Author Topic: why a molly?  (Read 8428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IdahoMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,093
Re: why a molly?
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2014, 09:10:51 pm »
That's very well put Chris.  I gotta make me another one.  The first one was under weight and one of the first bows I made. I still love to shoot it and it is still shooting.  So I like it .  But it would be fun to revisit the design :)

Offline JonW

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,906
Re: why a molly?
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2014, 09:23:35 pm »
Some like European sports cars, some like American muscle cars. Just drive what you like! :D

Offline RyanY

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,999
Re: why a molly?
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2014, 12:16:19 am »
I like this thread and agree with most of whats been said. The only thing I don't like about molly's is the abrupt transition from working limb to stiff outer limb. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think its near impossible to get enough bend out of the last few inches of working limb to justify the width out there. That's why I think the holmegaard design we used to see more often is a better option.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: why a molly?
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2014, 12:46:27 am »
It's just another fade. If you can make an inner fade hinge, you can certainly make an outer one bend.
 Your point is probably more geared towards the way a bowyer typically makes a Mollie with the width tapering abruptly to the lever.
 The originals were actually much more graceful. I'm not sure what generated that practice of guys making the outer taper look like a fade one might expect on a pyramid bow handle.
 It's almost like someone sketched a rough outline as a starting point before refining and most people just leave that outline.