Why I think osage is an inferior bow wood...

[bow101]

in my opinion alot of bows posted are overbuilt of all wood types, including some of mine, Bub

Could you elaborate more on the "overbuilt of all wood types"....................are you referring to mostly a weight issue and heavy design..?

[Dictionary]

I think its about ease of construction as TTBB says not efficiency. White wood is more readily available to most of us,more easily worked, and more easily seasoned. I peel off the bark and there's my back, then i tiller the bow. Very simple and simple is always better to me. My .02.



Also, many people on here have negated TTBB's statements that white woods must be build with wide limbs and must be made longer. I see members such as Half Eye,Ken, and many others making short, narrow bows all the time pulling hunting weights. 

[blackhawk]

I think your focusing too much on design alone and not thinking of the bigger picture and ALL the other characteristics as to what makes a great bow wood. Design can only get you so far. You have to weigh everything like tension,compression,elasticity,bend resistance,decay resistant,cast,workability,durability,and I'm probably forgetting a few. But if you were to take all those categories and list the top five woods to all those individual categories osage will make it in everyone and have the highest overall rating hands down.

And my many experiences with osage and whitewoods,and my bows are my explanation as to why it holds that shape better when you unclamp it,and after tillering. I've made plenty of bows with other woods as well that hold awesome reflex,but if I designed them shorter and narrower the same as I would osage they wouldn't have. And a shorter narrower bow is gonna be my number one choice in a hunting situation over a longer and wider bow

[Carson (CMB)]

[quote author=ryoon4690 link=topic=36150.msg475155#msg475155 date=1354048646
CMB, There is no logical explanation for why heavier tips would more efficiently cast a heavier arrow farther. Think of it this way. If you hit a golf ball with a golf club it'll go very far, but hit it with a slow moving train and it wouldn't go nearly as far. The train has more energy but slow is slow no matter what the object being moved is. As for why your results differ logically, there are just too many variable to be sure that your results are an accurate judgement of the phenomenon.
[/quote]

Ryan, by that same logic, hitting a golf ball with a very fast moving tooth pic should hit the ball very very far.  Fast is fast, but you also need mass to move mass.  At some point there is an optimal balance between mass and speed, but trains and tooth-pics are on an irrelevant scale to this discussion.

[RyanY]

CMB, that's true. Poor metaphor. But both a bow with light tips and a bow with heavy tips are going to have the same stored energy except that the bow with heavy tips will suck up that energy and it won't go to the arrow no matter what the arrow mass.

blackhawk, there are many good qualities of osage but of the ones you listed, decay resistance and workability are the only ones that design doesn't take into effect. Also for your bows of other woods to hold the same reflex they'd need to be wider, not necessarily longer. Why would a shorter wider bow be bad?

[Dave 55]

This is interesting!

[rossfactor]

I'm confused by the claim that osage is a relatively easy wood to work with hand tools.  I'd say its about the toughest stuff to work with that I've tried, save maybe Jatoba and Ipe.

Gabe

[rossfactor]

I mean, it rasps ok, but I find it hell on a draw knife and cabinet scraper. And its a lousy wood to split.

Gabe

[k-hat]

"So say a .40sg poplar bow is 1/2" wide five inches form its tip, and that if any narrower it would be unstable laterally. Now make a .80sg osage bow, same length, poundage, etc. To be as optimized as the poplar bow it will be 50% narrower. Osage is about 50% stiffer than poplar, but if the outer limbs are narrowed by 50%, something new comes into play: Reduce width and lateral stiffness reduces by a cubic function. If the poplar's outer limb was reduced in width by half it would become one-eighth as stiff. A wet noodle laterally. The osage's 50% extra stiffness would be insignificant; the outer limb would fold. This is why a best-designed osage bow will be slower than a best-designed lighter-wood bow. Can I get a high five for that explanation?"

Thoughts?

Hmm, let me say that I agree that most osage bows are overbuilt in the outer third, but that is not a nock on osage.  I also agree that osage limbs are going to have more mass in the outer third even when the design utilizes narrow tips that maximize the compression strength of osage (i.e. limb tips that approach the point of lateral instability).  Which is another way of saying what Baker says above. 

A possible benefit of more mass in the outer limbs:  While I am not arguing for heavy tips, I believe that the energy stored in a properly made osage bow can be most efficiently utilized by a heavy arrow.  I have noticed that my osage hunting bow (57#) can cast a 850 grn arrow 5yds shy of 500grn arrow.  That is not much difference in cast for a relatively great difference in arrow mass.  I know these dynamics are complicated by a number of variables, but I think those slightly heavier tips transfer a greater percentage of stored energy into heavier arrows.  A distinct advantage for a hunting weapon. 

Thanks for instigating this discussion.   

SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP!!  I've always considered the limb mass to be extremely important in affecting arrow speed.  In other discussions on fps, people always bring up arrow mass and never consider the limb mass the bow has to move.  That's why a heavier arrow CAN get more kinetic energy than a lighter arrow from the same bow (it will get about the same speed).  Your observation is a great example:  that 850grn arrow has about 60% more KE than the 500.  Sorry, hijack . . .

So to get back on track, i agree with your point on tip mass, but i do love my whitewoods

[bubby]

in my opinion alot of bows posted are overbuilt of all wood types, including some of mine, Bub

Could you elaborate more on the "overbuilt of all wood types"....................are you referring to mostly a weight issue and heavy design..?

basicly overbuilt, length and width, i built a maple backed epe for halfeye that'slike 50" long and 1" wide i think, a heavy hunting bow that's screamin' fast, but you see a lot of bows 72" @ 26" draw, not exactlly pushing the limits of the wood, but a bendy handle bow 54" ntn should get 28" if well tillered, just my opinion, Bub

[rossfactor]

Maybe I get weird Osage. I do live in Humboldt county, lots of weird stuff up here,  .

[blackhawk]

Also for your bows of other woods to hold the same reflex they'd need to be wider, not necessarily longer. Why would a shorter wider bow be bad?

My experience tells me that that's a fallacy and not a true to all statement. I've played with that theory and its simply not true to all. For an extreme example go ahead and try to make a 50" long poplar bow with a 40/60 lever to working limb ratio pull more than 50@25"...well let me spare you from wasting your time and tell you it won't work because the wood doesn't have the tension,compression,and elasticity as osage. Design can only take you so far man. I'm telling ya. For 3 more normal examples I have tried hickory,hophornbeam,and hackberry(all strong interlocking grain woods that are very tension strong and elastic fir there mass)into 60" bows into a 60/40 ratio bend in the handle mollies. And guess what..ALL failed in tension and believe me ALL were proper width and were bending perfecto. Some woods can only go so far even if you think you have it perfectly designed and tillered,because they are just not as elastic,tension and compression strong as osage is. I have a much higher risk of failure with my short bendy mollies with other woods. Some have survived this and are excellent bows,but an osage has never let me down and a much better chance of success.

[RyanY]

I also agree that osage is easier to work than other woods.

With regards to heavier limbs shooting a heavy arrow faster. If a bow with heavy limbs and one with lighter limbs shoot the same arrow, the bow with lighter limbs will shoot the arrow faster. Why would arrow mass make a difference? With both arrows the heavy limbs suck up more precious stored energy meaning there's less to go to the arrow.

Blackhawk, I don't believe that the bows you described would have been properly designed if they broke. I may be misinformed but I'd like to see where you learned that they are all less elastic and have less tensile and compressive strength.

[Bryce]

I keep seeing "Osage is easy to work" I don't know what osage you guy are using but the stuff I got is harder than stone!
And can we please define durability? Bc I'm seeing it used 40 different ways.
Another thing ppl don't like about hedge is having to change a ring..... Come on! My first osage stave it took me 20 mins at the most. Now osage isn't my favorite wood bc I'm a lazy bow maker. But roll up them sleeves and do work. If you want to say that the wood is sluggish then narrow the last 1/3 of the limb. There is no denying its a great wood, every bow wood has its own pros and cons, some more than others. We all build different bows for different reasons, for different purposes and for different or preferred designs. Thusly you will have people who are just as different who have different tastes in wood.
Every wood holds its own value, in different eyes.

[blackhawk]

I learned all that from real experiences and not just taking what someone else says as "gods word"... a lot of what you are saying is stuff you have read and are just regurgitating it. No offense to Tim cause he's one of my big influences and smarter than most bowyers,but even Tim had his own biases and not all that he said is "God's word TRUTH". The only way you can prove me wrong is to make that poplar bow if all woods are equal. I don't care if you don't believe me that my designs weren't wide enough,I know that they were. Some woods just have certain limits and not all are equal even if at the same length but made wider,and osage in my opinion based on my experiences tells me that its limits are much greater than any others wood.