TBM's "King of the Ring" ... so far anyway.

[bowdude]

You know guys this argument reminds me of Harley motorcylce riders arguing about which of their bikes is faster.  In the end your arguing about whos faster in an elephant race.    

[Cutty47]

bowdude...lol...

[longbowman]

Somebody has to have data somewhere that supports or disproves the fact that some bows shoot heavy arrows faster.  I know I watched a number of bows shoot through a speed checker at the ETAR a couple of years back all shooting in the 180 fps range with light arows.  My son had shot his 80# @ 27" HH Wesley Special through it with 825 gr. arrows @ 181 fps average over 3 shots.  He and I both  shot my 76# Howatt Hunter with the same arrows and couldn't get to 175 fps.  Yet with 2216's my bow consistently shot about 5 fps. faster than his.
    I happen to be one of the people who don't fall for the "my bow is more efficient so I can shoot 40# and get the same effect as shooting 50#".  I'm sure some bows are built with better efficiency than others but KE doesn't carry that much weight with me either.  It's a simple fact.  Would you rather be hit in the head with a feather going 50 mph or a ball bat going the same speed?  Hit force is a much better test of bow efficiency.

[geno]

Originally posted by JOKER:
They are easier to catch with the gocarts but you just hit there legs and they fall on you.

Now that was good for a laugh!!

[SpankyNeal]

Going from 10gpp to 12gpp seems to have less effect on my R/D longbows than it does on my recurves. I think that the thin wide limbs have a harder time accelerating (sp) the heavier weight than do the deep narrow LB limbs. I've always heard that the heavier the arrow the closer the deep cored LB gets to the recurve in the speed department.

[James Wrenn]

You only have the distance of your draw length to get to the bows full weight.That means when you start with a bow with early draw weight you have less lbs per inch to pull to get there.A gain of less lbs makes a smoother pulling bow.A bow that pulls smooth with less weight gain at and through the end of the draw usually results in more accuracy.You take a bow that gains 4lbs at the end of a draw and one that gains 2lbs for instance.You overdraw or creep 1/2" and the 4lb gain makes a full pound of differance.The 2lb draw bow would be half that.It is easy to see which will have more impact on the arrows flight.    There is a reason the term "smooth through the clicker" applies to target bows.They are looking to put arrows in little bitty groups.    jmo

[jonesy]

I had a predator for sale on the classifieds for $350 and no one looked at it, they are great bows and shoot well.

[Mr.Magoo]

It is an interesting topic.  In fact, I just picked-up a used recurve (a Horne's Ridge Runner) that really feels like there's a bit of "let off" 2/3's of the way through the draw ... I'm attributing it to the semi-static tips, and it feels very smooth.

As for the "longbow and heavy arrow" debate ... I've never seen any hard numbers or valid tests, but I'd guess it's more a percentage issue.  One bow will maintain its percentage advantage, but as the speed falls those numbers will move closer together even though the percentage stays the same.  Any given bow can only exert X amount of force on any arrow (it's not like a motor, once that initial push is over the bow is done.)  The bow that exerts X+5 is always X+5 and will always shoot faster than X until both fall to zero.

[woodchucker]

Maybe it's just me,but I can't see any differance between how a $350 bow or a $1350 shoots.If it's going to cost me $1000 to get 4 more fps. I'll go with the $350 bow thank you.      

BTW.....I shot my 53# Mikuta longbow through a cronogragh just for the hell of it.....

55#-60# Cedar arrow made by Joe Skipp, 29"-BOP, 125gr. field point, and my lousy 3under finger release.

I got 183 fps.....That's fast enough for me!!!!!

[Jason Jelinek]

I had the chance to pull back 2 bows around 70# a few years back.  The first was an longbow 70# @ 30" and had 5+" reflex.  It had high early draw weight.  The other was a r/d recurve 70# @ 30 and had a straight force draw curve (low/med early draw weight).  The recurve was much easier to draw because there wasn't the high early draw weight like the longbow.  Neither stacked, but the early draw weight had an effect on my perception of ease of draw.

Jason

[Cutty47]

James, as usual, is right on the money...

But...if you can get a bow to stack right at the end of your draw, it can act as a hard back wall, or built in draw check.

I know one of the best LB shooters around, Redbow, had a couple built that way.

I just happened to luck into a Monarch that did that for me.  Accurate as heck, but just a little too slow (have no idea about the newer ones)...okay, a downright dog...

[shaft slinger]

Hey, if you have 2 60# bows and one is harder to pull than the other one ,  PUT them on the same scale,  60# is 60#  

[centaurshooter]

sorry to bring up an old topic here but magoo is dead on, it's percentages and that's why a HH style SEEMS to catch up the higher the arrow weight gets.  not to say it's not observed but it's b/c different arrow shelfs and riser cuts cause arrows to spine differently.  spine all the arrows perfectly to each bow and the one that shoots 6gpp fastest will shoot 20gpp faster, however, if the difference at 6gpp is 2fps, the difference at 20 gpp is gonna be a fraction of a percentage of a fps.

[pseman]

Does this mean that most/all high dollar bows are high dollar mainly because of the craftsmanship and beauty of the bow and the prestige associated with owning one? Not because of superior performance?

Ouch!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Originally posted by Jason Jelinek:
Actually the A&H ACS bow is the king at 84% efficiency, the fps doesn't matter because the draw weight and force draw curve distort the speed.  The efficiency is the key.

Jason

Where did you come up with this theory about draw curve distortion and fps not making a difference? Sounds like gibberish to me...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Originally posted by Mr.Magoo:
It is an interesting topic.  In fact, I just picked-up a used recurve (a Horne's Ridge Runner) that really feels like there's a bit of "let off" 2/3's of the way through the draw ... I'm attributing it to the semi-static tips, and it feels very smooth.

As for the "longbow and heavy arrow" debate ... I've never seen any hard numbers or valid tests, but I'd guess it's more a percentage issue.  One bow will maintain its percentage advantage, but as the speed falls those numbers will move closer together even though the percentage stays the same.  Any given bow can only exert X amount of force on any arrow (it's not like a motor, once that initial push is over the bow is done.)  The bow that exerts X+5 is always X+5 and will always shoot faster than X until both fall to zero.

This may sound pretty basic and not very engineer orientated, but think of it this way. take a stiff tipped fishing rod and put 6 ounces of weight on and cast it.....do the same with a fishing rod with a limber tip.....they will both cast the weight but the stiffer tipped pole handles a heavier weight easier....my comparison would be the long bow has the stiffer tip guys...now go the other way....take that limber tip rod or a recurve with a more limber tip, and put 2 ounces of weight on it.....it will cast that weight faster and more efficiently than using a salmon rod with less effort.....

as far as KE and penitration Light vs Heavy arrows......you'll argue until the day you die with engineers over that one....

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:"There's 2 things that go into arrow speed... efficiency and stored energy. The stored energy is the area under the force draw curve. The efficiency is the ratio of the kinetic energy divided by the stored energy. The KE can be the same for 2 arrow/bow setups, but the efficiency and stored energy may be different." unquote

Jason would you be kind enough to explain this statement a little better....KE is KE ....how can the effeciency be different on two bows shooting an arrow with the same K.E.?

[JOKER]

Kirkll, maby I can help you out with Jason's quote.
When you draw a bow you put a certain amount of stored energy into it (the area under the draw force curve). When you releace that bow the stored energy goes into the KE of the arrow moveing forword, the KE of the limb, string, scilencers going forword, vibrations, ect... The efficiency of a bow is how much of that stored energy in put into the arrow.
So, you can have two bows both with the same draw force curve, both at the same final draw weight, both shooting the same arrow. One may have heavier limbs, string, have more vibratin, ect... it will shoot the arrow slower due to not being as efficient.
I bet it will be as clear as mud now!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok....Now that i understand we are talking about the "Bow's KE" and not the arrows KE..it makes sense....i thought we were back to arguing about slow arrows with heavier weights getting more penitration than a lighter arrow with the same KE.  Thanks Joker....

[Jeremy]

He was saying that two set ups that give the same KE of the arrow can have vastly different stored enery (potential energy) and efficiency.  For example a 45# recurve could shoot the same arrow as a 55# selfbow at the same speed, but the stored energy and efficiency profiles are going to be completely different.  I think that's also what he was getting at with the ACS.  The one tested is 4# lighter than most of the bows tested with speeds that are 4 fps faster.  

There are a lot of factors that go into how a bow's profile and mass distribution in the limb affect the potential energy and efficiency.  The Traditional Bowyer's Bible (vol.I I think) had a real good chapter on bow design that explained lots of 'em.  Increasing reflex stores more energy by building draw weight earlier.  It also effectively stiffens the tips, allowing you to use more taper to make them lighter.  That's what OL and John did with the ACS - they took a well known engineering concept (the cross section) and applied it to trad archery, tinkering with the radius until they got really stiff, light tips.