Technique vs. Hardware

[ravenbows]

Due to a recent injury I have had to make some adjustments....(much help from Bede...thank you.....) in my form.

Because of this I do believe that the style or discipline of bow will have to change. Where drawing the bow just under the ear was the norm or natural, I now come to draw just to the jaw or a little sooner.

This makes we wonder about the efficiency of the different style's of asian archery and why they are associated with certain bows?

Do certain styles of bow perform better with certain techniques? Why has the turkish bow become renowned as the pinnacle of asian bows? Would not a Chinese or perhaps korean bow have the same performance if shot in a similar manner given the draw length, and draw weights are matched?

I have my own thoughts on this, but would like to defer to those who are much more knowledgeable than I.

Joe

[Orda Khan]

Well it seems that the Turkish bow is very popular, 90% of the bows presented in these forums by modern bowyers are Turkish.
Each to their own I suppose but I would not claim to be a big fan. I find the decoration gaudy and quite ugly (same applies to Turkish/Mughal arrows) regardless of how intricate each detail is (I am an artist and I can appreciate the skill and talent involved.)
I ask you, what has more beauty than nature herself? Why would anyone apply such paint and pattern over the true beauty of wood or the underlying fibres within bamboo. No artist can match this.

Give me a Korean bow anytime. It has great beauty in its shape and subtlety in its decoration and, in my opinion, is a better design.

[ravenbows]

Alright......I am speaking more to the function and delivery of energy to an arrow......not necessarily to how pretty they are.....

You and I would agree on that matter.....none of us can improve upon from whom we came.

When it comes to aesthetics....the simple longbow is very pleasing to the eye in its simplicity......but not as effective at delivering an arrow.

[Orda Khan]

Point taken. It's just something that's been on my mind for quite some time, sorry.
Comparison between bows is very difficult I'd imagine, there is much to be considered. The bow's function, draw length, bowyer, archer and on and on. For example I could show you a longbow that will deliver an arrow with velocity and flatness of cast, the equal of any hornbow of comparible draw weight. On the other hand, I'd not be looking for a comparison between a Manchu style bow and Turkish, I don't think you can.
I think the best you can do is have bows of same weight with same arrows and see which performs best for the particular task in mind. Even then, the result may change if the task does.
Incidentally, other archers who have tried my bows with modern barebow approach (eg 3 fingers below arrow) have done well enough.

After the traumatic time you must have had, it's great to hear you are still very much an archer. Good for you!

[Stephen Selby]

Obviously there are many bows that just don't want to be drawn back to the ear, and they are still perfectly good bows. If a bow is rated at 40# at 28 inches, and another of the same design is rated 40# at 34 inches, I can't really see how there could be any difference in their performance after release when drawn to the correct length. What you would find is that they feel different to draw up to full draw.

Contrasting two bows of completely different design - say Korean and Manchu - the latter has to transmit its force to a massive arrow and probably the additional distance over which the force is transmitted helps. But when I saw a very high frame-rate video of a Manchu-style bow being released, I gained the impression that within a very short distance the arrow seemed to be flying faster than the limbs (i.e. the string can be seen flapping/resonating and not propelling the arrow). My initial conclusion was that the arrow that was used was much lighter than the original Manchu ones and most of the energy was being used up moving the siyahs.

Am I making sense?

[Justin Ma]

Then it sounds like the bow design and draw length depend on the kind of arrow you want to shoot.

[ravenbows]

Then it sounds like the bow design and draw length depend on the kind of arrow you want to shoot.

That is a good observation Justin! Certainly a shorter "power stroke" would have been more useful in the case of that arrow that Mr. Selby speaks of.

In the example that MR. Selby speaks of, would not a heavier arrow benefit more from remaining on the string for the full stroke?

And if you forced a lighter arrow to remain on the string, would it not depreciate the energy the arrow would be able to deliver? Because when all is said and done, that is what the ancients were looking for, the most energy possible, delivered at the point of contact, in order to produce the best penetration.

Could it be possible that some of the designs, if not in whole, but in part be determined by the arrow material that was readily availalble at that given time or location? Any reference work that may support that?

[redhawk]

Very interesting topic and discussion! Every reply is really true.
There is no "best bow", whether it is a selfbow or a hornbow. Taken into account availibity of materials, crafting, production- time, performance.......any kind of selfbow is more efficient than a hornbow.
Most bowyers didn?t consider the impacts of a determining design: why did the Egyptians splitted bow- limbs, the figure "2" has been their most important holy figure... Stephen mentioned recently the impact of the totemic use of the ibex on Scythian bow designs..................etc.

Orda Khan, I prefer the natural beauty of selfbows and the Korean hornbows. Turkish hornbows are somewhat to refined, I found their painting a bit to kitschy and a somewhat "mindless task".

Every archer needs "his" bow, Michael

[jbl]

Great topic and great information.

Redhawk one question when you say ANY selfbow is more efficient then a hornbow what are you baseing this statement on? You mention materials and building time etc... but you do not mention the fact that most if not all hornbows if properly cared for will out last a selfbow making the time in construction materials etc... a better "investment". Kind of a "pay me now so you want have to pay later".

I don't want to turn this into a mine is better than yours discussion because I believe not every bow is for every person and vice versa and also to shoot what makes you happy and also what you feel comfortable with as far as care and maintenance.

[ravenbows]

I am probably not communicating like I think that I am or hope that I am.

I will try to use an illustration......in an effort to see why certain bow designs go hand in hand with certain shooting technique.

For example........a korean archer.....shooting a KTB....will pull the arrow beyond the jaw, using very long arrows. (not all the details are mentioned but hopefully you get my gist)

Or you have a turkish archery.......with a certain style of bow.....will draw only to the point of the jaw or often to the corner of the mouth.

Why? why not a turkish archer pulling as far as the korean archer? Why is not the korean archer pulling to the corner of the mouth like the turkish archer? Would it not be more efficient?

This is just one example and many more could be brought up.

[ravenbows]

It is just my theory, but it seems to be that as hardware improved and became more efficient, so did the technique.

We can readily see the changes in bow design, but very few reference how the techniques came about.......seemingly in conjunction with the hardware or bow.

This is of interest to me, because I think that it may speak to cultural influences also.......perhaps?

[Justin Ma]

That is a good observation Justin! Certainly a shorter "power stroke" would have been more useful in the case of that arrow that Mr. Selby speaks of.

In the example that MR. Selby speaks of, would not a heavier arrow benefit more from remaining on the string for the full stroke?

I'm going to venture a guess that a long power stroke would still be appropriate if the arrow was both long and light. However, you would need the lower limb mass of the Korean bow to make the stroke more efficient for that arrow.

But in the case where you are shooting short arrows with a short draw, the Turkish design would be your best bet.

[redhawk]

Ravenbows, even I?m not at all a fan of Turkish hornbows I estimate the Osmanian hornbow to be the most thinkable efficient design for a hornbow.
The Osmanians bowyers have optimized the hornbow- design by reducing weight while shortening the siyahs( f.e. take the mighty siyahs of Manchu style or Mongolian bows........), shortening the working part of the limbs, reducing weight by designing much more stable cross- sections. The handle- section is even a bit deflexed( by adding an additional piece of wood to the back, not to the belly), this allows a longer drawlength( even if the design is shortened)........For sure Adam Karpovicz could add some more details.
According to my knowledge the Osmanian hornbows could be drawn to 28"- 32", maybe further. But it depends what kind of shot you want to do. Flightshooting is usually done with a draw about 23"- 26", cause a shorter movement of the limbs is required for efficiency.
So every archer needs "his" bow for "his" shot..............
Michael

[ginni]

Turkish hornbows are somewhat to refined, I found their painting a bit to kitschy and a somewhat "mindless task".

This statement says more about you than about turkish bows.

[Justin Ma]

We can't overlook the stability requirements for a bow for battlefield use.

I'm just reiterating some observations people made in an older "Korea vs. Turkish bow" thread. The Ottoman bow and the Korean target bow designs are the same size, yet reproduction Ottoman bows (which have shorter draw requirements that are less strenuous for a short bow) have achieved higher draw weights than their Korean counterparts (which have longer draw requirements that are more strenuous for a short bow). In a way, the Korean target bow achieves efficiency at the expense of stability. Korean war bows were likely larger than Korean target bows, probably for stability reasons. So in war where you want a really stable bow, you're going to want a longer bow when shooting a longer arrow.

In choosing an arrow length/mass, it boils down to physics in the end: it's either kinetic energy or momentum (I don't know which) that govern the piercing ability of the arrow. Different peoples chose to occupy different parts of the arrow weight spectrum, but probably achieved similar results in terms of energy/momentum delivered.