Zero string follow secrets?

[George Tsoukalas]

Oh and I am talking selfbows. No backing of any kind except air. Jawge

[Swamp Bow]

Okay, this is what I understand from this conversation.  Set is the distance the tips have permanently moved towards the belly of a bow regardless of whether the tips have exceeded the plane of the bow back or not.  String follow as defined by some, describes set that has broken the plane of the bow back.  Let's call this definition "A".   String follow as defined by others is a temporary distortion of the bow after unbracing/shooting that looks like set until the distortion has relaxed out again, regardless of whether the plane of the bow back has been broken or not.  Let's call this definition "B".  Is that correct?  So now the question as far as I am concerned is not who is correct about the definition of string follow, but how to differentiate between the two definitions since they really are about apples and oranges.  BTW I don't have an opinion whether one or the other definition is correct or more appropriate, I just want to be sure someone understands when I mean one or the other.

Now as to whether set is bad, regardless of if it past the back of the bow or not, is a matter of whether you still get the performance you want out of the bow or not.  If you have two inches of set and still draw your target weight at your draw length, and at an acceptable arrow speed, I wouldn't care (others might).  Now if a bow has set (string follow as per definition A) 2" shy of your draw length even if it still makes weight, I would care.  Which I guess leads into the difference between actual draw length and perceived draw length.  But that is another argument even if it is related to reflex/deflex/set.

Swamp

ETA I have no idea where the emoticon with the police hat comes from, it's supposed to read "... per definition A...", and that is what the edit window shows. 

[George Tsoukalas]

Swamp Bow, that's the way I look at it. I've come to realize over the years ( I  have a wife and 2 daughters who I love dearly) that not everyone agrees with me. LOL. I'm happy with less than 2 in of set. Jawge

[DCM4]

Jawge.  Well, thanks.  Hope the same for ya'll.

One part of the dogma that works against a zero set goal is the concept that we must "work in" tiller adjustments by drawing the bow some arbitrary number of times.  I don't follow this dogma.  The rest I answered in my first post.  Fetrow's pov was predominantly that the wood specimen made all the difference.  While I accept this explanation, and think when you dig deeper it's the same as saying one must design (and craft in as much as they are intertwined) appropriately for the working properties of the specimen at hand.  This is what makes classical bowyering interesting (as opposed to conventional materials) for me, investigating the nature of each wood specimen... both in terms of individually while making a bow but also in terms of finding, cutting and processing bow wood.  I'm nearly as much enamored with the latter as the former any more, having "been there, done that" on the bowyerin' thing.

[NOMADIC PIRATE]

Come on, guys, give 'em up.

LOL, funny how this thread mutated,......interesting too is how much we are into owr terminology

On that subject i see it like George and some others, not that it's the right one, just the way I use it.

I see set as the collaps of the cells changing the profile of a bow during tillering, I see follow asthe bow being bend into a deflexed look once unbraced.

You can have a bow with set but no follow, and you can have a bow with no set and follow  

.......now for the no set I know that Steve Gardner as a method, i haven't dabbed into it since I can't get my brain to wrap around those technicalitys.

the only time I have achieved no set was on a couplle of deflexed YEW bow, otherwise some degree of set has being there.


On the matter of minimaising set, this is what I've being quite lucky lately and got some decent results.


I do a lot of shaping before I do any bending, I can tell how heavy the bow is by now just by feeling the phisical weight.


As soon as i have the limbs balanced and before i do any more than minimal floor tillering, i temper the bow, than I long string it to brace hight, at that point a get a string on it and as soon the bend  looks nice I give it a good sweat.

I go thru the normal tree tillering to 20" , at this point I temper the bow again, from now on no more tillering tree,( even on my final check for draw weihgt on the tree I only draw to 1" less than final draw, ) I shoot 25 to 50 arrows every 1/2" increment of draw weight, adjusting tiller as necessary, after every adjustment i go back 1" and restart the shooting in process, 1" before full draw I do a final tempering

[NOMADIC PIRATE]

Ho yeah, nice post Mimms

[Keenan]

 I've been reading this and hesitant to open the can of worms on what I think is possible but Manny just voiced what I am doing some research on right now.

  A few years back Dean Torques did an "ambush bow" challenge. One of the main criteria was to build a bow that could be braced for long periods (8hrs.) without losing a measureable amount of draw weight.  For me, this meant a bow that was deflexed/reflexed for one main reason.  Less strain on the mid and inner limbs and a bow that was closer to brace, but still able to have good early draw weight due to stronger inner and mid limbs.
   This challenge, and the bow that I ended up with, transformed how I thought about deflexed staves. I used a natural 3" deflexed stave and did a slight roll on the tips. That bow became my favorite shooter and has great early weight without being (Heavily strained} at brace.  The early weight is gained by stronger mid and inner limbs instead of a large amount of bending to produce early draw weight.(less crushing of cells / stretching of tension fibers) Also since the biggest loss of performance is generally due to excess mass on the outer third of the limbs. This design relies on more inner limb mass and less outer limb weight.
  Of all the different bows that I have made this has been the best that I have done for (almost) zero set. I am currently working on a few more of these to see if they prove out the same and I'm documenting the original  start to finish findings for future knowledge. I do believe this has also led to more longevity in performance on that particular bow.
Here is the bow that I made years ago and some of you have seen one of the ones in the works right now. Keep in mind the original stave had three inches of natural deflex To this day, it has not changed. Still one of my fastest best shooting bows.
  I can here some of you thinking that it must not have good early weight but that is simply not the case. It's a nice tone when plucked.  I do think I still have the orginal pics of the deflexed stave and I'll try to find those to prove out what I'm saying.
 




 

[Jesse]

Keenan that is a fine looking bow

[Keenan]

Thanks Jesse. I'm trying to find the stave pics but I have files upon files of stave pics to sift through, Due to lazy categorizing practices of the past.

[George Tsoukalas]

Keenan, that is a stunning bow. Looks good. Jawge

[PatM]

Keenan,  I remember that one.  I think what you are describing is what Tim Baker mentioned in the description of the duoflex style bow in TTBB 3.
Just to a slightly lesser degree. The thicker barely bending inner limb can  have a high weight with little limb travel and then the lighter outer limbs give the rest of the draw weight.

[Keenan]

Exactly Pat 

Thank you George, From a man of your experience, that means allot to me.

[George Tsoukalas]

Keenan, our forebears realized what we are just learning. Namely that the bend in the handle design is capable of storing a lot of energy. What you did is no small mean feat; a bend in the handle with fades takes  some doing and gentle work. Bet it's smooth as my friend Joe's bald head and  with no shock unlike  my friend Joe. Jawge

[medicinewheel]

Keenan, you simply look scary on that last picture, and I'm sure it's all true what you are saying about this bow!
I have a piece of ERC (no sapwood) that is quite short for my 29" pull so I'm thinking of a similar design, heat treating my stave to deflex/recurve, sinewed back.

[NOMADIC PIRATE]

Keenan, I remember those days of the first ABC challenge, and when you came up with that bow I started to look at deflexed staves differently, a great inspiration that led to the crafting of a couple of bows that are like you describe, ..exellent cast with great early string tension