Wide and thin or narrow and deep?

[PEARL DRUMS]

Just a general question and something new to discuss. What style limb design do you prefer when you can have either with a particular stave? Wide - thin limbs or narrow - deep limbs? All things being equal of course. My wide, thin limb bows seems to shoot quietly, accurately and fast compared to my narrow, deep limbs.

[Pat B]

A lot depends on the design. For recurves I like wide and thin but for longbows I like narrow and deep.

[Almostpighunter]

This has been a real experiment for me as of late and it all started with the bow trade. I made a very narrow limbed bow that was deep enough to retain 46-48 lbs @ 28" and I absolutely loved the end result as compared to the wider limbed bows I had been doing. The bow was extremely light in weight and shot so straight and true that I am hooked. As far as overall performance goes I can't honestly say one is superior to the other except I have seen a slight increase in arrow speed with the narrow limb bows and I have had greater success in raising the draw weights of my bows with the narrow/deep design.

In fact I am finishing up a BBI with this narrow deep design in mind that is 65lbs @ 28" and is launching my 490g hunting arrows an average of 176 fps. I'm sure this is far from the fastest bow to ever grace the forum, but it is my fastest bow ever...and I am thrilled.

[PEARL DRUMS]

I think wider limbed bows seem to tiller easier, for me anyhow. It doesnt add up when you consider a thin limbed bow will show weak/stiff areas much easier than a deep limb will. I asked the question just to dig a bit deeper into it and see what others felt.

Pat I agree short limbed recurves work much nice wider. My last static was 1 1/8" wide and quite deep. It shoots great, but not quite as stable in my hand as the wider working curve I built a while back.

[Justin Snyder]

It must be decided on a wood by wood and bow by bow basis. Like Pat said, if you go longer you can go deeper, but certain woods can only handle so much compression before they get compression fractures, "chrysals". Other woods can only take so much tension before they reach their elastic limit and explode. Some woods just lend themselves better to narrow while others prefer wide. Listen to the wood and do what your told. 

[PEARL DRUMS]

"Listen to the wood and do what your told."     Isnt that the truth Justin!

[johnston]

Justin what you said makes sense but you kinda left me hanging... help a greenie out, What woods like narrow and deep/ thin and wide in your experience?

I'm still learning to speak hickory and so far have gone both ways with it and like the results. Is hic just an exceptional wood?
Good thread Pearlie.

Lane

[Badger]

   I go along with Justin on this. Narrow and deep as opposed to wide and thin is not really a preference issue as much as a design issue. It depends how my working limb you have going on. A shorter working limb area will be bending in a much smaller radius than a bow with long working limbs so it needs to be thinner and thus wider.  A 72" bow with a short handle can be a lot narrower than a 60" bow with a short handle. The design is what you decide on first and the limb cross section should be based on the design. Steve

[MWirwicki]

This is a good discussion thread and I am curious of others' experiences concerning wood types vs. thick/thin/wide/deep.  I tend to agree that low compressionable (how do ya's like that word) woods might be more susceptable frets/chrysals when made deep. 

I've had consistent chrysaling on hickory backed red-cedar bows.  Most were wide and flat though.  I used to try to sand them down, recorrect tiller and refinish.  Then after a few shots, I found that it happened again in maybe a different location.  So, I repeated the repair once again....then again until I eventually repaired myself out of a bow.  The last one that I made chrysaled again.  Through several shots fired, the tiller didn't change much and it doesn't seem to be getting any worse.  So, I'm leaving it alone with the thought that, the wood was stressed, the wood wrinkled, the wrinkle relieved the stress so it's done stressing and happy to be a bow.  A few hundred shots later, its still a bow and the tiller hasn't changed.

[Ifrit617]

I too agree with what has already been said. Matt, maybe the hickory backing is simply overpowering the soft belly wood? Trapping the back might prevent this. Just a thought.

Jon

[George Tsoukalas]

I prefer wide and thin but will take what the stave gives me. I rarely start making shaing with a particular design in mind. The wood lets me know. Jawge

[mikekeswick]

   I go along with Justin on this. Narrow and deep as opposed to wide and thin is not really a preference issue as much as a design issue. It depends how my working limb you have going on. A shorter working limb area will be bending in a much smaller radius than a bow with long working limbs so it needs to be thinner and thus wider.  A 72" bow with a short handle can be a lot narrower than a 60" bow with a short handle. The design is what you decide on first and the limb cross section should be based on the design. Steve

It must be decided on a wood by wood and bow by bow basis. Like Pat said, if you go longer you can go deeper, but certain woods can only handle so much compression before they get compression fractures, "chrysals". Other woods can only take so much tension before they reach their elastic limit and explode. Some woods just lend themselves better to narrow while others prefer wide. Listen to the wood and do what your told. 

That it in a nutshell. The wood's properties decide.
MWirwicki - try using ash for the backing instead of hickory.

[Pappy]

I guess it depends on what you call wide and thin or narrow and deep. I use to make a lot of bow[especially Hickory] wide and thin. 1 3/4 to 2 inches at the fads.
Being that wide they would have to be really thin to get down to the weight I wanted,I would have a lot of problems with frets in the belly,Now I go a little narrower say 1 3/8 to 1 1/2 and they seem easier to tiller and no fret problem.
As far as performance ,I have never really worried about that much anyway,if it is smooth to draw/none or small amount of hand shock and hits where I look that is the main thing. Keep in mine this is just for me,I make most bow for myself 60 to 64 N-N and like low 50's @26 so if you make them wide they have to be really thin
in the thickness of the limb,the slightest difference in thickness makes a big difference in the tiller and then you have fret or hinge problems.For me that is less of a problem with a little deeper/thicker limbs and a little narrower.
   Pappy

[randman]

I have one I am working on now that has one limb wider and thinner and the other limb is narrow and thicker. They balance each other pretty good and it's just the way the branch came.