Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: redhawk55 on July 29, 2014, 06:20:19 am
-
Have posted this topic in the PP/Primitive Flight Bows in May with some less replies.
Maybe in PA will be some more discussion?
"Whenever there was some spare- time the last weeks I read Buckminster Fullers essays on synergetics. Synergetic is actually in vogue but less people including myself understand its real meaning. Basically it is telling us that the component parts of a whole system donīt tell anything about its capablities and that the weakest spot of the system is its most powerful component part. F.e. have a look at the trim tab of the hugest cargo ship.
So what is the weakest point of our beloved bow/arrow- system?
I'm not really clear about that?
I think it is really important to focus on components like bow- limbs, string, tips, arrow.....etc.at first, after this lets have a look on tension, compression, hysterisis.......etc."
-
The human :P
... I'll leave this deep question to the people with the true insight :)
-
so the strongest part of the chain...is the weakest link?? :-\
-
so the strongest part of the chain...is the weakest link?? :-\
I think it should be thought of more like the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, however that is if you look at the chain as a whole and not as individual links.
Grady
-
If you are refering to flight shooting I would have to say the rules are the weakest link. If you look at the distances of modern recurves vs modern longbows the difference is huge, even though the speeds are not that much apart. Carbon arrows vs wood arrows, elevated rests, etc. The archer himself can make a difference of about 20 fps just with his release, but if the release is not clean the arrow will come out sideways and loose velocity quickly. Hard to say what the weakest link is. If you loose by one foot it is the same as loosing by 100 yards.
-
The weakest part is probably the archer.
The bow and the arrow are really 2 separate systems that have to be melded into behaving like one.
I short, the arrow has to be tuned to the bow or the bow to the arrow.
Some archers have difficulty in recognizing excellent arrow flight for a variety of reasons which limits the capability of the archer.
Jawge
-
Agh, Buckminster . A man ahead of his times!
I would say the limbs.
The string is overbuilt.
The arrows are tuned to match the bow.
...... But the limbs are designed to be almost at their breaking point to be the most efficient.
-
The human :P
... I'll leave this deep question to the people with the true insight :)
The weakest part is probably the archer.
The bow and the arrow are really 2 separate systems that have to be melded into behaving like one.
I short, the arrow has to be tuned to the bow or the bow to the arrow.
Some archers have difficulty in recognizing excellent arrow flight for a variety of reasons which limits the capability of the archer.
Jawge
I have to agree by far the weakest and strongest part is the Archer !
-
If you are going to discuss Synergy and archery systems, then it would likely be best to determine what the "goal" of the system truely is. A flight shooter that is trying to shoot a few arrows the maximum distance has a goal much different than the hunter that wants to shoot thousands of arrows conistantly, for years.
From the systems perspective, the archer might break the system down (broadly) in this way:
1) Bow geometry - to include general shape, reflex, deflex, stiff-vs-flex handle, nocks, brace height, draw length, arrow length, arrow shape, fletching design, string type, etc.
2) Materials (& properties) - wood species, string material, glues, fletching, points, etc.
3) Techniques - toxophile skills/procedures, tillering, string building, arrow building, shooting form, etc.
4) Goal of the system - maximized performance, maximized durability/dependability, maximized efficiency (all of these are different)
Most of these items have been discussed individually in numerous threads on numerous forums. I remember many serious, very technical discussions on PP during the 2005-2008 years when a lot of geometry and materials knowledge was thoroughly (seemingly) hashed out and I'm pretty sure that at least in part, TBB IV was influenced by those discussions. A lot of this info is still around in the various archives, how-tos, and reference threads. I recommend a broad reading of a lot of this material to get a good overview as well a building a bunch of bows (failures are as important as success). At that point, a discussion about some aspect of a bow within the context of an overall goal would likely be a better benefit.
The final gestalt (assuming the builder is also the shooter) will likely still have the human as the weak link. The ability of the individual to always correctly interpret what they are seeing and to make the optimum choice for the goal they have in mind is a fairly rare talent. We all have a natural tendency towards some bias due to our personal senses of porportion, beauty, preferences, etc. We also have personal limitations on the amount of knowledge we can bring to bear, how we make decisions, our physical limitations (my eyesight aint as good as it used to be and without special tools, I can't see a perfect arc). Additionally, within the realm of the materials we work with building bows, we can never know the true properties of the materials and can only make (albeit educated) estimates and generalizations about the properties and likely resultant behaviors of the materials.
I just don't think the whole elephant can be eaten in one sitting (I'm not even sure how big the elephant truely is). Knowledge and experience are the only ways to get to the synergy you seek. There are probably a number of folks that could be considered "Master Bowyers" and they would be the most qualified to discuss this topic and I'm not even sure if they would consider themselves Master Bowyers given the humble nature they always demonstrate.
I posted the above to make sure I was clear about the full scope of your topic.
My .02
Ken
PS - Just to be clear on one distinction, my bow-arrow-string-shooter system is not the same as your bow-arrow-string-shooter system and should (theoretically) have a different weakest link. Each system is unique within iteself and has to be evaluated independently of other sytems. So, either we can discuss generalizations about archery systems or we can discuss specifics about one particular system.
-
What the heck are you people smoking?
I just drove past a dome home on Rohret Road. Bucky at his finest! The least possible material use to enclose maximum space - true, but the silliest possible shape for a dwelling.
-
The weakest links are those that fall outside the controls of the system. In archery those might be humidity, wind speed and direction, terrain obstructions, integral flaws hidden in the wood, or an illness or injury to the archer. Many of these can be controlled to a degree, but none are completely immune to uncontrolled failure.
I have to agree with what was said about the system objectives above. Archery as a whole is way too broad of a system for a single objective to cover all aspects related to it's performance and design. (Captain Obvious moment of the Day!) Hidden synergies rely upon more factors than we can typically calculate to the -inth degree, yet each can matter greatly and highly impact the performance outcome of the entire system. Which is why the world is best understood in analog and only dimly reflected thru a digital perspective. (...but that observation belongs to an entirely other discussion!)
OneBow
-
I agree with Jawge. The builder and the shooter.
-
What the heck are you people smoking?
I just drove past a dome home on Rohret Road. Bucky at his finest! The least possible material use to enclose maximum space - true, but the silliest possible shape for a dwelling.
Is it really the silliest , or just displeasing asthetically to most? A golfer would love it😄! They are very practical in areas prone to Tornado , hurricane or wildfires.
-
For the most part if you are asked what the weak link is in a well established sysytem like archery in order to limit the topic you would have to make the assumption that the archer, the bow builder and the arrow maker all knew what they were doing and the materials and recniques used were at a high level of competence. The only weak link in target or hunting is the archer. Flight shooting is not the same because we are still actively involved in the process of discovery, I feel the arrows are the weakest link in primitive flight shooting. Allen Case one of our regular flight shooters has mastered the art of building arrows and his arrows tend to fly about 100 yards further from the same bows as archers with inferior arrows. Once his tecniques are mastered and established then the weak link will likley be between the bows and the archer.
-
The string is overbuilt.
That's probably cause you use FF or Dacron. Since I stopped that and make strings from linen, they feel no longer overbuilt. They, like a wooden selfbow, must then be made reasonably close to what is needed, and more than three times stronger is obviously overbuilt.
Making strings from natural fibers is very much like making wooden bows.
-
Great replies!
If I' m understanding Bucky Fuller right, he tells us to leave a nerds point of view. Master bowyers, as other experts too, are often "to business as usual- minded".
As posted above, there had been hundreds of topics and discussions focused on designs, capablities of woods, strings, shooting techniques, arrows.....................etc. I guess Bucky Fuller's method is to look at first at the whole thing, not its details. I think this is hard to do, cause we all are educated to become or to be specialists.
There are a lots of great bowyers, well and clever done bows and perfectly matched and beautiful looking arrows out there, why not to try to outperform Tim Bakers 200f/s challenge?
I try to focuse on the exceptions. Some month ago I came across a chrono- test during the weekly training of a primitive archery community. There was a 70lbs osage longbow vs. a 48lbs BL- bow, same arrow, the BL shots the 270grs. arrow at 174f/s, the osage at 158f/s. I checked the BL- bow: a very well done flatbow, parallel limbs, skinny not to long tips( modified molly), so far nothing special. But the BL itself looks to be extremely dense, very dark latewood. The bowyer told me this BL was the the hardest BL stave he ever had come across.
What makes a stave better than another stave of the same wood? I guess we' ve cared to less of the indications of real great staves.
Steve, I know of Alans outstanding arrows, but I' ve never had a number, this "big fat 100 yards" is indicating a very weak spot.
Did you know the spine of Alans arrows?
By the way, whats the highest possible spine with wooden arrow- shafts?
I' m still thinking that the capablities of an arrow- shaft should be better defined by spine/mass. The term arrow- spine tells not to much about the weight of a shaft?
-
I' m still thinking that the capablities of an arrow- shaft should be better defined by spine/mass. The term arrow- spine tells not to much about the weight of a shaft?
I have not dared to enter the world of flight shooting yet as I am not ready, but I have always wondered about this, spine versus mass.
-
I'm beginning to tinker with flight shooting and looking towards that 200fps from a self bow.
I think getting the right spine rather than just stiff for the hell of it is important, but a good loose is vital, maybe that's the weak link.
Obviously a 1/4" diameter arrow has a smaller cross section than a 5/16" but if they are barreled over a long distance front and rear how much difference does it make? What I'm asking is... Is the aerodynamics more important than the cross sectional area? I've seen some "flight" arrows with the points very poorly blended in. And I think it's easy to forget the aerodynamics of the nock end too.
My big prob' is lack of a safe testing area.
Maybe one of you guys can PM me a quarter mile of prairie so I can unroll over here to give me a practice range ;D
Del
-
Like Badger i believe the arrow is the weakest link.
But i think flightshooters are better than most as they deliberately works on it.
Many times you se someone put blood sweat and tears in making the best bow they can or twaking the newly bought bow and then grab "some" arrows to shot.
Tweak and trim your SYSTEM..not just the bow!
Just my 2c :P
-
"I would say the limbs.
The string is overbuilt.
The arrows are tuned to match the bow",
Lostarrow, you need to see my set before you say that >:D
-
Flightarrows have to be barelled, thats the aerodynamics. Cross- section is largest just around the middle(center of gravity) at about 1/4"- 5/16", nock at about 13/64", tip at about 5/32" or less. Have a look at Osmanian flightarrows, perfectly blended in nocks and tips. Have a look at Alan Case' s flight arrows: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/29783/Split-Cane-Bamboo-Flight-Arrows?page=1, highly recommended!
Yes, even the best flightbow is just 50% of the whole challenge.