Yup, absolutely, make them wider and flatter so you're working within the particular wood's limits. I guess where I get upset is this stubborn notion that a heavy secondary wood ELB must fit a particular design based on "tradition". A perfect example of this can be found by googling English Longbow or long bow. A group of bow companies pop up. Go to any of the ones that are based across the ocean and you find trilaminates, and bows that are backed, made of woods that aren't native to Europe or the UK such as hickory.. Hickory isn't a European wood BTW. I'm a simple guy and think that since there is sooo much good available ash, white oak, elm and other woods that are Eurpean type trees, and since there are so many great bow makers out there, there must be a good reason why there aren't tons of heavy weight secondary self war bow for sale. There's a huge market just waiting for heavy weight secondary wood war bow replicas... Huge. They are simple bows, the wood is available, and plenty of skilled bow makers... And a huge potential customer base. It's a conspiracy I tell ya... It's all based on the perceived notion of what the actual bows must look like not what they really looked like. This ultimate perfect specimen of ultra high density white ash that made one or two bows doesn't wash. When tens of thousands of heavy weight self, secondary white wood bows were needed, did they really have the opportunity to search the country side for the perfect stave? I'll say it... I will always believe that the heavy secondary wood bows looked more like big flat bows... Why not? Is flattening a bow's belly really that huge of a technological jump?
