Why do whip ended bows have a bad reputation?

[PatM]

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.

[Tom Dulaney]

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.

[PatM]

You're out of your depth and likely just a post or two away from not being able to discuss things much more.

[scp]

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.

[Tom Dulaney]

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.

[scp]

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?

[sleek]

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

[PatM]

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.

[sleek]

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

[RyanY]

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.

[Digital Caveman]

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.

[Fox]

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

[PatM]

"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

[pumarchery]

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 (;

[bownarra]

"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