we know our simple wood bows will outshoot the composite, and know its owner doesn't know this, and that he doesn't want to know this. We try to avoid the comparison. Possibly the best hunting weight composites from the past would outshoot same-weight best wood bows by a few fps. The potential is there.
It is highly doubtful that Saxton Pope ever got a hold of a good Turkish bow. Turkish archery declined long beforehand and has been revived since, with a probable increase in performance and variety of draw weights compared to the bows made in the 19th/early 20th century. It doesn't seem like Saxton Pope was wrong based on the evidence available to him at the time. It may be that his actual assertion (that English longbows make for better artillery is correct. And in any case this has nothing to do with our discussion about whip tillered bows.
It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.
I mean, that would be a fun challenge 8)
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,
Please show me where in the original post I made a claim.
-
It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.
It's like you are trying to argue a certain style kitchen knife is the best knife of all kind, using the evidence that a certain characteristic makes certain kitchen knives better. But there are all other kinds of knives, like hunting knives, utility knives, or wood-carving knives, etc.
All you have for whip-ended bows is the theory that whip-ended-ness might be better for the straight bows with some stiff handle section but with fully bending limbs including tips. It does not apply to others types of bows.
-
After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.
This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.
Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.
Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,
Please show me where in the original post I made a claim.
Your first claim is that whip ended bows are looked badly upon. That was wrong. They are not, they have a purpose. let's start there.
-
It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.
It's like you are trying to argue a certain style kitchen knife is the best knife of all kind, using the evidence that a certain characteristic makes certain kitchen knives better. But there are all other kinds of knives, like hunting knives, utility knives, or wood-carving knives, etc.
All you have for whip-ended bows is the theory that whip-ended-ness might be better for the straight bows with some stiff handle section but with fully bending limbs including tips. It does not apply to others types of bows.
Ok but I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, I'm asking for evidence. When did this idea that whip-ended bows are less efficient become the norm (as it appears to be among internet users) and for what reason? What research was conducted and when? Cos I've looked high and low and haven't really found anything that would justify the dogma. It's just an atttude that is particularly prevalent among internet forumites. A lot of notable authors advocate whip-ends; some less notable authors with cheapie self-publishers don't.
-
Dude, you have no idea! You yourself said you haven't put the effort into verifying it and when you talk to folks who have, you ignore them!
-
Tom,
There is no validity in arguing on what you've read, or in spouting quotes.
Being written is not a guarantee of validity (unless it includes good experimental data or mathematical/scientific proof).
E.G One volume of TBB says the Mary Rose was raised from Plymouth harbour.... no it wasn't it was raised off Portsmouth... (I used to live down there and one of my old school mates was one of the divers).
People on here are interested in what you can do, make, demonstrate or at best an opinion based on solid experience.
The authors of books have had their say, and they can argue if they wish (if they are still alive!).
Many of us are published either on paper or on line, and where that is the case, we publish from our own experience.
You say:- "Ok but I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, I'm asking for evidence".
No one wants you to argue... your original post simply asked
"Why do whip ended bows have a bad reputation?"
It only ever needed one answer...
"They don't"
Being blunt, I for one am not interested in someone regurgitating the work of others, which they often seem to misunderstand or misinterpret anyway...
To quote a well known TV show:-
"And for that reason I'm out"
Del
-
It appears that Tom is also intermingling bows with whip-ended tips, with whip tillered bows.
If we broaden the theory from bows with whip-ended tips to include whip tilled bows, it might be possible that the alleged benefit also applies to working recurves. To do this, we need to establish first what it means for working recurves to be whip tillered.
-
Dude, you have no idea! You yourself said you haven't put the effort into verifying it and when you talk to folks who have, you ignore them!
Ahem... By verification I mean to provide independent published sources. I'm already aware many people here have covinced themselves that static recurves are better (mainly by buildng static recurves and otherwise non-whipping bows almost exclusively).
-
Dude, you have no idea! You yourself said you haven't put the effort into verifying it and when you talk to folks who have, you ignore them!
Ahem... By verification I mean to provide independent published sources. I'm already aware many people here have covinced themselves that static recurves are better (mainly by buildng static recurves and otherwise non-whipping bows almost exclusively).
Read the two posts above yours, it would do you well. But why would you not accept what I have to say?
-
Ok but I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, I'm asking for evidence. When did this idea that whip-ended bows are less efficient become the norm (as it appears to be among internet users) and for what reason? What research was conducted and when? Cos I've looked high and low and haven't really found anything that would justify the dogma. It's just an atttude that is particularly prevalent among internet forumites. A lot of notable authors advocate whip-ends; some less notable authors with cheapie self-publishers don't.
What you are missing is the fact that many people here are accomplished bow makers, some even with good competition records. Most of them have tried all kinds of style of bows. What they say have more weight than mere words of any published authors.
You did try to win your argument by quoting some theories or observations. But so far you only quoted theories or speculations concerning bows with whip-ended tips. Still you are asserting that whip-ended bows are better than static recurves.
I am trying to broaden your argument to make it applicable to working recurves that might be whip tillered, whatever that means. Then we might have something to consider seriously as many fiberglass recurves might be whip tillered. Do you have any idea what that means?
-
You came in here citing reference of material between 20 and 100 years old to formulate an opinion, pose that opinion as a question, then insist new knowledge isn't as valid as old, despite the world records, you mentioned before hand, set back then have all been exceeded save for a few. You must have a relatively low opinion of those you seek advice from to assume we can't possibly have a valid opinion because we weren't published almost 100 years ago.
-
I have self pubished,, does that count,, ;D I havent posted here yet,, on this,,
guys that know how to make a bow ,, could make a whip tillered bow shoot well if they wanted,,and have,, but I dont think its the best design,, Im really not sure what the best design is,, for me its what I like to make that has relatively good cast,,
-
I have self pubished,, does that count,, ;D
Don't be silly... it only counts if Tom quotes it... ::)
And TBF... I think maybe we should listen to him once he's made a self bow that shoots over 200fps? ??? ;)
Del
-
I have self pubished,, does that count,, ;D
Don't be silly... it only counts if Tom quotes it... ::)
And TBF... I think maybe we should listen to him once he's made a self bow that shoots over 200fps? ??? ;)
Del
Well if you wanna be Frank Del, that's alright by me, but only if I get to be Barbara. His hypothetical bow that shoots over 200 fps needs to be a whip tillered bow as well. But, at what arrow weight?
Funny thing is Del, I have been of the opinion that whip tillered bows may actually be advantageous at lower arrow weights, I just haven't had the opportunity to do much but think about it, instead of build and experiment. Id be willing to bet a flight arrow could easily go over 200 fps with a well made whip tillered bow. May even get good flight distance out of it. Doubt it would break the current record though. Like I said earlier, it would be a fun challenge, but this Tom guy talks to much to spend any time at it.
-
Dan Perry really did set a flight record with a quite whip ended bow. For some reason he disputed that it was actually whip ended despite it bending like a fishing rod at full draw.
Then he blew that mark away with a stiff ended Mollie that even had a bit of set. He even claimed that he unofficially broke 400 with it but the arrows were lost in a marsh past his shooting range.
-
Dan Perry really did set a flight record with a quite whip ended bow. For some reason he disputed that it was actually whip ended despite it bending like a fishing rod at full draw.
Then he blew that mark away with a stiff ended Mollie that even had a bit of set. He even claimed that he unofficially broke 400 with it but the arrows were lost in a marsh past his shooting range.
Well, that confirms it enough in my mind. When a guy like Perry makes a claim, im gonna hold it for truth. 400 yards though? Wow, i need to step up my game!
-
Dan Perry really did set a flight record with a quite whip ended bow. For some reason he disputed that it was actually whip ended despite it bending like a fishing rod at full draw.
Then he blew that mark away with a stiff ended Mollie that even had a bit of set. He even claimed that he unofficially broke 400 with it but the arrows were lost in a marsh past his shooting range.
Well, that confirms it enough in my mind. When a guy like Perry makes a claim, im gonna hold it for truth. 400 yards though? Wow, i need to step up my game!
It confirms what I said waaaay back... for every claim that whip ended is best, there's a claim that stiff ended is best.
Maybe this just shows its more about the bowyer than the style?
Del
-
Dan Perry really did set a flight record with a quite whip ended bow. For some reason he disputed that it was actually whip ended despite it bending like a fishing rod at full draw.
Then he blew that mark away with a stiff ended Mollie that even had a bit of set. He even claimed that he unofficially broke 400 with it but the arrows were lost in a marsh past his shooting range.
Well, that confirms it enough in my mind. When a guy like Perry makes a claim, im gonna hold it for truth. 400 yards though? Wow, i need to step up my game!
It confirms what I said waaaay back... for every claim that whip ended is best, there's a claim that stiff ended is best.
Maybe this just shows its more about the bowyer than the style?
Del
More to do with the bowyer than the style to a large degree, Unfortunately its impossible to separate the two, it also has much to do with quality of wood. But you know all that already. We just have to go off of trends in that case, an average. Of course, we can calculate exactly the energy storage in a whip tillered bow and know that the stiffer the tips are made, the more energy it stores ( assuming accommodation is made in the mid and inner limb ). And we can also calculate the efficiency that it throws an arrow. On average efficiency goes up but energy storage goes down. Id wager its not a linear exchange either with energy storage dropping faster than efficiency goes up.
I use the efficiency of whip tillered bows in my short recurves to a degree by keeping the bend all the way to my static recurves, without going too extreme. The idea being that bending towards the tips increases efficiency, I want as much of that as possible to compensate for my lower energy storage of such a short bow, without bending the tips and loosing more energy. So far, that thinking has worked out for me.
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/flightshoot-at-wendover-t6275.html
-
Thanks for sharing that Pat. That link has lots to study.
-
yes thank you great read,,
-
Funny thing is, soon as you think you really done something, you find out there are others holding back. I was excited to think I had beaten Dan Perry's record. Now I read he actually sent those arrows another 50 yards. Sheesh. At this point however, as was mentioned in the link above, its time to focus on arrows, the bow shoots better than the arrows will fly.