A different type of "Molly"

[Buckeye Guy]

I have a Molly made by blackhawk and I will remove some mass from the handle so it fits me better ,but aint no way I want to do any scraping on the tips !
I worry enough about stringing it up now !
I was thinking about trying to do a molly in Hickory but know I don't have to ,thanks for sharing !!!
Have fun !!
Merry Christmas !!
Guy

[RyanY]

Pat M, again you have yet to explain your point. In making bows there is an optimal strain which lies between taking absolutely no set and taking too much set. We don't yet know EXACTLY what that strain is but experimentation has showing that its enough that the bow takes some set. If it takes zero set then there is too much mass for optimal performance. Too much set and energy storage is compromised. We know that the limbs have to be strained to a certain degree for optimal mass reduction which means that the levers have to show that they are stressed. Of course a completely stiff lever is under stress but to the point of taking absolutely no set. Allowing that lever to bend slightly shows us it is near optimally stressed and such a small bend causes no set. In a perfect bow with no limb vibration, limb mass doesn't matter because all the stored energy goes into the arrow. But in real world bows mass is a factor we can take control of to increase performance. Even though the stiff tips of a Molly may decrease limb vibration to a degree, they still lose energy to it to a degree which the slight bend in the levers would be insignificant.

Buckeye guy, I've said several times that I think Blackhawk is able to reach near optimal in his bows. Hopefully he'll share his techniques with us.

[PatM]

 There is simply no need for anyone to "explain" themselves beyond pure performance numbers.
 No rule at all states that we have to be able to reduce a bow performance to numbers and graphs like Allen and Dave can do.
 Why are you so persistent in that line of questioning? You should be wondering why with all your knowledge your bow only shoots a bit over 160 when many people do considerably better with zero knowledge of what is really going on apart from 'what works".
 BH will tell you that a certain dimension is too heavy, another is too flexy and he makes the lever between those two. That line is a fine one and he knows how to work up to the line but not over.
 Did you even try shooting your bow when the levers were stiff and actually compare performance to the flexing levers?

[sleek]

I wanna jump in this, having never even considered building a mollie. I have a question. If one lever is tillered so that it is exactly stiff, and another is tillered to bend only one millimeter, which will shoot further? Now this question as it stands is not answerable because we dont know how much the stiff lever weighs. But lets assume if another 60 gr ( to use a number used earlier in this thread ) were removed it would flex 1 millimeter.

I am willing to bet ( with no experience to back this ) that they would perform the same. Or at least without an exact shooting style and release every time, you would never tell a difference. That being the case, is there anything wrong with the argument Ryoon is offering? Seems as though Blackhawk has found a way to split that hair with his bows, but I would put him in a completely different classification of bowyers. So, sorry bud, you dont count For the rest of us, how would a person know when his levers are reduced to max efficiency mass?

Perhaps if two bows were built? But no two bits of wood are the same. If one bow was built and the tips were reduced, weighed for mass, measured for amount of stifness, shot through a crono, and repeated until the speed numbers start to fall. That graph would be imposable to argue with.

[warpath]

Can't we all just get along?!?!?! Pat and Ryoon- Kiss and make up! 

   Now how about showing some mollies?! 

  G

[PatM]

There are much better ways of reducing mass without making the tips flex.
 The argument Ryan is making is misguided because he has shown no evidence that he's  tried both ways. He's just hoping that his way is right.
 After he's made a few with hollow  levers he may change his tune.

[RyanY]

Pat M, it's funny you say that about my Molly since there is a lot I could do to change it as my current knowledge has increased drastically. Also consider that at the time I was building bows with a tillering stick and an old bathroom scale. Bows from that time in my bow making life were actually under the measured weights. I haven't measured that one but other bows I had measured at 50#'s on the bathroom scale were actually under 45. I think the only possible way I could convince you of anything is to make every possible bow design of every possible wood and let you test them yourself. Apparently the logical argument doesn't work. 

Sleek, the only problem I have with completely stiff levers is that I fail to understand how one can tell they are reduced to optimal thickness without having them flex at all. A stiff lever could be extremely close to optimal or way overbuilt and you couldn't tell the difference. If there is a way then I'd like to know.

Warpath, no animosity on this side. I love that we can have open discussions like this.

[sleek]

I know where your coming from Ryoon, and I am slightly sympathetic towards your side, because I have the same question. How do you know? Blackhawk knows because he has the experience and figured it all out. Us though? I would have to kepp shooting through a chrono untill the numbers stopped going up to find that sweet spot for me.

[PatM]

As you are making the bow you should be getting a feel for the wood choice you are using. Some woods are quite consistent. If you can see that your levers are flexing very slightly then logically your next bow should be a hair deeper.
 You could very easily  grind a flat surface on the belly of the lever and replace thickness and fine tune multiple times.
 You will find that it's not so much the experience BH has but rather that he gets right on the stuff that might make a difference rather than dodging and speculating.
 

[RyanY]

Pat M, SO YOU DO GET YOUR LEVERS FLEXING! Oh you dog! 

[PatM]

Only once and I fix my mistakes rather than saying  "I meant to do that".

[sleek]

Pat, do you ever chrono the tips before and after they flex and you fix em back stiff? Just wondering the difference, or if you tell a difference?

[beetlebailey1977]

Looks pretty fine to me......good work.

[scp]

IMHO there must be many ways to discern whether a lever is optimized or not. BTW according to Dan Perry, "Leverage may be the most controversial element of bow limb dynamics, since most bowyers I have talked deny the existence of leverage and gearing in bows." (p.164 of TBB4) Does that mean the so called unbending lever is just the end part of limb that is not very well tillered? Do we even have to optimize the static recurve by making sure it bends at least a little? IMHO there must be many ways to talk about bow limb dynamics. The issue is not whether there is such a thing as leverage, but whether it is useful to talk about leverage. Is it useful for optimization to make a lever bend at least perceptibly? I guess so. But that is not the only way. Several people suggested using a chrono. Much more cumbersome but probably safer. Did I mention that there are many ways to skin a cat?

[Keenan]

Great looking bow, I am still needing to give one of those a try