Author Topic: Sharp vs. gradual recurves  (Read 7356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Danzn Bar

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,166
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2017, 05:24:35 pm »
I've made a few of both and I think as far as shooting (3D course/lots of shots) the sharp static can have a little hand shock as it slams home, and the gradual recurve is easier to draw and has less hand shock.  As far a performance over many shots, I just can't really tell much difference.   JMHO
DBar
Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking

Offline BowEd

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,390
  • BowEd
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2017, 06:14:20 pm »
I just had'nt understood everything that was written in Bob Koois' writings there.Did'nt look at the copyright date I quess.....lol.
BowEd
You got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.
Ed

Offline scp

  • Member
  • Posts: 660
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2017, 11:16:53 pm »
       .... One thing that most agree on is that the bowyer who gets the most set back in the limbs successfully without breaking down the wood will usually have the fastest bow regardless of design.

       .... As Pearlie mentioned earlier the difference between a solid well made efficient bow and a hot rod is relatively small, a lot of fun to chase but not if your main objective is a good reliable bow.

Good summary. This is what TBB4 says as well. Hence the agreement mentioned, I guess.

My main ongoing question is whether it is worthwhile to do any reflexing or recurving after the set has already occurred. I would love to start a new thread on this, as soon as I can tinker with my bows. They all have some set already, of course.

Offline Springbuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,545
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2017, 08:48:05 pm »
 A large recurve that stores a ton of energy without degrading wood and causing set and degradation, yet somehow miraculously maintains efficiency through light weight and high stability is essentially one of the Holy Grails of bow design.

Small, radiused recurves go on nice wide, straight limbed (otherwise) shorter bows.  Larger, sweeping recurves belong on deflexed staves and glued up deflexed handles.  I like a parabolic curve with working reflex below a sharper, static recurve.  in wood, not much else will work.

The R/D bow is partly popular because it melds low strain with high energy storage, but allows stable, stiff tips.  Toss in Perry reflexing and flexible wood combinations and you got a winner.

Offline bubby

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,054
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2017, 10:01:58 pm »
I guess i don't like to follow rules , I've put short tight statics on pyramid bows, albs, eiffel tower molly pyramids, no need to button hole something just make stuff that works😉
failure is an option, everyone fails, it's how you handle it that matters.
The few the proud the 27🏹

Offline upstatenybowyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,700
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2017, 10:09:48 pm »
I guess i don't like to follow rules , I've put short tight statics on pyramid bows, albs, eiffel tower molly pyramids, no need to button hole something just make stuff that works😉

Good call. I think it's cool to learn about what's out there and what people think, but ultimately we all have the freedom to make what we want. What's that they say... rules were made to be broken  (S
"Even as the archer loves the arrow that flies, so too he loves the bow that remains constant in his hands."

Nigerian Proverb

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2017, 10:10:48 pm »
Parabolic curve keeps jumping out at me as the wrong term for that shape. I think an involute or Fibonacci curve  describes it better.

Offline bubby

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,054
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2017, 12:16:28 am »
Lol pat only you would pull that out
failure is an option, everyone fails, it's how you handle it that matters.
The few the proud the 27🏹

mikekeswick

  • Guest
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2017, 05:49:13 am »
A large recurve that stores a ton of energy without degrading wood and causing set and degradation, yet somehow miraculously maintains efficiency through light weight and high stability is essentially one of the Holy Grails of bow design.

Small, radiused recurves go on nice wide, straight limbed (otherwise) shorter bows.  Larger, sweeping recurves belong on deflexed staves and glued up deflexed handles.  I like a parabolic curve with working reflex below a sharper, static recurve.  in wood, not much else will work.

The R/D bow is partly popular because it melds low strain with high energy storage, but allows stable, stiff tips.  Toss in Perry reflexing and flexible wood combinations and you got a winner.

100% agree.
Pat I take it you mean the start of a Fibonacci curve? A fibonacci curve is actually a spiral...I don't think a spiral recurve would be all that great ;)  As I'm sure you know an involute curve is a term for the resultant curve obtained from a given curve by attatching a 'taut string' to the given curve and tracing its free end as it is wound onto the given curve....so an involute curve can be of any curved form. ;)

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2017, 08:37:35 am »
That's right mike, either of those two. The same way we describe tiller as arc of a circle without the bow actually being a circle.

Offline Springbuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,545
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2017, 10:16:32 am »
I guess i don't like to follow rules , I've put short tight statics on pyramid bows, albs, eiffel tower molly pyramids, no need to button hole something just make stuff that works😉

Well, those are the kind I am talking about, although as bow length gets longer, I go to less sharp and more reflexed or flipped.  A short (almost) pyramid might get a nice tight hook.

Offline Springbuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,545
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2017, 10:20:14 am »
 I just meant that, say I have a 66" pyramid that is doing fine.  Slapping 70 degree, 7" long recurves on that, putting the tips 4-5" ahead of the straight handle is asking for trouble with set, breakage, etc...

But the same bow with1.5"-2" of deflex, I can make work.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,268
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2017, 11:44:10 am »
Quote
Well, those are the kind I am talking about, although as bow length gets longer, I go to less sharp and more reflexed or flipped.  A short (almost) pyramid might get a nice tight hook.

sounds like a good way to look at it.

BTW would that logic change if the handle was working vs non working?

Offline Springbuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,545
Re: Sharp vs. gradual recurves
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2017, 11:59:37 am »
Logic, huh?  That's giving me more credit than I deserve. :P

Why not.  I have done bendy handles with recurves, and I think that is a good application for them.  Recurves improve FD curve on short bows.   The issue there is that the bows are already pretty narrow, right?   And, if it's short already, you still gotta have enough limb bending, one way or the other. 

I'd do more of that if I had more osage orange and less of whatever is randomly available.