Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)

[BowEd]

I can appreciate that myself.

[sleek]

Badger, how many fps difference will 36 grains make? Thats the difference between 26 and 28 inches draw at 50 pounds. 50 grains difference at 70 pounds.  For war bows, the difference is huge, 108 grains difference in just 2 inches of draw for a 150 pound bow.

Now let me ask this, as it is set up, what is the grain tollerance on an arrow? Say you have a 50 pound bow and have an arrow that weighs 464. Would that be allowed?

[sleek]

  We have already hijacked Tim's thread but for the record I have no desire to change it. I do use the method Sleek is suggesting when I am testing light arrow flight bows but for this we need a basic standard. In regular flight shooting all bows shoot 450 grains even if they draw 100#. Here we simply set a different standard using hunting weight arrows. This is a hunters round.

Fine, i will move to another thread.

[Tim Baker]

Badger:

How about this: The meet proceeds as presently contemplated, then one afternoon those who are interested in doing so, set up a test spot where full stats will be taken and bows precisely chronographed. No effort needed on you guy's part, except maybe to announce that this feature will exist. We'd bring the needed scales, arrows, chronographs, etc. If ok I'll start on a tentative stats list and test standards, based on the first meet's testing. Is there any reason not to do this?

[PatM]

At the first Pope and Young meet back in the 30s Chet Stevenson used a 90 pound plus static to shoot a broadhead around 325 yards. Chet was a hunter.

 I want to see that, not a potato sack footrace.

 

[Badger]

  Pat, that how the regular flight league is set up. You will be seeing plenty of broadhead shots over 300 yards in the future because they are shooting 450 grain arrows. I am quite certain you will be seeing 70 # bows hit the 300 mark. We are using a hunters standard of 10 grains per pound. If you find that boring I suggest you don't attend.

[Badger]

Tim, this is already happening, instead of the 100 plus bow weight standard it is switched to 10 grains per pound, they are actually very similar but 70# bow will be much less efficient and 35# bow will be more efficient using the 100 plus bow weight measure. The only thing we don't have is designated shooters. I am so busy getting this together I don't have time for anything else. We are currently weighing mass, bow length, and recording material and construction. We will be using a top grade scale and the spread sheet is already equipped to handle this info. To be honest my main interest in the speed was so that I could compare speeds to distances, so from my standpoint I wanted to see the same archers shoot through the chrono as shooting on the flight field. This would give other archers a better idea about potential. The current crop of bow builders has gotten so good I doubt you will see much more improvement using standard designs.

Badger:

How about this: The meet proceeds as presently contemplated, then one afternoon those who are interested in doing so, set up a test spot where full stats will be taken and bows precisely chronographed. No effort needed on you guy's part, except maybe to announce that this feature will exist. We'd bring the needed scales, arrows, chronographs, etc. If ok I'll start on a tentative stats list and test standards, based on the first meet's testing. Is there any reason not to do this?

[Tim Baker]

Badger:

"I am so busy getting this together I don't have time for anything else."

I can imagine. So just these parting words on the subject and I'll quit pestering you on line here. I can do a better job of pestering you in person here in L.A.

I'm starting to feel semi rude trying to crash you're party with a smaller party. So I and interested others will try to set up our own party in the future, so we can take stats to our heart's content.

So this is me butting out.


All:  Yes, Badger/Steve and I are disagreeing about the value of the proposed stat taking.  But despite appearance, Steve and I are close friends, but do continually argue about bow design, so much so, and this in no exaggeration, that 9 times out of 10, when we happen to be driving to some bow related location, argument will begin almost immediately, and become so engrossing that we miss the first turn, the argument resuming while searching the for the turn, such that half the time we miss the second turn too.  Apparently one of us argues too much.

[sleek]

Man, i hate it when parents fight....

[Bob Barnes]

Tim,
My invitation to MoJam still stands and if you wanted to set something up, Keith would be more than willing to add it to the schedule...there is plenty of time for it there.  I can see the interest in speed testing and I'm thinking most of the shooters would like to know how fast their bows shoot.  We will have a chronograph there, and I can bring mine if needed...

Sleek,
It would be nice if you could attend as well.  The idea of using a formula is interesting as well.  I would love to plug my friend John Murray's to your 10gpp x draw/28 formula.  John shoots a 130# ELB and his arrows have hammer forged bodkin points.  I would venture to say that if he followed your formula we would run out of room on our 300 yard long course.

As someone that has been to almost every MoJam and considers myself part of the family there, I invite everyone that shares this passion for making bows and watching arrows fly! 

[sleek]

Bob, I have EVERY intention of being there. I have been once. Your friends reputaion with that long bow precedes him, I have heard a lot about him.

I want to stress, i did not make that formula, I just said it needed to exist. Dave, Aka Woodbear, from paleoplanet came up with it.

[Tim Baker]

Bob Barnes:

Keith is still the guy? That's pleasant news. 20 years ago, when I challenged the old Leatherwall anti whitewood folks to a shootout, Keith jumped in and offered to host the meet. Might never have happened without him. I've got an ancient e-address of his. I'll contact him and see what we can do. Thanks for paving the way. 

[Badger]

Badger:

"I am so busy getting this together I don't have time for anything else."

I can imagine. So just these parting words on the subject and I'll quit pestering you on line here. I can do a better job of pestering you in person here in L.A.

I'm starting to feel semi rude trying to crash you're party with a smaller party. So I and interested others will try to set up our own party in the future, so we can take stats to our heart's content.

So this is me butting out.


All:  Yes, Badger/Steve and I are disagreeing about the value of the proposed stat taking.  But despite appearance, Steve and I are close friends, but do continually argue about bow design, so much so, and this in no exaggeration, that 9 times out of 10, when we happen to be driving to some bow related location, argument will begin almost immediately, and become so engrossing that we miss the first turn, the argument resuming while searching the for the turn, such that half the time we miss the second turn too.  Apparently one of us argues too much.

  Tim, do you favor the old method of a 500 grain arrow for everyone and using bow weight plus 100 or do you favor a grains per pound method? Sleeks method might be a good updated version to think about for a testing event.

[Tim Baker]

I have high hopes for a version of the test elevated sinew bow here, but the bow gods care nothing about high hopes. Several years ago I came up with a wood bow design which had a compound-like FD curve, and raved to several bowmaking friends about it. Shouldn't have. It was slower than a poorly tillered D bow. So present high hopes are on hold.  It's pictured here before the outer limbs were pyramid shaped. 

[Tim Baker]

Second try.