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

[Carson (CMB)]

I'm not sure you're going to find that an arrow delivers any more energy as a result of anything but its initial velocity.

Pat, this is from the traditional Bowhunter's Bible (Conrads 2003).  It says different.  The lighter arrow loses twice as much energy as the heavy arrow when comparing launch and 40 yards distance.

This has nothing to do with your point.  You are talking about Osage "liking" a heavy arrow because it is heavy in weight but any bow that shoots a heavy arrow is also going to be heavy in weight.

I am not sure I understand the latter part of your statement, but I do contend that the data provided is relevant to my point.  It provides data that demonstrates initial arrow velocity is not everything we are concerned with.  While a lighter wood bow might shoot a lighter arrow faster, that does not mean it outperforms an osage bow shooting relatively heavy arrows at slightly slower speeds.  We need to measure differences in bow performance in metrics that matter, not just initial velocity. 

[blackhawk]

Oh yeah..and thanks for the entertainment...lol...I knew you couldn't resist

[Dictionary]

I think a lot of folks get peaved at the the superior attitude of some osage supporters(None of you folks, obviously) and that's what turns them off about the wood.

Yes I'd say you're right on about that. It used to be believed a bow couldn't be made of any wood other than Yew. Then, that a bow couldn't be made of any wood other than Yew or Osage. Some people out there still have preconcieved notions that Osage and Yew are the only woods to make "proper" bows out of.

[PatM]

I am not sure I understand the latter part of your statement, but I do contend that the data provided is relevant to my point.  It provides data that demonstrates initial arrow velocity is not everything we are concerned with.  While a lighter wood bow might shoot a lighter arrow faster, that does not mean it outperforms an osage bow shooting relatively heavy arrows at slightly slower speeds.  We need to measure differences in bow performance in metrics that matter, not just initial velocity.

That chart doesn't show what bow type we're comparing and what the mass of the bow itself is. I'm presuming one is a compound. I don't really follow the chart and presume it has some inherent error since two parts about it make little sense.
 Still it doesn't pertain to your theory since you are talking about the density and relative mass of an Osage bow.
 Any other bow wood designed to the same specs as your Osage spear tosser will weigh about the same and have just as much mass working for it.

[Carson (CMB)]

Pat, I agree the chart is lacking.  Give me a month, and I will have some of my own objective data together.

[osage outlaw]

I appreciate the respectful debate going on here.  If this good of a discussion was happening on a hunting forum that I'm a member on, it would have been locked down before it reached page 3 because of disrespect and rudeness.  This shows what kind of good people Primitive Archers are 

[RyanY]

Scott, Although the title of this thread was about osage being inferior, the real message is that tons of woods should be considered equal in the sense that they can make good bows. There are lots of reasons to like a specific wood and I have many reasons that I like osage. Thinking it can make a better bow is not one of those reasons. I hope to make bows out of all kinds of woods as long as I keep doing it. Now I can check poplar off the list! 

blackhawk, you're lucky homedepot isn't open right now or I'd have to make another bow to prove my point.  Also I'm going to finish that poplar bow and hang it on my wall as a trophy. 

osage outlaw, I completely agree. I love this community.

[k-hat]

Wow... I stay away for a few hours and looky what y'all done, turn an 2 pager into a 10 pager!!   

gonna hafta go get some coffee and sit a spell, just enjoying the playful banter

[RyanY]

I'm hoping to see a lot more poplar bows after this thread just so everyone knows. 

[rossfactor]

(1) Before any debate on bow woods can be had, you have to state first what you want your bow to do.

Are you going for pure speed? Are you trying to make a bow that will take a lot of abuse? Are you trying to make a bow that doubles as a back scratcher?

After answering that you can discuss what woods will be suited to producing the desired results in your bow,

(2) Design is not everything. Otherwise a thread about Osage being inferior would be a total waste of time.If design was everything, no wood would be inferior. But some are, there is a reason some woods are used more often for bows than others. However,  the folks who know (not me) say that when it comes to speed most bow woods can be designed to get pretty damn close in the speed department.

(3) I believe that elasticity, an work-ability are two of the most important traits in a good bow wood for most any kind of bow.  To quote Steve (who is strangely absent from this debate, probobly because he's had it 1000 times before)

"Higher density woods are not necessarily faster than lower density woods. The potential mass you build a bow at has more to do with elasticity than it does density of the wood. A wood that is more elastic can be built lighter than a bow with less elastic wood."

Osage is a heavy, elastic wood. Yew is a light, elastic woods.  Very little else comes close the elasticity of osage and yew. Hmmm and they are the most commonly used bow woods.

And for the phsyics nerds lets not forget this:

A typical good energy breakdown released when a bow is shot:
70% - arrow kinetic energy
7% - string kinetic energy
10% - hysteresis (internal friction and damping generating "heat" in the bow arms)
13% - limb kinetic energy in the form of vibration generated in the power stroke

So, the 23% of energy loss in hysterisis and limb vibration are the percent we can make gains in from wood choice and design. Reducing hysterisi and limb vibration should be the thing that speed junkies think about most. Guess which woods tend to have the lowest internal friction...elastic woods like yew and Osage. Short working limbs tend to be more effecient because they doen't vibrate as much. And you get short working limbs more easily with.... elastic wood.

I'm no osage junkie.  I much prefer plum, and yew. But the wood has a lot going for it in the bow making department. I've heard that Osage doesn't like dry climates? Anybody want to weight in on that.

Gabe

[Bryce]

Aaaaaaand I'm out.

[RyanY]

I really like the way you've introduced elasticity because it does play a big role. Many woods are not elastic enough to make good bows but the ones that are can be made to make bows just as good as osage and yew even though those two are more elastic. The reason more elastic woods can be built with less mass is because they can be thicker and bend to the same shape at the same weight. This is a complete hypothesis but, where yew may benefit from its elasticity with its average density, osage can not make up for it because of its mass. I completely disagree that design isn't everything. When designing bows, every factor is taken into account and that includes elasticity. Most of what we consider bow woods can be designed to fit our needs in any case.

[rossfactor]

If design is everything, why start a thread called "Why I think osage is an inferior bow wood?" That title itself says you don't believe design is evrything.

To really take advantage of elsastic woods, high stress design, and pushing the limits if "underbuilt" is the way to go.

[RyanY]

Ross, Mostly it was to get people in here and start up discussion. But within the first post is a good explanation of why osage can't make a faster bow than other woods. Say a white wood bow is made for maximum performance with outer limbs as narrow as possible and stable. If an osage bow were to have it's tips narrowed to equal the mass of the lighter wood it would most likely lose lateral stability. To remain stable it would have increase mass and therefore be slower. I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

[rossfactor]

 That exact argument was put forth by Tim Baker years ago. Makes sense. Interesting though, that he used pecan for Mojam. Pecan is almost as dense as osage.