Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: lostarrow on January 31, 2014, 11:29:28 am
-
Del's post "Where do they break" lead to some interesting discussions .(some ,very heated) Glad to see things were hashed out quickly . Just goes to show the admirable character of those involved.
Without getting too heated , what are the thoughts and reasoning behind the practice of positive tillering , and possible origins . I have a few Ideas , but will keep them to myself for a bit ,so as not to influence other's theories. Sort of a discussion on past principles that may or may not work in present day with current knowledge.
(I didn't want to hijack Del's post)
-
I think how it got started will be hard to figure out... and largely open to speculation.
Predetermining 1/8" positive tiller, or ANY tiller measurement at brace height is not the best way to build bows, IMO. I tiller so that the limbs are bending in harmony, held as the archer will hold it, and its profile at brace s the result OF tillering/timing not a guide FOR it. Doing so avoids a lot hurdles down the road, especially with bows from odd shaped staves and such.
-
Not sure about its origin, but when I tiller a bow, I have not usually determined which end will be the top and which the bottom. I generally keep flipping the bow, end for end, throughout the tillering process till near the end, when I am forced to decide which will be the top. That decision is usually based on string / handle alignment, but if it is good both ways, I would make the weaker limb the top, since it does not work as hard. I do not intend to tiller a weaker limb, but there always is one.
Russ
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
-
I used to think it was bunkum, and even argued to that effect...
E.G. I'd say "If both limb tips come back the same distance at full draw. The lower limb is shorter, therefore it must be bending on a tighter radius (assuming a simple arc of a circle tiller).
If it bends on a tighter radius for the same applied force it must be weaker, not stronger!".
Of course you've all spotted the flaw in the argument... the applied force on the two limbs isn't the same :(.
My guess is some early bowyer noticed his lower limbs taking excessive set or going rubbery on him, so he then made 'em a tad stiffer.
IMO The best bowmaking is based on experience and observation. The maths is useful as a tool in some instances, but we should be aware that our ancestors did fine without it.
My first encounter with the need for a bit of positive was when a fully tillered and well shot in Ash primitive with wide flat limbs suddenly went weak on the lower limb. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. It was a very chastening experience, and I sought solace with the community here :laugh:
I think positive tiller is more of a shorthand measurement rather than an aim in itself. I've even had Robert Hardy himself, tell me one of my bows was "built upside down"!
It had negative tiller because I'd put the naturally deflexed limb as the lower one. I popped off the string and showed him. I didn't actually argue, as I felt it right to show due deference to the man :)
Target archers adjust their take down contraptions to have a bit of positive tiller, presumably it has some value in tuning the bow. It can't be about safeguarding the limbs on their bows as they are waaaay over designed and could be overdrawn to hades and back with no ill effect.
It tickles me when they say they are 'tillering' their bow ::).
Del
-
Sorry guys, after thinking about it ,I realised how silly it was to hold back an opinion in a discussion forum. ::) These are all our opinions after all, and I'm open to any and all of them.
My concern is that we may be misled (unintentionally) by conventions of the past, without allowing for different circumstances of our own time and place.
Our ancestors lacked the benefit of social media and shared knowledge from a wide spectrum. Couple that with a guild that needed to keep their secrets for matter of job security and you wind up with pockets of disconnected information and lost knowledge. A man would learn as an apprentice from his master (often only one) As we all know, not everyone is a good teacher and even if you know something , you may not be able to express it. Even if you do express it , it may not be fully understood. How many times has it happened that you were told to do something a certain way just because it worked?
The problem here is ,that tidbit of info might work in that instance with that piece of wood ,in that climate ,with that design for the intended purpose. If utilised but not understood, that information could quickly become the "common practice" If you are an apprentice and cranking out war bows designed for a specific purpose you would likely carry that " common practise" to be a hard fast rule.
Reverse engineering might also come into play . Looking at a successful bowyer's bow and taking measurements and trying to mimic it could lead to copying a flaw that may be due to circumstances other than design, such as abuse , poor storage conditions , change in climate etc. Just about anyone who asks how to make a bow, has the mistaken impression that you form the bow to have a curve (when they are really looking at the set. They think it is the cause not the effect.
I guess what I'm trying to say is," Knowledge without understanding, is not wisdom". (feel free to embroider that on a pillow :D) Without understanding how something works , information can be next to useless or in some cases ,detrimental. The English longbow made from yew benefits from certain design characteristics that result in utter failure if applied to other species or designs . We know this because of our advanced knowledge of cell structure and physics. Our very ancient ancestors may have learned by trial and error.
I would like some hard facts to help me evolve, and become a better bowyer. I have heard more times than I can count that the bottom limb needs to be stronger because it is under more stress, usually followed up by " it's a fact " or "physics proves it ". I don't feel this is always the case.
Can someone prove to me that the bottom limb is under more stress? Please state your arguments /thoughts without fear of offending . This is a discussion to promote advance . I will not be offended and don't intend to offend, but will not accept "Old adages" or" Common knowledge " without at least a guess as to why. We are all here to learn.
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
Good point...................... why is the upper limb longer?
-
I used to think it was bunkum, and even argued to that effect...
E.G. I'd say "If both limb tips come back the same distance at full draw. The lower limb is shorter, therefore it must be bending on a tighter radius (assuming a simple arc of a circle tiller).
If it bends on a tighter radius for the same applied force it must be weaker, not stronger!".
Of course you've all spotted the flaw in the argument... the applied force on the two limbs isn't the same :(.
My guess is some early bowyer noticed his lower limbs taking excessive set or going rubbery on him, so he then made 'em a tad stiffer.
IMO The best bowmaking is based on experience and observation. The maths is useful as a tool in some instances, but we should be aware that our ancestors did fine without it.
My first encounter with the need for a bit of positive was when a fully tillered and well shot in Ash primitive with wide flat limbs suddenly went weak on the lower limb. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. It was a very chastening experience, and I sought solace with the community here :laugh:
I think positive tiller is more of a shorthand measurement rather than an aim in itself. I've even had Robert Hardy himself, tell me one of my bows was "built upside down"!
It had negative tiller because I'd put the naturally deflexed limb as the lower one. I popped off the string and showed him. I didn't actually argue, as I felt it right to show due deference to the man :)
Target archers adjust their take down contraptions to have a bit of positive tiller, presumably it has some value in tuning the bow. It can't be about safeguarding the limbs on their bows as they are waaaay over designed and could be overdrawn to hades and back with no ill effect.
It tickles me when they say they are 'tillering' their bow ::).
Del
Also good info drawn from a great deal of experience! ........... missing a bit of info to complete the picture. The ash bow.... was the bottom limb different in dimension to the top in relation to where the bow was held and string was drawn? I would think that would make all the difference in the world, no?
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
Good point...................... why is the upper limb longer?
This way the actual center of the bow rides in the croch of the hand and when drawn, balances very nicely.
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
I allways thought that the bow was built with both limbs been equal length. So if a bow is 70" overall, I mark it 35" then go about 1 1/2" or whatever above center for my arrow rest/shelf.
So this makes the lower limb longer, but then again I guess it depends if you are shooting split or 3 under..?
But technically the bow limbs are equal because the handle is built or glued on from center point.
-
If the pivot (where you rest the crotch of your hand ) is the dimensional center, and your arrow is placed on the string correspondingly higher to match where it will be resting above your hand,........... and you have the same length above and below your pivot to where you lay out the working limbs (fades on a stiff handle)......... and you are pulling the string in the center..... why would you make one limb longer than the other? Any thoughts?It's not a trick question bit will lead to others (I hope)
The difference between split finger and Mediterenian release is a matter of a finger width that can be taken into account with layout of the fades ,which would then make the start of the bottom working limb 1/2" or so farther from the fulcrum. Seems easier than trying to compensate with limb stiffness.
I like where this is going! Thanks for the positive responses guys!
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
Good point...................... why is the upper limb longer?
This way the actual center of the bow rides in the croch of the hand and when drawn, balances very nicely.
this is how i do it,,right or wrong..center of bow in the center of palm..3 finger split..for what that worth..lol
-
It is all about string angle. 8)
-
@ Lostarrow.
The whole build along including tillering videos is on my blog.
Starts here:- 29th July
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/change-of-tack-some-design.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/change-of-tack-some-design.html)
The "I can't believe it" moment is here:- 9th October!
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/i-cant-believe-it.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/i-cant-believe-it.html)
Short answer, I think the arrow pass is 1" above centre and the upper limb starts there the lower limb starts about 3" below centreline.
Del
-
This is or could be a complicated subject...For me it is balance. If I tiller a bow to feel well balanced on the draw it normally is positive on the top limb. What causes this is my drawing fingers are above center on the string. The top limb has to be weaker/positive for me to achieve balance drawing and at full draw. Thus positive tiller is born for me. I don't think it's a rule just more of a result. I might add measuring tiller can be difficult to do with all the asymmetrical shapes limb thickness and whop-de-doo's. My finished tiller is definitely done by feel and balance.
-
I've always thought it's because when you're crouching and going through the bush stalking brey you want most of what you're trying to carry with you in front of you and in your visual range, and when you draw you want the bottom limb off the ground which is easier if it's shorter.
-
I have started to notice recently that the tillerboard is only good upto about 22 and a bit inches. After that it has to be all by hand and feel.
If I rely to heavily on the board (knackered elbow) then i tend to come out top limb a tad stiff,
-
In most cases positive tiller is solely as a result of a longer upper limb. There is actually no increased bend.
That's the real answer.
I don't think so Pat
-
Well take a bow(with a longer top limb) that sits with 1/8 positive tiller and draw a line from the short limb tip to a corresponding point on the upper limb.
The "string" will now be the same distance from the belly of mid-limb on both sides.
If you trace the arc it will match if your ability to execute an even bend is good.
To actually show true positive tiller, your limbs would have to be even length. I would believe it then.
-
Marc could you clear this up...? need an experienced bowyer to get this positive thing settled....... :)
-
I sat here for a minute thinking, "Waaait, I'm not one to clear up anything like this. I'm a physics guy, but this is history. I haven't posted anything exceptional about history, have I?"
Then I remembered I share the name with a certain bowyer I'm sure you've heard about ::)
-
Let me reiterate that I only mean my theory applies if your limbs are of unequal length and the positive tiller is minimal. I would think if your upper limb is an inch to 1.5 inches longer the positive tiller would need to be over 1/4 inch before it could be said to be as a result of a true greater bend plus the limb length differential.
-
I will have to check out that blog ,Del.
PatM. The question I'm after is why would you make the top limb longer and try to compensate by adjusting tiller on the bottom? Does it not make more sense to make the dimensional center of the bow the actual pivot that bears on your bow hand. If you shoot three fingers under (I just happen to) your middle finger lays in perfect relation to the center of the bow, with the arrow resting about 1-1/4" above on both the bow and the string. Then measure out your desired distance for handle and match the distance above for arrow pass /sight window . Start the fades at the same distance from that center and make the limbs the same dimensions .(length ,taper etc. ) If this is the case, the bottom limb should be equal to the top. Everything is symmetrical both string and bow.
The only reason I can think why you would need a positive tiller is if you placed the arrow in the dimensional center of the bow, which would then make a Mediterranean release line up better. (not as perfect as the former method with the shape of my hands, but I don't think enough to make a difference). You now talking about a difference of say 1" - 1-1/2"
Pat got me thinking with his longer top limb statement (which I understand what you are saying completely , there's no argument here ,to your statement) The positive tiller / stiff limb on the bottom only seems to make sense , if you are placing your arrow in the center of the bow, instead of your hand.
So that leads to the next question.
1:Who lays out their bows with the arrow in the center , and who lays it out with your hand in the center.
2: Also , is there a good reason to place the arrow in the dimensional center of the bow? ( as I see it , there is no way to draw , short of a mechanical release or one finger under and one over ,that will put the arrow in the apex of the string angle)
-
Without getting into that endless circular argument Tim Baker used to always bring up, I think a bow with a longer upper limb is just far more forgiving.
There is just no way a person can actually shoot a bow from the exact center without a release and a shelf on the right side at mid bow.
To take it to an extreme you can string up an untillered bamboo pole bow and shoot it very well with most of the bend taking place only in the upper limb. If you flip it over and shot it with the short stiff limb up it just won't work the same.
-
That's what i'm saying ,Pat. If you are shooting with the arrow above center anyway, why not lay the bow out with your one hand in the center of the bow and the draw hand in the center of the string. Making both limbs equal length and tiller.
When you layout a bow , how are you doing it?
I know the quote from Tim Baker was used to back your statement , but ,once again anecdotes and common practise without evidence to back it up , will only serve to hinder our progress. From reading through Del's thread ( the inspiration for this one), it seems that a lot of people are using a positive tiller with no solid basis as to why and how much. As did I .I'm not faulting anyone but myself ,for not looking into it sooner. There is still a lot to learn and relearn about our chosen craft.
-
@ Lostarrow.
The whole build along including tillering videos is on my blog.
Starts here:- 29th July
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/change-of-tack-some-design.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/change-of-tack-some-design.html)
The "I can't believe it" moment is here:- 9th October!
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/i-cant-believe-it.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/i-cant-believe-it.html)
Short answer, I think the arrow pass is 1" above centre and the upper limb starts there the lower limb starts about 3" below centreline.
Del
So ,Del, the bottom limb was 2" shorter, from fade to nock?
-
That's what i'm saying ,Pat. If you are shooting with the arrow above center anyway, why not lay the bow out with your one hand in the center of the bow and the draw hand in the center of the string. Making both limbs equal length and tiller.
When you layout a bow , how are you doing it?
I know the quote from Tim Baker was used to back your statement , but ,once again anecdotes and common practise without evidence to back it up , will only serve to hinder our progress. From reading through Del's thread ( the inspiration for this one), it seems that a lot of people are using a positive tiller with no solid basis as to why and how much. As did I .I'm not faulting anyone but myself ,for not looking into it sooner. There is still a lot to learn and relearn about our chosen craft.
Tim was actually insisting on the equal limb length /tiller and shooting from the center of the bow.
I like a bow that points with the same natural angle that your extended clenched hand will naturally have. A more Yumi like tiller with an upper limb that bends more and tilts the bow forward a fraction.]
This means an upper limb about two inches longer, placing the arrow very close to the dimensional center.
-
@ Lostarrow.
I've just popped out to the grage and measured it. The lower limb is about an inch and a half shorter.
Del
-
It really is very simple.
You put different forces on the bow limbs when you draw the bow by hand.
Bow hand pressure point and the point where you actually pull the string from are what you need to think about and their relation with where actual measured center is on the bow.
Tiller you bow to bend evenly and be balanced at full draw and the lower limb needs to be stiffer.
It really is as simple as that.
I don't understand what you are all talking about! Just tiller the darned bow to be balanced in the hand at full draw. >:D >:D
This is, always has been and always should be the way to tiller a bow.
I'm saying no more. :o
-
I'm saying no more. :o
Oh come on Mike, I'm sure if we prod you a little, you might ;) >:D
I think the (IMO naive) practice of clamping a bow on the tiller and/or supporting it and drawing it from the geometric centre causes trouble.
But we all have our ways of doing stuff.
Del
-
My statement was directed at Pat with equal length limbs in mind, what I usually make with a stiff handle bow. Taking a stave with no character and tillering it out so that it stays still in the hand while drawing will usually result in a slight positive tiller. Pat has come and clarified his statement saying that he was referring to unequal length limbs such as longbows, to which I still disagree.
In any case, I agree with Mike. Hand pressure and how you draw make a difference
-
Oh my! I don't understand all the furor.
Most of my bows have equal limbs. The arrow pass is usually 1.25 in above center but that can vary depending on tiller.
Some do not.
I tiller from the geometric middle of the bow.
The bow comes off the rope and pulley and I check tiller in front of a mirror as I draw it, window at night or have my wife snap a digi. I believe noting approximates how you hold a bow in the hand. That includes tillering from where you draw.
I want the limbs tillered evenly or the bottom limb stiff by about a 1/4 inch at full draw. A few swipes with a scraper accomplishes that.
What really counts is what the bow is doing at full draw. As long as brace is close, i don't care much more than that.
I have made many bows like this and a few with shorter lower limbs All are balanced on the draw and all are balanced when in the hand walking.
The tillering process takes care of variations in design, etc.
There is more than one way to make a bow.
If you want to make the stump end the bottom. Fine. There may be some merit in that. I don't know. I have not tested it. It is not important to me.
If you only want to cut bow wood when there is a full moon. That's fine too. I never tested that either.
Chances are if you think a factor makes a difference it probably will.
Jawge
-
I gotta agree with Jawge. Definitely more than one way to make a bow. A lot of us are self taught, so there are gonna be a lot of different solutions to problems. I don't measure for positive tiller, most of the time I don't measure much of anything. Sometimes that causes me some grief though, I don't recommend that approach. I can't say that I've ever payed attention to which end of the stave was the trunk end, so I don't know if that matters either. I know that I should probably take this with a more scientific approach, but this isn't rocket science for me. Its just something I enjoy doing as long as I keep it simple. My great great uncle Fred was a carpenter, but he never owned a square. His philosophy was" if it looks good to the eye, it can't be to far off". For the most part, that is my approach to making bows. Of course I have to add to that, if it feels good in the hand throughout the draw and release, it can't be far off. Just my .02. Josh
-
It seems the original thought for this thread was that there might be a "better" way of tillering a bow or laying out the limb length but the basic shootability of the bow should be the prime consideration.
Most people seem to agree that slight positive tiller , however it is believed to be achieved) accomplishes that best. It has stood the test of many years of bowmaking and shooting.
There is nothing wrong with thinking that you can change all that and switching things up but you'll very likely come right back to the proven way of doing things.
-
That sums it up for me as well Josh. I have found this post very interesting, as it is good to try and understand why something works. Positive tiller for me is the result of my tiller not necessarily the goal. I know that for the bow to be balanced as I draw it, the bottom limb will typically be just a tad stiffer. I shoot with a lot of heel in my grip, split finger. I believe that shifts the dynamic center down. I cant the bow a good bit which I believe shifts it back up some. If I'm shooting off a shelf I hold the bow a little different than if off the hand, so a formula for me to use or a measurement is out. Does it balance when it's drawn? I made a bow a year and a half ago when I first joined PA. When the tiller was done, the bow appeared weak in the bottom limb, but it shot well. I popped the shelf off and turned the bow over. It looked swell in the pic but you could feel that it tipped as you drew it, no bueno. I turned it back over and posted the pics. I was chided by a few for the tiller being off as the bottom limb appeared weak. I simply knew that not to be the case on this bow. It balanced well, and that is the goal. No measurements required.
-
It really is very simple.
You put different forces on the bow limbs when you draw the bow by hand.
Bow hand pressure point and the point where you actually pull the string from are what you need to think about and their relation with where actual measured center is on the bow.
Tiller you bow to bend evenly and be balanced at full draw and the lower limb needs to be stiffer.
It really is as simple as that.
I don't understand what you are all talking about! Just tiller the darned bow to be balanced in the hand at full draw. >:D >:D
This is, always has been and always should be the way to tiller a bow.
I'm saying no more. :o
Come on Mike, if it were that simple , the monkeys would rule the world (not sure they don't right now ;)) I know you said you weren't saying any more ,but............................. you didn't give a reason for why you want the bottom limb to be stiffer. Now we are falling back into the dangerous territory of " we've always done it that way." I'm not saying it's wrong , It's just that no one has convinced me that it's right.
My statement was directed at Pat with equal length limbs in mind, what I usually make with a stiff handle bow. Taking a stave with no character and tillering it out so that it stays still in the hand while drawing will usually result in a slight positive tiller. Pat has come and clarified his statement saying that he was referring to unequal length limbs such as longbows, to which I still disagree.
In any case, I agree with Mike. Hand pressure and how you draw make a difference
If I'm reading correctly , and it is difficult to sometimes decipher the nuances of our language in type, you and Pat are coming to the same conclusion from different angles. If your stiff handle bow that balances in the hand (I'm assuming the bow hand is in the dimensional center?) is longer below that point to the fades than it is above that point to the top fade ,the bottom limb is shorter . If it is tillered on a tree while clamped ( stiff handle not moving) and the limbs were tillered to bend the same distance at the tips, the bottom limb will be under more stress.(because of it's length).
Now, when you take it off the tree, it will pivot in the hand because you changed the pivot point thus giving you a positive tiller and a weaker top limb.
But ,you now have a weaker top limb ! Not only that, but the bow is tilting forward at full draw. Mike had mentioned that he tillers his the same. I'm assuming that his bottom limb/relation to center is the same as Marc's thus giving the same result. This all agrees with what PatM said in the first statement, I believe.
Sorry but it still doesn't provide sound reason to make the bottom limb shorter from fade to nock and make it stiffer to compensate. I'm not saying it doesn't work , it obviously does . I've been building them the same. But the top limb is obviously now the weak link in the chain , instead of taking it's share of the load. This would seem to be the answer to Del's question of why they break on the top limb .
When it comes down to wood bows breaking, the sad truth is , they will all eventually break . If they didn't , we would have a huge array of historical examples to learn from. The ones that get used , break. The better the stress is distributed the longer it will last. The bows Del is talking about at his club likely get used very often (once a week?) Most of us don't get the chance to do that . Some of us own several bows and change it up even if we do go often.
Now ,...... what problem would there be with truly tillering the limbs the same. I can't see any ,but maybe I'm missing something. I can only think that it would add longevity and shoot as well or better.
Arguments for and against would be appreciated, even if hypothetical.
-
lostarrow, most of us shoot with a split finger draw which puts more strain on the bottom limb. The idea is making it a little stiffer and stronger will compensate.
Jawge
-
Make a bow with a positive tiller and then flip it over and se if you like it better upside down. The proof is in the shooting.
-
Pat, I'm not saying it would be better to have a positive tiller on top or bottom . No " one limb stiffer than the other" at all. Just two balanced limbs with no positive tiller.
-
I think it was started by some trouble maker to have a good argument while drinking beer around the fire >:D
-
That's fine but getting the limbs to stay balanced with the different stresses from drawing is what seems to be the issue.
You can build the bow that way, but can you keep it that way?
-
I'm not sure but I know I'm going to try . We'll see what happens. Thanks for all of the responses guys!
lostarrow, most of us shoot with a split finger draw which puts more strain on the bottom limb. The idea is making it a little stiffer and stronger will compensate.
Jawge
I think we've determined that it's dependant on the layout of the bow . It doesn't have to be stressed more , it's only when you make the bottom limb shorter .
I think it was started by some trouble maker to have a good argument while drinking beer around the fire >:D
Just as good a guess as any I've ever heard ;)
As far as doing it the traditional way, I'm all for it! The problem I have is.......... Who here has definitive proof that they are doing it the traditional way. In the recent past, we've all but lost the information.I think we can all agree that a lot of B.S. gets thrown into the mix when someone say's" that's how my granddad used to do it"! As Josh pointed out , a great deal of what we've relearned ,is self taught, and gleened from the tidbits we could gather from any source we could. (not neccesarily reliable) I used to have a book about how to make a bow, written by an Englishman about 1940-50 or so. I remember him saying to make the tips heavy , because this will help cast the arrow farther and make the bow shoot better. this was the sole purpose of adding horn nocks :o .Not such a great book , but the only one I had ever seen to that point. (pre internet, and primitive archer was very new on the scene. Almost impossible to find here.)
I've been working with wood since I was about 10 ( wonderful parents that encouraged that sort of thing) I was given a knife when I was about 6-7 years old and spent most of my "play time " wandering around the bush, which was plentiful where I grew up. I've always been keen to learn how to do and make stuff and with a large extended family, Aunts and Uncles that grew up as self reliant pioneers ,I had plenty of teachers. I studied cabinetmaking and learned how to do the tasks in the traditional manner , before applying the machines. I feel this is a good approach with everything. I have also worked with many that had three time the experience ,but never really learned very much. These were also the fellows that were expected to teach the apprentices. Don't feel I'm trying to buck the system or throw tradition to the wind( If I was I wouldn't be making wood bows ;)) I'm also not trying to set any records, or get my name in any books. I just feel that some of the convention we follow may not be done with sound reason. It may be a good rule of thumb in one case and complete nonsense in another.
Once again , thanks for the input everyone! I feel this was a fruitful exercise and no one got their feathers ruffled. Makes me proud to be part of this group!