Why do whip ended bows have a bad reputation?

[Digital Caveman]

They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?

[mmattockx]

They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?

Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.


Mark

[PatM]

I think originally people lacked understanding that a strung bow and a whip  can't operate the same way but they made them under the assumption that the ends of the bow would  function like a cracking whip.

 It's  virtually impossible to make a part of a bow weaker and not just have it max out its movement potential right off the bat.   

   It takes a working recurve to work around that, not a straight  end bow.

[Marc St Louis]

I used to prefer bows that were slightly whip tillered as they seem to be more efficient for shooting light arrows. Overall I don't think wood lends itself very well to whip tillering. It takes a lot of bend in the outer limbs to give much draw length. You will see a lot of modern bows recurves that are basically whip tillered, I think what they are basically accomplishing is less working limb and more efficiency because the limbs have less room to distort or vibrate.

I don't know if you remember Steve but I suggested this to Dan Perry.  He scoffed at the idea

[Digital Caveman]

They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?

Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.


Mark

If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows?  Is it just that FG is more massive?  It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.

[mmattockx]

If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows?  Is it just that FG is more massive?  It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.

PM sent, we aren't to speak of the devil material on the forum.


Mark

[PatM]

They have to go wider to handle that kind of bend though, right?

Not really. FG can survive massive strains, several times more than wood can, so the bend radius is not really limited much by the material. The FG recurves tend to end up wide for stability reasons more than anything.


Mark

If so, how come they don't consistently outperform wood bows?  Is it just that FG is more massive?  It would mostly boil down to which can store more energy per mass.

 They do consistently outperform most wood bows.

[scp]

It's rather surprising to see so many well intended and informed replies to a rather hastily formed and vague assertion from a relative newcomer. It's about time ask the original poster for clarification of his theory and position. I like to see his whip ended bows that perform above average.

[PatM]

Tom doesn't actually seem to make bows to any great degree.  He's more of a toenail collector.

[sleek]

I've seen a few wood bows outdo glass, and depending on the glass bow, it can be an easy task.

[Tom Dulaney]

I have nothing to contribute except to say that those examples are not whip tillered. The horn bow is shaped that way. Similar to a gull wing bow. And the other picture with the flight record also don’t seem ship tillered. Wouldn’t that horn bow stack like crazy which would mean it isn’t efficient.

You have no idea what you're talking. All of the bows I posted sre whip tillered.

[Tom Dulaney]

I think originally people lacked understanding that a strung bow and a whip  can't operate the same way but they made them under the assumption that the ends of the bow would  function like a cracking whip.

 

Archaeology paints a much different picture. As you pointed out, the earliest surviving bows (holmegaards) had stiff outer limbs. In all of Eurasia, these bows then get replaced by whip-tillered bows from the Corded Ware complex. Whip tillered bows and working tips then flourish for thousands of years of the age of classical civilization and cultural progress, until people start figuring out that you can strengthen stiff outer limbs without a weight penalty by laminating thin pieces of bone on to wood.

And in the Americas, the oldest paleo-eskimo bows likewise have stiff recurved outer limbs. These then evolve in to bending outer limb bows with stiff midlimbs and static decurves, and the Indians down south freqently use whip tillers.


So basically, humanity got it right (in your mind) early on, then ditched the correct bows for the crappier ones. Twice, on two different continents.

Man, it's gotta be PTSD-inducing to realize that your ideas were rejected by all of humanity, twice, thousands of years before you were born. It's time to start smoking heroin.

[PatM]

You have an ingrown toenail, Tom.   See a doctor.

[scp]

Man, it's gotta be PTSD-inducing to realize that your ideas were rejected by all of humanity, twice, thousands of years before you were born. It's time to start smoking heroin.

Hasty generalization is useless; but it's dangerous if used for personal attacks. How about this hasty generalization itself pretending not to be an attack! Is it dangerous enough?

Is there a simple rule to apply to decide whether a bow is whip tillered or not?

What is the maximum percentage of the outer working limb that can be bending more than the inner parts, for the bow to be called "whip ended"? Is a bow whip ended only if less than one tenth of limb at the end is bending more than the inner rest? How about if the outer third of limb is bending more than the rest? What if the outer half of the limb is bending a little more than inner half? Isn't that just a normal bow?

What is the point of making hasty generalizations using such a vague word?

BTW The term is not useless as a description of some bows compared to "normal" bows. But how are we going to define normal bows? IMHO we just love to pretend to know something even if we have no idea what exactly it is that we believe we know. But that's the normal way we manage to live our lives without becoming too neurotic. It's better to actually know a thing or two instead of pretending to know millions of things.

Give me an example of a good whip ended bow that performs better than other similar but not-whip-tillered bows, please. Then we might be able to discuss whether it is its whip-ended-ness itself that makes it perform better. Case by case first, always.

[PatM]

Are you asking Tom to make a bow?