A different type of "Molly"

[steve b.]

Fair enough, and more power to you, ryoon.

[warpath]

I think that everyone is misunderstanding what Ryoon is saying. He's not saying that the lever should bend like the rest of the limb but only ever so slightly. Though I personally think that a very stiff limb is the purpose of a molly, I understand what he's trying to say. I see that there's alot of debate going on over exactly how a molly is supposed to be built and work. I think you all have great ideas which is why I love posting here so much. If you're able too, everyone should post pics of mollies that they've built on this thread and let's see all of the different designs. You've seen my latest molly so now let's see yours. How about it?

  G

[RyanY]

Well since I'm doing so much talking I'll post my last Molly type bow which I actually call a holmegaard by mistake. Can't get the pics since I'm posting from my phone but here's the link.

http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,16281.msg223711.html#msg223711

It's been years since this one and although I had a few more attempts since then, I never finished them as I found a distaste towards the transition from working limb to stiff limb. One thing you WON'T notice is the imperceptible bend. Because its almost not even bending! But if you sight down the limb you can see that the lever is curved ever so slightly. Cool right?! 

[warpath]

Ryoon- I now see what you mean about the levers bending slightly. I don't know if I'd be comfortable with bending levers but that bow looks amazing!! Great job!!!

  G

[blackhawk]

  I've made so many lever bows that my experience has taught me how far to reduce a lever to just before it starts to bend. I got it down to a science. I have learned just how much thicker the lever needs to be than the thinnest part of the working limb. As I stated before I have done em both ways before,n my personal preference is to leave em stiff,but reduce them right to the point before they wood start to bend. And it doesn't matter what wood I use,my simple lil formula works for any wood because its based on the thickness of your thinnest part of the working limb. I've used osage,hophornbeam,elm,blacklocust,red oak boards,dogwood,rosebay rhododendron,hackberry,and who knows what else I'm forgetting off the top of my head. And a smooth transition can be had from working limb to lever without being bulky and excessive in mass. Not knowing how much to take off is hogwash..it just takes several to make with careful observation and documentation to know and figure it out. Its called experience   

I should do a build along on a Molly one of these days and expose all my lil tricks n secrets on how to get to an optimum lever. Soooo...how much ya gonna pay me guys to do it

[RyanY]

I would like to see your technique Chris. I never see much if any excess on your bows but I can't say the same for others. I just wonder how you Really know if its about to bend. Even so you'd have to argue why the nearly insignificant difference is better. By my strategy I think you could squeeze out 0.1fps.

[BowEd]

It's hard to live in a perfect world and a person gets the drizzles trying to all of the time.These bows are homogenus materials shot by imperfect people.To get stuck on 1/10 of a fps second is crazy.But yes it does inspire us to keep improving the bows we make.I see that point for sure.

[BowEd]

BTW warpath heck of a nice bow you got there.I can see your educated in the dense qualities of wood you used.Hickory to me is a good base for about any type of ideas a person has about a bow.Strong and tough but still not overly dense.Good choice.

[blackhawk]

I'm not arguing at all that there is a insignificant difference....but personally I like the "just stiff" lever for durability reasons...and if you do go for a slightly bending lever you start to play with too much fire as far as lateral stability and being able to lean on your bow as a walking stick...if its just stiff its a very durable hunting weapon. The difference of .1 fps of a second can be picked up or easily lost in the many other variables that can affect fps.

[RyanY]

I'd argue that that insignificant difference is not significant enough to make a difference in durability or lateral stability. If it is then the bow is already on the edge. I hope you guys realize I know perfection is unattainable. But for me, if there's Any way a bow can be improved I look for it. Also I know most people are only concerned with hunting, but when flight shoots are won by inches, that 0.1fps can make a difference. Just a note if anyone ever plans on making a flight bow. 

[PatM]

You're kind of arguing against yourself now. The slightly flexing lever undoubtedly sacrifices more performance than the lever that has been fine-tuned by practicing on other bows.
 Trying to find that perfect lever stiffness per mass should be one of your quests rather than throwing up your hands and saying it can't be done and going too far the other way.

[RyanY]

PatM, it can be done and I believe that's by making it flex ever so slightly. I have never said anything about how it would sacrifice performance and you have yet to explain why either.

[PatM]

Well if you just want to "believe" your method is right then explaining why an alternate method is better would be a waste of my time. Nobody ever got anywhere arguing against someone who bases an argument on a belief rather than data.
 Plenty of info out there on how perfectly rigid structures are better. You may want to review the rigid arm bow model by Hickman that will give good evidence as to why rigidity in parts of a bow limb is a very good thing.
 The more material in a bow limb that can be prevented from bulging and rippling on release, the better things are.

[RyanY]

PatM, I guess belief is the wrong word since the fact a that the physics proves my point. It's important to make sure that there is an even level of stain for optimal mass reduction in real world bows which means that the stuff lever will have to flex to some degree. The stiffness to prevent limb vibration and energy loss is indeed important but you'd have to convince me that the insignificant decrease in stiffness outweighs a sure fire way of making sure mass reduction is optimal. I know you'll find a way out of explaining it though. 

[PatM]

It's also a surefire way of losing the tiny bits of performance that you obsess over. I find it interesting that you use sweeping generalizations that are basically regurgitated Bakerisms but never have much to say in the way of explaining yourself.
 "The physics prove my point " is hardly a concise explanation of your thoughts. Can I use that one too? lol