WARNING. THIS POST MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS
If you get leverage and reduced string angles from recjrves, I can assume only they are because of each other. Leverage is a function of string angle.
If I take this and run with it, then the lower the string angle the more leverage I have. This creates in my mind a recurve that at full draw never has the string leave it. My mind instantly compares two recurves, one with large radius, the other small. The string angle stays the same no mater the radius as the bow is drawn. So now my mind favors small sharp hooks for weight reduction.
To carry this though further, my mind visualizes a recurve fashioned so the string just begines to come off the end of the recurve once full draw is hit. Any more wood in the recurve beyond where the string just comes off is waisted weight.
I now compare bow lengths. To keep the string on a short bows recurves you may need hooks that are 90 degrees. But if you lengthen the bow a certain amount, you could get away with 30 degree hooks and still keep the string on the recurves to that last inch of draw. That allows you to take advantage of the longer bows advantage of having a naturally lower string angle even without recurves.
I imagine in my mind a small recurve the radius of a golf ball vs one the radius of a bowling ball. The amount of string that comes into draw as the bow is drawn is much less on the golf ball sized recurve, forcing tje limb into more bending and stress. The bowling ball recurve lets off more string as the bow is drawn stressing the limb less because less bend is needed to reach full draw because more string is coming into the draw. To allow myself to elaborate and be more clear, its a distance/circumference thing. The larger the radius the longer the string is that sits on it etc...
What advantages could be had with either situation? Well, the larger recurve is less stressed so the limbs can be mkre narrow to allow less limb mass. Also, the bending could be more focused towards the fades allowing for less bending limb and less vibration losses. The tighter radius would require a longer working section of limb to handle the fact that it is more stressed. This would allow it to have more losses due to vibration. However tip mass does come into play as well with the obvious benefits.
I draw the conclusion now that a shorter bow with larger diameter recurves is the best bet. Seems the best of all worlds. Large radius recurves reduce how much beding is needed, keep the recurves narrow enough to reduce weight and remain stable. The shorter limbs will be less stressed and have less vibration, allowing for thicker wider limbs to fo the work. Ideally, if a bow could be so designed, it would bend only out the fade then go straight to large static recurves. Keeping in mind as well, we want to keep the effective length of the bow as short as possible to take advantage of the fact objects spin faster in tight arcs such as the arc formed as the tips come around to full draw.
Of course, i reserve the right to be wrong.
