Marc,
I don't see it as a problem, simply an opportunity to understand the underlying mechanics. We have long since solved the problem by trial and error. I see benefit in understanding the mechanics, even if I don't have a specific problem to solve. And that we can tune a bow to shoot well by raising the nock point doesn't necessarily mean we could not have used geometry in combination, by positioning the arrow pass slightly differently, to minimize the need for positive tiller and/or higher nock point.
It's just a topic I've become fascinated by, like low stretch strings, because I questioned the choices I make with an open mind and went looking for the reasons. To be honest, I thought I understood the mechanics and really didn't put too much significance on the reasons until Dean suggested negative tiller. This was so counter to the dogma I knew it could not be so simple as it seemed in his article. If so, why had not negative tiller been employed more universally throughout history. It was in this way that I found what I consider to be the benefit of positioning the arrow pass nearer to center, which ironically re-enforced the theme of Dean's article but for different reasons than he used. An inane topic perhaps, but for me as much a part, perhaps as essential a part of bowyery as any other.
I just don't understand why others aren't similarly inclined. But I can see I should probably back off my online rhetoric a few clicks. People are intimitaded enough by the topic itself, and most already so much set in their ways that something as simple as suggesting alternatives somehow puts them on the defensive. But absent the discussion, not being able to bring others into the specifics, I don't have an opportunity cement my own understanding.
