Author Topic: Zero string follow secrets?  (Read 48878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NOMADIC PIRATE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,910
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2009, 04:38:26 am »
this is what I came up with

65# @ 26" longbow







note that there's no set compared to the split stave







That one stave become this 82# @ 26" shortbow






as you can seee, no real string follow, and like Keenan says, they shoot hard ;D


I ment,....no real set  ;D     all that terminology confuses the poor small brain ::) ::)


« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 04:56:15 pm by NOMADIC PIRATE »
NORTH SHORE, HAWAII

DCM4

  • Guest
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2009, 08:13:49 am »
I think the cast of these deflexed bows comes from the belly wood being not crushed.  The cast from a "fresh" bow will open your eyes.

Nice Keegan, I remember that bow.  And it's good to see ABC planted some thoughts that continue to bear fruit.  Same for me.

It brings to mind a hop hornbeam bow years ago that I fought with using heat and never did get it to a straight profile, being a deflexed stave.  I was disappointed with it, not knowing any better but the fellar that got it raved about the cast.  It followed about an inch from the outset and was generous in wood for a 26" draw and ultimately only took about 1/2" set from building.

I wonder about the whole tension wood/compression wood thing, since typically a compression stave will take deflex and yet they seem to be capable of a humdinger bows.

Offline Dano

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,349
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2009, 10:08:27 am »
I guess I need a different name for my theory :o Any how, I concede to the masses. Great conversaton tho. ;D Love them Yew bows guys.
"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."


Nevada

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #63 on: November 17, 2009, 10:11:34 am »
I guess I need a different name for my theory :o Any how, I concede to the masses. Great conversaton tho. ;D Love them Yew bows guys.
We definitely need a new name for it because I don't care for the current terms all that much either.  ;D
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline Keenan

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,824
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2009, 10:32:46 am »
 Manny that bow is sweet and definitely worth a second look.
 
 Guys that stave in Manny's pic is just the kind of stave that we are talking about. Years ago I would have looked at that stave as firewood or cut and splice to get reflex. However with the right mindset and some carefull heat treatment, you can unlock some serious potential.
 Thanks again for sharing that Manny.

Offline George Tsoukalas

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,425
    • Traditional and Primitive Archers
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #65 on: November 17, 2009, 01:28:23 pm »
Like David says there is no real belly crushing in a deflexed bow. A bowyer can introduce deflex with heat. That's different from set and string follow-at least the way I see it. LOL. Set happens and so does deflex. :) Jawge
Set Happens!
If you ain't breakin' you ain't makin!

Offline NOMADIC PIRATE

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,910
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2009, 04:58:31 pm »
  Years ago I would have looked at that stave as firewood........


Same here,...nowadays I'm actually looking for certain deflexed and deflexed/reflexed staves  ;)
NORTH SHORE, HAWAII

Offline George Tsoukalas

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,425
    • Traditional and Primitive Archers
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2009, 05:05:14 pm »
These kinds of discussions leave me a bit concerned for the beginner. I've been making bows a long time (late 80's). The best I've done is 1 inch of set starting from a straight stave. I hear all to often beginners saying that their build was a failure because they got 2.5 in of set. Beginners take heart!  :) Jawge
Set Happens!
If you ain't breakin' you ain't makin!

Lombard

  • Guest
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2009, 07:23:40 pm »
This discussion has been an eye opener for me. Here I have been struggling for a long time to tiller my bows so that they wouldn't take set. Every time they do I was considering it a failure of sorts, (even if the bow looked and shot well). Now I finally realize that some set is normal, and that to much means I did something wrong.

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2009, 07:43:25 pm »
The question isn't, will it take set. The question is, how much.
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline gmc

  • Member
  • Posts: 513
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2009, 08:10:08 pm »
These kinds of discussions leave me a bit concerned for the beginner. I've been making bows a long time (late 80's). The best I've done is 1 inch of set starting from a straight stave. I hear all to often beginners saying that their build was a failure because they got 2.5 in of set. Beginners take heart!  :) Jag

Yep, you are right Jawge, this beginner is now confused and left hanging for rescue once again. If string follow resembles the bow strung, what do you call this temporary condition that slowly corrects itself within hours of unstringing? Or are we talking about more permanent matters? I think maybe I'm on track with your explanation of "set" but I did find myself searching for an extra inch that I couldn't account for. See I even struggle with simple math. O dear, the confusion of it all.....:)
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 08:15:23 pm by gmc »
Central Kentucky

Offline Keenan

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,824
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2009, 09:14:56 pm »
George has a good point and this certainly could be confusing for some new people to the sport.  I'll try to clarify a few thoughts and hope not to muddy the water all the more.
 
 If a bow starts out straight or heavily reflexed and ends up looking like it's braced when it's not, then it's taken a heavy set has certainly had some cell damage and will probably shoot fairly poor. It will generally have low early string weight and a poor F/D chart.

 The difference in a natural deflexed/reflexed bow is that the bow limbs have not been damaged and is still in it's natural state will full potencail of energy storage. Though the limbs tips could be even slightly behind the handle the early draw weight is achieved by stronger inner and mid limbs. The wood remains unstressed in comparison to a heavily reflexed limb and energy builds fairly smooth with the limbs loading in a (Normal)  flex zone without causing the damage to the wood cells.
  Example. Imagine that a limb tip is 2" in front of the handle and the bow is braced and drawn to 28" the limb tip has traveled roughly 30" total from it's original state.  However take a slight deflexed stave with a slight reflexed tips that are say 2" behind the handle and brace and draw to 28" the tips have only traveled 26" from original state.   
 Now when we are talking about a bow taking heavy set it is geneally due to limbs being over bent to the point of causing cell damage. This could be from poor tillering or to short of bow for the draw length or a number of reasons. The point is, that less limb travel from the original point of origin, is less likely to take set if everything else is done right.

  Now the trick is balancing mass and strength, to achieve early draw weight, without the excess mass that causes performance to suffer. This is done by keeping the outer thirds light as possible and just enough on the mid and inner limbs to force early draw weight.  As George stated to get a bend through the fades and handle takes some carefull blending of the limbs into the handle, but when achieved can boost performance as well.

 Once again I will state If the bow is deflexed because of poor tillering and overstressed limbs in will have low early draw weight and be a poor performer in general. That is why most will shoot for a straight or slightly reflexed bow when unbraced.
 This thread started as a question of how to help achieve zero set or string follow. No matter which term were are referring too, I think this is something that can help achieve that goal.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 11:44:56 pm by Keenan »

Offline George Tsoukalas

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,425
    • Traditional and Primitive Archers
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #72 on: November 17, 2009, 10:34:52 pm »
Keenan, that was a good analysis. Like my mentor said, "If you have a bow and like the way it shoots don't worry about the set." gmc, it is normal to regain some of the set after unbracing. Jawge
Set Happens!
If you ain't breakin' you ain't makin!

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2009, 12:12:31 am »
Keenan, Good description but you may have clouded the issue a bit by saying the limbs are moving the distance of the draw. The limbs don't actually move nearly that much. Perhaps together they may add up to that amount of travel, but not individually.
 The main reason I consider both descriptions the same is because there are too many situations where they would be in constant flux.
 You could have a slightly reflexed bow that shows one inch of "string follow" after unbracing and creeps back to a bit of reflex and becomes half an inch of "set".
 In the end it's how the bow shoots, not what profile it has after unstringing and what you want to call that.
 Only the maker of the bow knows for sure what is going on.

Offline gmc

  • Member
  • Posts: 513
Re: Zero string follow secrets?
« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2009, 12:32:25 am »
Jawge, hang with one more time here, I'm just trying to understand this. So we are calling this temporary condition after unbracing "set" even thou its regained after a period of time? If so does this imply that reflex added to the limbs and maintained to some degree or even held to the original plane of the bow limb will deliver a zero string-follow bow?

This is good stuff and I'm just trying to learn at the expense of the poster but we may have discovered the secret if this is correct.  
Central Kentucky