Author Topic: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)  (Read 58642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 941
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #180 on: April 22, 2018, 11:52:35 am »
I started not to reply on this post about sinew... but since I have put sinew on 2 bows in the past week and will be sinewing another one in a day or two, I decided it's OK.  :)  I totally agree that the new flight shoot rules will give us very credible information and have no doubt about the validity of the information that we will gather.  It will be added as just another chapter in our modern progression of this wood bow passion.

Back to sinew... I am drying a 60" reflexed rocky mountain juniper and a highly delfexed/reflexed 64" osage...and will be putting some sinew on a 58" american elm with slightly reflexed tips in a day or two.  I know the rule is not to sinew a 64" osage longbow, but mine was a very low density/light mass weight osage stave as well as my first bow off a new highly D/R caul.  I just want to see what it will do as is, but can shorten it later if I feel a need to do so.
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...

Offline sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,743
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #181 on: April 22, 2018, 12:09:19 pm »
Sleek, our spread sheet has a place for the fps readings as well. One can shoot both the chrono and the flight shoot or either one of the two. They are both optional.

Oh, sweet. Then im happy :)
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline sleek

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,743
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #182 on: April 22, 2018, 01:22:13 pm »
Say, with this effort to document and test, are we lookong at the potential of another TBB, Volume V? Maybe it could address all the old outdated dogma and correct it with what we have learned since the first 4 volumes,  why and how the nee material was learned, and of course include as much as can be put in there about new knowledge, and ways of looking at familiar problems, this thread for example,
« Last Edit: April 22, 2018, 01:26:42 pm by sleek »
Tread softly and carry a bent stick.

Dont seek your happiness through the approval of others

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,228
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #183 on: April 22, 2018, 01:32:55 pm »
Quote
More misinformation could come from this meet than information. Bowmakers value solid design information
OK, but if you are talking about the broadhead flight event, isn't the focus with that just to have fun shooting for distance?
Quote
Maybe next year.
what kind of challenge would you like to see or sponsor next year? 

Offline Tim Baker

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #184 on: April 22, 2018, 03:11:39 pm »

BowEd:

" We'll test your bow anyway at Mo Jam."

I'd send a bow or two if real testing was planned. At present it's like a foot race where all the runners start at randomly different times, no way of knowing the actual performance of each. Variables have to be eliminated for sound results. As presently set up the meet could generate more misinformation than fact. 

Willie:

" ... isn't the focus with that just to have fun shooting for distance? "

A bow meet is worth doing just for that. What a great opportunity though to gather solid knowledge.

"  what kind of challenge would you like to see or sponsor next year? "

Essentially the same test procedures as at the first meet. One essential feature being that all bows be chronographed by the same shooter [or pair of same fps shooters as at the thirst meet] each shot well witnessed by critical eyes. 


Offline Marc St Louis

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 7,877
  • Keep it flexible
    • Marc's Bows and Arrows
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #185 on: April 22, 2018, 03:23:34 pm »

"  what kind of challenge would you like to see or sponsor next year? "

Essentially the same test procedures as at the first meet. One essential feature being that all bows be chronographed by the same shooter [or pair of same fps shooters as at the thirst meet] each shot well witnessed by critical eyes.

Sounds somewhat like a disparaging assumption.
Home of heat-treating, Corbeil, On.  Canada

Marc@Ironwoodbowyer.com

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #186 on: April 22, 2018, 03:23:43 pm »
   Are you referring to the broadhead flightshoot?   

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 941
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #187 on: April 22, 2018, 03:57:31 pm »
We tried to make it a better comparison by having all bows shoot arrows that are 10 grains per pound of the bow's 28" draw weight.  Everything will be measured by at least 2 different devices and there will be several officials on hand to witness every shot.  It seems to make more sense that every bow shooting the same 500 grain arrow regardless of the draw weight of the bow.  We build lots of bows at MoJam and this was designed as a way to fairly compare the different bow designs, woods, and workmanship.  We all love watching arrows fly long distances and we will all enjoy watching the shooters do their best to exceed their best previous shots.

Sinew update- I managed to prep about 3 ounces of back sinew for the little elm bow...  :OK
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #188 on: April 22, 2018, 04:49:51 pm »
     Flight shooting is an ancient sport that was developed for exactly the same reasons we are doing it. Trends will develop over time if the program is successful and trends always say more than small samples. For some reason I have always enjoyed watching arrows fly more than I have shooting through a chrono. It is a double bonus when you have both.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #189 on: April 22, 2018, 05:04:00 pm »
I still say the draw length limit was a needless hobbling of the potential of bows.

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 941
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #190 on: April 22, 2018, 05:11:14 pm »
now this thread has taken a definite side turn... :)  but I have done lots of testing with bows using different draw lengths and it seems that there is a definite advantage to a longer draw length... as in a 50#@30 has an advantage over a bow drawing 50#@26... by having the 'official' shot taken at the same (measured) draw length it seems the most fair way to compare the bows.... ???
 
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #191 on: April 22, 2018, 05:19:30 pm »
That's what I think is irrelevant. Bows aren't designed to all be the same. 

 

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #192 on: April 22, 2018, 05:24:36 pm »
Pat, in this contest they are. They can draw shorter if they like. Just not longer.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #193 on: April 22, 2018, 05:30:46 pm »
I know and that's why my view is the same as Tim's.

Offline Bob Barnes

  • Member
  • Posts: 941
Re: Post For Tim Baker ( Sinew)
« Reply #194 on: April 22, 2018, 05:44:25 pm »
well AMO is measured by shooting 9 grains per pound at @30" and IBO is measured by shooting 5 grains per pound at 30" so why would we not use something closer to our standard by shooting 10 grains per pound @28" ?  I'm trying to understand , not argue...
Seems like common sense isn't very common any more...