sinew taking out string follow/set(?)

[Marc St Louis]

Interesting how different people read different things from my post.  Sorry to say you are both wrong.  No recurves and no sinew backing the belly, just reflex

[Eric Garza]

I think what Marc meant is to string the bow backwards, with the string on the back-side rather than the belly-side.  This naturally pulls the bow into reflex equal to the brace height.  Then sinew the bow's back while the string holds it in reflex, and it will keep this reflex when the sinew dries.

[Lee Slikkers]

I think what Marc meant is to string the bow backwards, with the string on the back-side rather than the belly-side.  This naturally pulls the bow into reflex equal to the brace height.  Then sinew the bow's back while the string holds it in reflex, and it will keep this reflex when the sinew dries.

"ding, ding, Ding" I think we have a Winner 

[George Tsoukalas]

No, don't do that. That will pop you bow quicker than a microwave will popcorn.

[cowboy]

Well, this is an interesting thread .

[M-P]

Well, aren't we getting a lot of conflicting opinions.   I think we all agree that the set probably could be removed.  I think we all agree that there's more than one way to do it.  The best way, or even whether it's worth the trouble seems to be the sticking point.  I still feel that "improving" a less than perfect bow is a learning experience and worth doing.   Then maybe the next bow won't have the same flaw.     
Now that I think of it though, the my 'next bow' always seems to have flaws too.   I guess I'm heartened to hear that Jawge still has the same problem, at least occasionally.
Ron

[Eric Garza]

No, don't do that. That will pop you bow quicker than a microwave will popcorn.

What?  Were you referring to my post?

[JW_Halverson]

George's concern was that if the bow is strung backwards it would fail.  And I agree...if it were to be strung to a full  brace height. 

When I re-read Marc's post, I got the full intent from the following line; "Then I would reverse string the bow so that it will have at least 2" of reflex to start out with and then sinew back it."  Reverse stringing with only 2 inches of brace height shouldn't cause the bow to go Orville Redenbacher on him.  But it WILL induce reflex as the sinew is applied, reflex that will increase some even as the sinew takes up tension as it dries.

Yup, interesting thread.  I still like my initial mis-interpretation of Mr. St. Louis's post best!  Turning it arsey-varsey and sinewing what used to be the belly.  This thread shows what I like best about this Forum...access to many viewpoints, loads of experience, and people more than willing to share.  A lifetime of experience is right here at our fingertips.  You people are great!

[PatM]

Actually using the set in a bow as reflex and sinewing the  old belly to form a new back is a Tim Baker idea. I question whether he ever actually used this idea though.

[Marc St Louis]

No, don't do that. That will pop you bow quicker than a microwave will popcorn.

Not likely but then that would depend on what one considers "brace height".  The bow could easily take 4 or 5 inches of reverse bracing but tillering the bow out would be more of a handfull and not for the faint of heart