HH Bow defined

[monterey]

Over the years there has been a lot of evolution in bow terminology.  "Longbow" is a good example.  Today it means any long (and not so long) bow that may or may not be and RD bow, etc. One does not seem to hear the term "American flat bow" much anymore either.

This got me thinking about Howard Hill (HH) style bows.  That term is used a lot, but I'm wondering if the term is applied as it was in the time of use by HH.  

So, my question (finally    ).  What were the technical aspects of an HH bow as used and shot by Howard?  Length, width, riser config, shelf style, Degree of centershot?  How were his bows designed in comparison to what we call an HH bow today?

[Dick in Seattle]

I have one of Howard's own bows and comparing it to today's Hills, it's very similar but not exactly the same.  I'll catalog the differences and what I think about them, but please remember this is based on a one original bow sample and the comments are just my thoughts... no old quotes to offer to back them up.  My bow is from the mid-60's, so rather late in Howard's life.

First, mine, and I suspect almost all of Howard's, is long, 70".   66" and 68" are most common today.  This makes sense to me because Howard was a real tall guy, though he did shoot with a shortened draw, allegedly because of difficulty in getting good shafts at 30" plus.

He preferred a shorter riser to provide a longer working limb.  The riser on my bow is 15".  This is close to what Craig uses today, mostly 15 1/2" but going a bit longer for extra long bows like 70", which he will build.   There are no power lams, which makes sense to me because if you're trying to maximize the length of the working limb, pl.'s would tend to work against that.  I'm not really aware of any real old longbows that used pl.'s.

(Aside:  I like a 66" bow but have a very short 25" draw, so I build with a longer riser and, of late, with power lams, since I'm looking for a shorter working limb to gain some speed.  Opposite problem, so opposite solution.)

Howard did not use tip inserts or overlays.  I've been told by people who knew him that he was death on anything that added tip weight.   Craig today does use a tip insert, apparently less out of concern for tip stiffness than to prolong tip life by protecting from string loop wear.  Hills tend to be quite long lasting, not being much subject to limb twist and having a deep core that stands up well to general knocking around.   Craig has commented that Howard did experience tip string wear on some of his bows that he shot a lot, but he would just shorten and renock them, not being much concerned about the increased weight.

Howard preferred to have all of the lams united full length so that they would work together.  The belly glass comes up the fades, but none of the lams do.   Today, unless asked or, as on the current Robin Hood Special Edition, Craig builds with one lam up the fades.   This usually provides a better look, accenting the riser contrast, but also adds strength.  Today's commercial bowyer is faced with liability issues that weren't much of a concern in Howard's day, though I've never heard of a bow built Howard's way breaking.  I build most of mine that way, but I build light weights so it is not as much of a concern.

The width of Howard's bow is pretty much the same as today.  Core depth is obviously related to the draw weight being built for.  

Probably the most notable difference is that Howard's  bow is heavily reflexed, or pre-stressed, about 1 1/4".   Craig will build in either reflex or string follow on request, but the majority seem to be relatively straight.  On the reflexed or string follow bows built by Craig that I have had or seen  any reflex or string follow seems to be less pronounced, in the area of 1/2" to 5/8".   Again, just my thoughts, but I suspect Howard may have wanted the bit of extra speed this would provide as he was way down in draw weight by this time.   My bow is 50@28.

Another obvious difference is in the back contour.   Today's bows are flat on the back.  Howard's is noticeably curved.  Obviously, the bamboo backing was sanded, the notes are not detectable, but it was not ground flat.   The glass is clearly woven, with the fibers visible.  I don't know anything about the early glass, but I'm guessing it may have been a bit less stiff than today's.   This detectable weaving is common to the glass bows of that era.  The layup must have involved a semi-pliable pressure spreading layer to mate the glass surface to the curved boo back lam.

The riser on Howard's bow, and on many older Hills I've had or seen, is very deep, uncomfortably so for many shooters.  Again, just my thoughts, but I think this may have started out because Howard's hands were so large and just been copied a lot.

One of the most interesting features of my bow is that Howard apparently shot it off the wood shelf, with a very stiff and fairly high leather tab sticking up out of the riser wrap.  There is no soft backplate and arrow wear indicates there never was.   I shoot many of my bows off the wood and have never noted any problem other than perhaps noise if you don't have the string nock set just right.

Hope that provides some food for thought.   I'm sure we'll hear from others.  I know there are folks with a number of old Hills and they can offer observations based on a wider sample.

Overall, I'd have to say that looking at my bow rack, which contains Howard's bow, a number of Craig's and my attempts, there isn't all that much difference.  If you're shooting a modern Hill, I think you're getting pretty much the old Hill experience, perhaps more so than with any other style of bow that's popular today.

[Sixby]

Dick that is really interesting. Thanks so much for that input. This is a subject I have long wondered about.
God bless you, steve

[jsweka]

Well said Dick!  

[droz il]

Interesting post Dick, thanks for the info.

[Bill Turner]

Well said Dick. For those that do not know Craig, at Howard Hill Archery, he has never hesitated to answer questions such as this. Check his web page and e-mail him your question. You might even forward him Dick's response. If you can't catch up with Craig you've got the next best person in Dick in Seattle. I would consider him a HH historian. He is a real asset to this web site and others.

[monterey]

Dick, thanks so much for your response!  I was hoping you would pick up on this thread.    

A few more questions.  I'm not real clear on your comment about the 1 1/4"  Is it back set by that much?  And, if so, is it a straight line back set or a curve?  It seemed like you were saying it had 1 1/4" of string follow.  Was that what you meant?

Regarding limb width, is there a tyical width to his limbs?  How about arrow shelf?  Could not have been cut too deep or he would have fallen straight into the wheel bow trap!      At least that would follow if your shop sign is correct!

Do you think Byron Ferfuson's bows pretty much follow the hill design?  Seems as though I've seen a pic of one that showed clearly that there was no lam on the face of the riser.

Thanks for all your comments.

[Dick in Seattle]

Monterey...  you got me to thinking about this and I realized that many folks, including me, are pretty careless with our terms.  So, I went to the books, i.e. I googled archery terms and came up with a number of lists of archery terms defined, from which I gleaned the following:

- Backset -- A longbow design where unbraced limbs angle backward,


- String follow, also known as 'set' -- a term used by bowyers to describe the amount a bow stays curved after it's unbraced (unstrung).


Deflex bow (equipment) - A form of bow in which the entire length of the handle and arms curve toward the archer


Reflex bow (equipment) - A form of bow in which the entire length of the handle and arms curve away from the archer


I did not find "pre-stress" defined anywhere

OK… with those definitions up front, a few comments…

Obviously, for our purposes, we are concerned with Hill style longbows.  Recurves and R/D bows are another whole school and I won't argue terminology with them (though my own definition of R/D are shy recurves, or "recurves in drag").

Some time ago, I used the term string follow to refer to a laminated Hill style bow while talking with JD Berry.  He kind of took me to task about the careless way bow styles were referred to nowadays and explained that in the old days, "set" or "string follow" were terms used only to refer to wood bows.  Laminated bows with the same quality built in were "backset".   Laminated bows with the opposite condition built in were "pre-stressed".  However, per the definitions above, in more current terminology they would be called "deflexed" or "reflexed".   However, at least in my own opinion, under no circumstances on a Hill style bow would they change direction once they set out on their course, as an R/D or D/R bow does.

In general discussions today, it seems the term string follow is used very generally to refer to laminated bows as well as wood bows, though set would logically be a term more common to self bow builders, where it can be a condition that can occur, rather than a feature designed in.  

Now, in my own carelessness, I have generally referred to all Hill style bows, whether reflexed or deflexed by design and layup, as "straight longbows",  meaning that the limb orientation does not change direction.   I guess this has become my way of keeping Hill styles differentiated from R/D's.    I, and, I think, most other folks, also generally refer to any Hill style with back set as having string follow.  (Sorry, JD.)

Get's confusing, doesn't it?

Getting back to Howard's bow, where we started, it is strongly relfexed, or, in JD's terms, pre-stressed.  

I've heard the term pre-stressed used quite a bit in reference to a lot of bows, including recurves and R/D's, to indicate that the draw weight is loaded to the beginning of the draw.  The RATE of increase in draw weight per inch then tapers down.  This is a speed feature, and one of the reasons I can't shoot most modern recurves, which tend to be heavily pre-stressed to get the speeds everyone seems to demand today.   The extra load that I'm pulling from the beginning of the draw (see the power curve charts on any modern bow) means that by the time I get to full draw, I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw.  In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.

So, again returning to Howard's bow, it is pre-stressed by 1 1/4", i.e. if you put the bow on a table, back down, the tips are on the table, the riser is 1 1/4" off of the table.   I build some of my bows with fairly extreme string follow (or deflex) of 1 1/2" and if I put the bow on a table, belly down, the riser is 1 1/2" off of the table.

The line of the limbs on Howard's bow is a smooth curve, carried through the riser.   I have a form that lays up this way but with only 1" of reflex.  Until I started using power lams, it was kind of a bear to build to, because I had to make a riser with a curved back to match the form.   Now, I calculate the gap between the form and a straight riser and fill said gap with the power lams… much easier!

Just to confuse you further, here is a picture of my dual form… both sides are curved.  It builds a reflexed Hill style one one surface and a deflexed Hill style on the other.   Of course, if I go to a forward riser design, each side reverses!

 


Sorry to ramble on so long, but it helped me get my own thoughts in order.  I hope it helped more than it confused, though I'm sure it did a bit of the latter...

[NYArrow]

Dick,

 Great info! Certainly not rambling to those that are very interested in the subject. I really like the HH style bow and hope to build one someday. With that said, you never actually addressed the dimensions of a HH bow (aside from length that is). Could you fill us in on limb width, taper and etc.

[Dick in Seattle]

OK...  since you're not tired yet, here's more...

First, Monterey, you asked about Ferguson's bows.  I've never seen one so can't comment.

NY Arrow, you wanted more measurements.  Here they come:

Width at shoulder:  1 3/16"
Width at tip:   15/32"
Depth of riser:   2 1/8"
Width of riser (includes leather wrap):  1 7/16"
Limb thickness at fades:   .535
Limb thickness at nocks:   .350

You should be aware that all of the Hill info accumulated and posted on the old Howard Hill Longbowmen site is still available on my site:

 www.dickwightman.com

If you go there and click on the Howard Hill link you can review all the file titles, one of which is "Two Old Hills".   There you will find extensive information and pictures on both my bow and another of the same vintage.

[Dick in Seattle]

Ooops!   Sorry, I just checked that link and the file with the old Hill bows didn't make it across.  i'm still working on salvaging all those old files.  I'll try to get that one across to the new location this afternoon or evening...

[Dick in Seattle]

OK... the link is fixed...   You can access the files by going to my web site:  

 www.dickwightman.com

then clicking on the link:  Two Vintage Hills

I am about to go back and enter my comments from above to the files...

[monterey]

OK... since you're not tired yet, here's more...

 

Dick, definetly not tired!!

I went to your site and had a look at your HH info.  Great stuff.

I'm surprised at the degree of taper of his limb thickness.  Much faster taper than I expected.  Maybe a needed feature at his draw length and NTN length.  Also surprised at the short length of his riser sections.

My flat form bows (two on hand) all take a "set" of about 1/4 to 3/8 inch over time and use.  Smooth soft shooters.  

The one coming off this week will have about 1 1/4 of back set in an even curve at 68" ntn.  Am almost wishing I'd gone with much less back set than that, but time will tell.

Thanks again for your generosity in sharing info.

[Butch L]

Dick- I am new to the trad ways, and have been following the Bowyers Bench to try and glean info and hopefully in the future try and build one myself. After reading this thread(over and over)as well as many others that you have replied on, I can only Thank You for doing so as well as being such a lexicon of traditional bow building information and also Thank You for compiling and making free access to all that want/need said information. Again, Thank You.

Butch L

[John E.]

Dick,
Thanks for one of the most knowledgable, articulate, well-thought-out responses (to any question) that I have had the pleasure to read in a very long time.  HH bows have always held my interest; and your responses, as well as your website content, have helped me immensely.  I'm glad this topic gave me a chance to express my gratitude for your generous contributions to our (cumulative) knowledge base.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

 [/b]  The extra load that I'm pulling from the beginning of the draw (see the power curve charts on any modern bow) means that by the time I get to full draw,   I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.  I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.  

[/i]   I've heard the term pre-stressed used quite a bit in reference to a lot of bows, including recurves and R/D's, to indicate that the draw weight is loaded to the beginning of the draw. The RATE of increase in draw weight per inch then tapers down.   This is a speed feature, and one of the reasons I can't shoot most modern recurves, which tend to be heavily pre-stressed to get the speeds everyone seems to demand today.  This is a speed feature, and one of the reasons I can't shoot most modern recurves, which tend to be heavily pre-stressed to get the speeds everyone seems to demand today.   The extra load that I'm pulling from the beginning of the draw (see the power curve charts on any modern bow) means that by the time I get to full draw,   I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the  The extra load that I'm pulling from the beginning of the draw (see the power curve charts on any modern bow) means that by the time I get to full draw,   I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.  I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.
 [/QUOTE]


Great write up Dick.                  

Maybe i can help clear up the confusion on what you are referring to as "Pre-Stressed" and often referred to as "Pre Load"  and "early weight" in a bow limb.

First of all, a 40@ 28" draw is exactly the same at 28" regardless of pre-load...


an r/d bow that is designed with a heavy pre-load puts more tension on the string at brace height, and is storing more energy that can be harvested and transferred to the arrow shaft.

When starting the draw cycle on a bow with good pre-load you do in fact get "Early weight" for the first few inches of the draw..... as the draw increases the pounds per inch let off giving the illusion of a let off on the weight, and slowly increases until you hit your anchor point.

The fact of the matter is that if you have two bows side by side, both of them 40@ 28". and both bows are braced at 6.25". the actual distance the string is drawn is 20"  at a 28" draw length. standard brace brace height is typically measured from the deepest part of the grip. and AMO standards show depth of grip to be 1.75" and draw length measured from the back of the riser.

so we have 1.75" grip thickness, a 6.25" brace height to the string, and 20" of actual draw that when released is called the "Power Stroke."

a recurve limb, or a long bow with flipped tips or static tips, stores more energy at brace height and the string is much tighter. when drawing a bow with good pre load the first few inches of the draw are running around 6 pounds per inch. between 6,5 and 9"... then the pounds per inch drop way off. to less than 2 pounds per inch clear out to your anchor point. this is described as "Early weight"


for example we have a 40 pound R/D bow that has good pre-load at brace and good early weight drawing 6 pounds per inch to 9 inches. that = 18 pounds in the first 3 inches. then it lets off to 1.3 pounds per inch the rest of the draw where you anchor at 40# draw weight.

now we take a straight design  40# long bow at the same brace height that has minimal pre load and watch the draw cycle. the first few inches are always a bit heavier, so lets pic 3 pound per inch till we hit 9 inches of draw.... that gives us only 9 pounds of pressure in the first 3" of draw, and we still have 31 pounds left in our draw to get to anchor at a higher pounds per inch. Which is the same 40 pounds

The pounds per inch draw is heavier clear through the draw and increases toward the end of the draw as the string angle decreases.

both bows are the same draw weight, but they are totally different in terms of performance and how they feel during the draw.... a bow with higher pre-laod or pres stress, if you prefer, with more "Early weight" will have a tighter string at brace that results in less hand shock, and transfers more energy to the shaft resulting in much higher performance for the same draw weight pulled..

[xbmedic]

Thanks, Capt. Dick and Kirk, for making this all much clearer to me. I love learning from you guys.