Does zero set mean "overbuilt" ?

[Richard B]

Interested in opinions about desirability of set.

I have seen comments on how a little set (say 1-2") is "OK" and shows that the wood is working. Everything else being "equal" I guess a bow that has taken a little set will have higher stressed and therefore have lighter limbs and could be more efficient than a bow designed and tillered to have no set.

Do bows that have been tillered with no set last longer before they start to lose cast?

So far I have built one bow from elm that took about 1.5" of set and have not yet reached full draw tillering my second bow, so not much experience to go on so far

[Webradbury]

Interested by this question also. I recently finished an Elm bow myself and it took a little set as well. keeping in mind I don't have much experience either, I would think it has to do with the species of wood and as long as it is not excessive string follow, and the bow does what it is meant to do, it doesn't matter. I think if I could make an Osage bow to be a perfect match to the Elm, it would take less set due to it being a better bow wood.

I'm rambling....I've had too many beers!

[SLIMBOB]

You will get different answers on this from everybody. Personally, I like to build mine with the idea in mind of zero set. Never have achieved that, but the less the better. Once they are shot in however, those which took some set may be great bows, and only the maker knows how much set they took and only he may care about it. As a bow maker, I want as little as possible. As a bow shooter, it makes little difference to me.   It also depends on where the set is. All in a 5 inch section? Near handle?  Or spread out along the limbs. The latter being preferred.

[bradsmith2010]

it really depends on the piece of wood,, 0 set could be overbuilt( mass of the bow would tell you alot)
but if it started with more reflex it might be just right,, just depends   chronograph will tell you alot too,, if it is shooting slow for its draw maybe overbuilt,, if it is a rocket launcher then not

[RyanY]

I can't say I've shot any bow to know the lifetime of it with or without set. But in my opinion in terms of building it, a bow with zero set could have just the right amount of wood so that it doesn't take any set or it could be way overbuilt. The thing is is there's no way of knowing the difference unless you know how much wood you need like in the mass principle. I feel that set is a way of telling us when a bow is just right. A little bit of set won't hurt but you'll know for sure that the bow isn't overbuilt. I try and achieve around an inch of set or less since I haven't learned to use the mass principle effectively. With the use of the mass principle, a bow is overbuilt if it ends up way over the predicted mass and underbuilt if it ends up lower than predicted mass. I'm sure you can reliably predict if an underbuilt bow will bust depending on its mass but I don't have that experience.

[Badger]

  Tim Baker used to say wide enough at the handle for no set, narrow enough mid limb for a little set and stiffer outer limbs. I agree with that.

[willie]

badger-

could richard take advantage of your "no set tillering" method, to see of the bow is not too much overbuilt as ryoon suggested could be the case?

[Badger]

  I think it is always a good idea to use it. You may not get 100% but it does give you a lot of control over where you end up.

[PatM]

If no set indicates overbuilt and a little set indicates "just right" you should go for 1/32 of set instead of a  whole inch. 

[RyanY]

I try and achieve around an inch of set OR LESS

[George Tsoukalas]

A couple of inches of set is quite acceptable.
Jawge

[PatM]

I try and achieve around an inch of set OR LESS

  "Way less" would really show that you are walking the fine line.

[Joec123able]

How the heck do you "overbuild" a bow ? I personally think that is nonsense. The less string follow the better! Id rather have a bow with no string follow than a highly stressed bow that will wear out and take lots of string follow.

[Badger]

  I think that most all experienced bowyers use a form of the no set tillering method without even realizing they are doing it. I kind of stumbled on to an explanation for it by accident. I have done very little tutoring or teahing on bow building, a couple of years ago I started teaching a few guys and kept finding myself at a loss of words when trying to explain something. I was showing a guy to excersize his bow and then double check the weight when it ocured to me that I could recheck it everytime I advance an inch. I have been doing it ever since.

[Tuomo]

Interesting question. How about seeing it like this: a bow taking set means that back is overpowering belly. If the bow takes very little set, it means, that back and belly are balanced quite well. If the bow takes absolutely no set, does it mean that that belly is overpowering back? Of course there are other variables like elasticity, but as genereal rule?

Few examples: Juniper is known to be sensitive for back breaking, especially in very dry environments. Juniper takes very little set. I had one yew bow, little set, perfect back but it exploded from back. Many of my narrow white oak longbows takes moderate set, 1-2 inches but tolerates even over 40 inch draw, see for example this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdTK26j3WdM