What is it about longer bows that makes them forgiving?

[Stumpkiller]

Originally posted by Ron LaClair:
"Speculation".....Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.      

Yeah.  Ain't it great?    

Like: "Maybe I'll shoot better with the next bow I buy."    

[Zradix]

quote:Originally posted by Ron LaClair:
"Speculation".....Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.    

[Doug S]

Not sure but maybe "More Mass equals more Stability" ?

I have to disagree Doug, the two are not conclusively relevant, I speculate so I am..

[Ron LaClair]

When I was shooting competitive target and field archery all through the 1960's, I and every other serious archer shot 68" heavy riser light poundage (35-40#) recurves. In the early to mid 60's we added 3' long stabilizer rods that extended out from the riser. We used bow slings on our wrist so we didn't have to grip the bow.  This was done to try and eliminate the possibility of torquing the bow.

A target archer had to shoot 6 arrows at each target, a field archer shot 4 arrows at each target. We needed all the help we could get to have the 4th or the 6th arrow shoot as smoothly and consistently as the 1st arrow.

A bow hunter is a different breed of cat than a target archer. Nine times out of ten he shoots one shot and that one shot has all of the concentration and strength he possesses to put that one arrow where it's supposed to go. Chances of him shooting another 3 or 5 followup shots as good as the first shot are pretty slim...unless he has some kind of help as described above.

The production bows of the 60's, Bear Wing, Pearson, Black Widow each had two different types of bows in their line. Long light weight target bows and shorter hunting bows. You didn't see Fred Bear hunting with a 68" Kodiak Special.

I worked in an archery shop for a period of time in the 60's. Our best selling hunting bows were the Bear Kodiak and Kodiak Hunter, 60 and 58" lengths. The 58" Red Wing Hunter was also a very popular bow.

Bow making materials and bow design didn't change much until the last 10 years or so. As for my preference for a hunting bow?...check my web site.  

[Ron LaClair]

Not sure but maybe "More Mass equals more Stability" ?
 

What IS stability?

[Jason R. Wesbrock]

As a whole, whether they are or aren't really isn't even a debatable point. If they weren't, target bows wouldn't be long. As to why, there have been some great explanations thus far. Now, whether or not a person needs or can make use of the added forgiveness and stability of a longer bow is an individual decision.

[Doug S]

1. the state or quality of being stable.
2. firmness in position.
3. continuance without change; permanence.
4. Chemistry . resistance or the degree of resistance to chemical change or disintegration.
5. resistance to change, esp. sudden change or deterioration: The stability of the economy encourages investment.
6. steadfastness; constancy, as of character or purpose: The job calls for a great deal of emotional stability.
7. Aeronautics . the ability of an aircraft to return to its original flying position when abruptly displaced.
8. Roman Catholic Church . a vow taken by a Benedictine monk, binding him to residence for life in the same monastery in which he made the vow.

NFL Lineman  vs Dennis Rodman  

[Doug S]

Hope you figure it out.

Doug

[GrayRhino]

Originally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:
As a whole, whether they are or aren't really isn't even a debatable point. If they weren't, target bows wouldn't be long. As to why, there have been some great explanations thus far. Now, whether or not a person needs or can make use of the added forgiveness and stability of a longer bow is an individual decision.

This has already been alluded to in previous posts, but, for whatever its worth, the laws of physics state that, “For rotational motion, the moment of inertia is analogous to mass. More force is needed to accelerate a more massive object from rest. Analogously, more torque (a rotational force) is needed to start an object rotating when the object has a greater moment of inertia.
The moment of inertia depends on an object's mass and on the distance the mass is from the rotational axis. When a tightrope walker carries a long pole, he increases his moment of inertia both by increasing their total mass and by increasing the average distance of the mass from the rotational axis.
So, when a bow has more mass, and that mass is spread across a greater distance (bow length), it results in a more stable shooting platform.  A longer bow minimizes the affect of small torques and imbalances upon arrow flight.
A longer bow with greater mass requires a greater amount of torque to move it.  A longer bow has more mass between the tips and the rotational axis (grip) thus making it more steady in the hand and more difficult to torque upon release.

To each their own in finding their preferred length bow taking mass weight, length, practicality, accuracy, compactness, etc., into consideration.  

[Friend]

Instructions requested to post a sketch from power point utilizing imagelinky.

[Zradix]

Friend email sent

[Friend]

Please view attached sketch per link.

Just believe that less limb twist due to longer limbs is one factor contributing to forgivenss.


   


Note: Thanks John for the advice on posting the sketch.

Just click on the 'X' then select 'open'.

[Doug S]

There u have it.

[Lee Robinson .]

I believe GreyRhino is right on in his post about rotational forces and such...

Also, string angle CERTAINLY plays a role in this topic as any variation in a release reduced on a longer bow due to the string angle not at the archer's fingers so much as it is on the bow's tips. I am not saying finger pinch isn't a factor, as that too certainly could come into play.

However, I am surprised the amount of limb core has not taken a bigger role in this topic.

If one has two bows of the same poundage, generally the longer bow will have more limb core (this may of course vary for riser length, design, and materials used).

Now, why does this matter? It promotes BOTH lateral stability (resistance to twist) and vertical stability (resistance to varying dynamic tiller due to high or low wrist changes or finger pluck in a poor release). This all helps the bow maintain alignment as the bow is drawn. It aligns to the tension...and "self-adjusts" to the natural tiller the bowyer put into the bow and resists the minor twisting an archer may have in their draw from bowhand to drawing hand. To illustrate this...lets take two extremes...a HH bow and an Olympic recurve. Try twisting both on purpose. The Olympic recurve will twist like a ribbon, while twisting the HH bow will be as difficult as trying to twist a piece of pipe...yet Olympic archers use the Olympic recurve (long ones though) as they have flawless form and have perfected the perfect draw/release and bowhand so everything stays in alignment.

With today's modern materials, such as superior glues, carbon limbs, and even good glass, I don't believe we need 68" bows to obtain extreme stability, but I think some have taken a good thing (the maneuverability of a short bow), and gone too far with it. The old "rob Peter to pay Paul" phrase should remind us to seek balance.

Now, what length is going to work best for you is going to depend upon the design. I would never want a 64" HH bow, as it would stack too much at my draw if it had much limb core...and would be slow. Reduce the core to improve the performance and draw and you loose the stability. In a HH design, 67-68" is ideal for me. With my r/d design, I like 64." I get all the stability I need with a bow 4" shorter than a straight limbed bow and with much improved performance. That said, 64" would be long in a bow with a forward handle that had a short and significantly deflexed riser. The forward grip, short riser, and deflex angle at the riser all add stability, but the cost significant performance in terms of performance as all these traits reduce stored energy. Again..."rob Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.

So, in the end, we need to select what it is we want to accomplish with the bow, and then select the bow that meets those demands best.

I would NOT choose the same bow for an Olympic archer that shoots in an open field that I would chose for a turkey hunter that hunts inside a ground blind tent.

[Rob DiStefano]

without getting into the technical aspects, longer limbed bows typically have better release "stability" and smoother draws, and with less "finger pinch" for longer draw lengths.  

this is a broad brush statement and there are other static factors to consider such as overall bow design, limb design, limb & riser interaction, materials and construction.

for the most part, hill style longbows work best in longer lengths, r/d longbows allow shorter lengths.  as an example, for my 29" draw length i need a 68" hill bow minimum and a 62" minimum for r/d longbows,

[Cool Arrow]

I gotta say this topic includes more food for thought than any I've read. boils down to each archer needing to shoot many lengths and styles of bow to determine what works best for him. Hmmm didn't we already know this. Maybe thats why the classified section of this forum is so popular.
   Larry

Then to confuse it further, bows like Lost Creeks and Shrews feel much longer than they actually are, because of the deflexed handle and the way the limbs load up.  It is a good thing when there is more than one way to get the job done.  How did that go? Just the same but way different.

[Zradix]

Protege Longbows

Thank you for the post.
I've never touched an Olympic bow.
Why do you think the Olympic archers use limbs "that twist like ribbons"?
I read and understand those archers have great form and release.
It seems to me that they would want the most forgiving bow made. Especially since they can use sights to help with the trajectory curve coming from the slower arrow being shot from the heavier limbed bow ( more forgiving HH type )

Thank you

[Lee Robinson .]

Well...grab an Olympic recurve by the tip and you will see the bow is pretty flimsy...especially when compared to a bow like a HH longbow. However, as I mentioned, those archers have perfect form. It would be very difficult to maintain that perfect form shot after shot with a bow that has thump (handshock) in it. Basically, even though the recurve is often more sensitive to errors, I believe an archer that uses a gentle bow is less likely to develop such errors. Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction that occurs at the same time (Issac Newton). What this means is when an archer feels a thump, they adjust to it. Such adjustments lead to "reactions" and conditioned behaviors...yet these feelings change as one becomes fatigued in a competition. The Olympic recurve, despite its flexible limbs, simply doesn't fatigue the archer to the same level as does a deeper cored HH type of bow.

I would say with today's materials we are able to "hybridize" today's bows to produce a combination that is someone the best of both. This of course just my opinion based upon my experiences.

If one reads "Hunting the Hardway," by Howard Hill, you will read a section where he designed a recurve type bow that he did exceptionally well with at a target butt, yet when he went in the field to hunt with his buddies he came home empty handed and went back to his longbow. His belief was while the recurve was great for a static archer, it was not as conducive to good shooting in adverse conditions found in hunting as is the longbow. I would say HH is correct in his assessment.