In a BBO w/ boo core....

[razorsharptokill]

What would the boo taper have to be at the thick end to equal an Osage taper in stiffness?

And.. would it benefit the design anyway?

[PEARL DRUMS]

Are you talking an action boo core from Rudder between the boo and osage? Or an all boo bow?

[razorsharptokill]

Action boo core between raw boo and an Osage belly lam.

[PEARL DRUMS]

Rudder claims you will be sure to feel the difference the first time you sandwich one in there. I think they sell them parallel. I would imagine leaving them parallel wouldnt hurt a thing if the core and outer boo is tapered? Just a hunch.

[razorsharptokill]

Yes but how thick? I cant see it being as strong as Osage therefore would have to be thicker.

[PEARL DRUMS]

I dont know? Being sandwiched between a core and backer with URAC holding it, I cant see it failing? Call Rudder and see what they say about it. Try it and report back so I know how it works Jim!

[KochNE]

If I understand this right...  Boo is less dense than osage.  (At least raw...idk about "actionboo")  The neutral plane of the bow is doing no work.  Neither in tension (raw boo's specialty) nor compression (where osage excels).  This part of the bow doesn't "pull its share of the weight".  So less dense = lighter wood in & around that neutral plane where little work is done.  This should allow the boo back & osage belly to each do their respective "thing" & recover quicker, as there is less non-working mass sandwiched between them to move forward upon release.  If the neutral plane's weight is lower, it can come closer to pulling its share of said weight...  

Make sense?  Maybe I'm way off base & didn't even answer the right question?

Tyler

[PEARL DRUMS]

I standunder what your saying Tyler, I believe your correct. It should allow a thinner core and backer making it quicker and quieter?

[razorsharptokill]

I was thinking it would have to be thicker to make up for being weaker? Add to the total stack thickness?

[D]

I was thinking it would have to be thicker too.  Seeing as how its more flexible.  Hum so how thick does it need to be.  How thick is the belly lam too

[KochNE]

Jim, it almost sounds like you're talking about a fiberglass bow?  If so, I have no valuable input.  But if it's an all wood laminate...  The "core" where the actionboo is...would be less dense & therefore lighter at any given thickness relative to osage at same thickness.  Because the center of the bow does so little work, "strength" there is of minimal importance.  The strength of the bow is in the tension of the raw bamboo & the compression of the osage belly.  Very small changes in the thickness of the osage will make great changes in weight.  The Osage belly lam would have to be thicker, yes.  But almost imperceptibly so.

[razorsharptokill]

Yes, I'm talking about a laminated Boo backed Osage belly longbow with a action boo core. I use the Dryad Hunter design basically.

I use a .180 thick parallel belly lam and a .170 thick (at butt end) taper for a 50lbish bow 64" ntn I believe. I dont have my tech data in front of me right now.

So.. say a .190 belly lam and .170 core of action boo?

[wingnut]

We did some bows with our bamboo in the core of the "all natural" bows.  We found although it was lighter in weight the performance suffered compared to an all osage bow.  Also the bow took more set during the tillering process.

Mike

[Eric Krewson]

I have made a few bows with extra thick, high crowned bamboo, by the time I got them tillered they were an osage bellied bamboo bow(very little osage) instead of a bamboo backed osage bow and were wimpy in performance.

[razorsharptokill]

Ok, that settles it. Osage for the core.

[PEARL DRUMS]

Just going to shoot for a good ol' fashioned BBO then Jim?

[razorsharptokill]

Yes. Osage is just hard to beat.