Ancient bows from Mongolia from an exhibition in Bonn Pt. 3

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:03 pm

The results are right there. Nobody is trying to handicap their bow in any way and there are limits to how much you can enhance performance by the overdraw device rules.
The playing field is very level.
Note the performance of Jaap's turkish bow and compare it to a similar poundage hickory bows by Dan Perry.
Do you see evidence of vast superiority?
I'm pretty sure both these bows had to shoot 23 inch arrows but the turkish bow was allowed a sipur.
The Hungarians recently mention shooting 80 pound bows over 500m and that was with a sipur.
Harry Drake shot a 80 poundYew recurve 544 yards.
Would you like barometric pressure and wind readings too?

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:05 pm

Leve him, nothing to spent time on

it is just the usually thing, nothing from east can be better then what an anglo can do.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:11 pm

If only you had let go so easily when you got schooled by an oak 2"x4" :lol:
I was actually thinking your bow was going to come out on top in that test as I still firmly believe the composite does have more potential and said as much on that thread.
You let me down when I bought your BS. :lol:
My belief is certainly wavering and fwiw I'm not Anglo....

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Redhorse, I can't let this one go.

Patrick Menzies wrote:The results are right there. Nobody is trying to handicap their bow in any way and there are limits to how much you can enhance performance by the overdraw device rules.

Patrick, the results are not right there. That's why I want to see controlled tests. Arrow mass, bow's poundage, arrow speed. Very simple details that should be within your capabilities to provide.

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:29 pm

Patrick Menzies wrote:If only you had let go so easily when you got schooled by an oak 2"x4"
I was actually thinking your bow was going to come out on top in that test as I still firmly believe the composite does have more potential and said as much on that thread.
You let me down when I bought your BS.
My belief is certainly wavering and fwiw I'm not Anglo....

Arrow mass, arrow speed, bow poundage. So far you have failed to describe specific numbers. No one can take you seriously.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:23 pm

sorry for interruption, but I need to ask:
are these formula ok ?

bow efficiency = stored energy / released energy of arrow

stored energy = integral of force - draw curve until full draw

released energy = kinetic energy of arrow = m/2 v?

that means to exactly calculate we need
force-draw-curve + weight and speed of arrow ?

thanks

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:30 pm

Guys, guys, is this so important that you have to bring up this never-ending discussion in this otherwise interesting topic? I think there are a lot of guys here wanting to hear more from JR and his work on these amazing bow finds.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:32 pm

Yep, thats it.
You don not need to shoot the distace

the number tells you. If you shoot, other things get involved, ballistics the shooter, weather and so on.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:37 pm

You are right Kvilio, but JR cant say us nothing , .only if real measurments of this nice old bow from museum...

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:32 pm

Oh yeah, my favourite topic, let?s go.
Last September I was asked by a guy, who is a member of an archery- community( plastic longbows ) what a selfbow is able to shoot. Some days ago I?ve had finished my first selfbow( short osage, 44lbs/23") making about 206f/sec., he didn?t believe it. O.k. we made a date, I took the bow, a light flightarrow, my chrono and did some shots, all in the 195f/s- 210f/s- range: you?ve manipulated the chrono!!! I asked one of them to chrono his bow, he resisted. I picked up my stuff, telling them: buy the bow, chrono it with your equipment and if the bow doesn?t make the 200f/s I?ll give the money back!

They didn?t buy the bow, I?ve shot it a lot, no breakdown at all, I?ve done 3 other bows the same way, same results.

I really don?t know why the majority of plastic- and horn bow- archers are not able to accept the qualities and capablities of selfbows or wooden- lam- bows.
Adam Karpovicz has commented the speed of short wooden flightbows as hardly to beat by any other type of bow.
Real experienced bowyers or archers didn?t have any problems with these datas.

The results of the US flights are speaking for themselves since decades.: wooden bows ( whether short ore long) are ruling!
Maybe you are dreaming of these historical 850yards, so please do that shot! Please not the usual excuses!

I think it is possible to shot that far with a hornbow, but not by mixing up principles of construction and materials like it has been discussed in that thread: pure, clear hornbow- making the Osmanian way.
Does anyone know what kind of flightarrow has been used by the Osmanians when making their legendary shots?

I?m really wondering about some statements dealing with sidewalls and heating horn.
The main constituent of horn is ceratin, so it is for wool. Why one should not wash wool to hot? Cause the keratin is a protein, heated to much it will turn into a peptone, which is a denatured protein, the horn became brittle. The critical temperature is 65C. Traditional hornbowyers know that border, don?t heat hideglue more than 65C to long.

To press horn into shape with heat is a no-go. Horn is used in bowery cause of its reconstitution power, that means a somehow pressed horn will try to regain its original shape, the glueline will be very critical.
Redhorse is right about using sidewalls, maybe their modulus is not that lower, that?s not the point, cut into a straight strip the grain is broken. It even can break easily by trying to bend it. No selfbowyer would use a wood with an interrupted grain.

I?m asking for real, pure hornbowyery as it has been done very succesfully for centuries, no buts and ifs, no maybe- mode.
Why mixing it up with obscure methods? For to get a reputation?

This is my last statement about these questions, I found it really time wasting to even discuss that. I?ll go out now with my dog, playing in the snow. How she is using here nose tells me which tracks are worth to follow..............as the Native Americans are saying: take it or leave it.

Michael

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:37 pm

redhawk wrote:Oh yeah, my favourite topic, let?s go.
Last September I was asked by a guy, who is a member of an archery- community( plastic longbows ) what a selfbow is able to shoot. Some days ago I?ve had finished my first selfbow( short osage, 44lbs/23") making about 206f/sec., he didn?t believe it. O.k. we made a date, I took the bow, a light flightarrow, my chrono and did some shots, all in the 195f/s- 210f/s- range: you?ve manipulated the chrono!!! I asked one of them to chrono his bow, he resisted. I picked up my stuff, telling them: buy the bow, chrono it with your equipment and if the bow doesn?t make the 200f/s I?ll give the money back!

How heavy was the arrow?

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:12 pm

Justin,
. I can assure you that the wood bow guys are not using vastly lighter arrows or somehow putting the odds in their favor. That has historically been done by the composite crowd because flight shooting has been part of that tradition..
Everyone tries to use the lightest arrow possible for these tests.
The bow weight class is listed on the record page.
Obviously one could shoot a sub 50 pound bow in the 50 pound class but surely you can see the performance trend.

Interesting that Redhorse is now practically reducing bow performance to non real world tests. We could have saved a lot of bloodshed if the f/d curve and chrono data was used instead of warfare.

This woodbow versus composite is only going to be reactivated every time new info comes out. The Mary Rose finds were such a blessing in that they enabled replicas to be built and tested objectively.
It's only fair that the Composite finds go through the same analysis.
What is possibly wrong with that?
Test all the legends and see if they hold water.
The fact that the longbow replicas performed better than the historical data indicated and the composites are starting off performing much worse is unsettling to some.

Perhaps you should look at the test done where Redhorse was asked to put up or shut up. He lost and wouldn't shut up. It's probably always going to be that way.

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:33 pm

Patrick Menzies wrote:Test all the legends and see if they hold water.
The fact that the longbow replicas performed better than the historical data indicated and the composites are starting off performing much worse is unsettling to some.

Patrick, I couldn't agree with you more. But I'm interested in kinetic energy. Show us some data. Even show us some Mary Rose replica data since those are war bows. Show us something, as long as you tell us bow poundage, arrow mass, and speed. Why is that so hard for you?

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:45 pm

Sorry, I thought everyone with an inkling of interest in bows followed the endless array of warbow flight shots and armor tests etc.
With you being new to this you may have just fixated on one style and developed heavy bias without looking at everything objectively.
I understand that you think the data isn't out there.
You will presumably show me comparative composite data, right?
Hopefully more than just linking to the tests Adam did.

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:52 pm

Patrick Menzies wrote:Sorry, I thought everyone with an inkling of interest in bows followed the endless array of warbow flight shots and armor tests etc.
With you being new to this you may have just fixated on one style and developed heavy bias without looking at everything objectively.
I understand that you think the data isn't out there.
You will presumably show me comparative composite data, right?
Hopefully more than just linking to the tests Adam did.

I'll quote performance numbers from Adam's book on Ottoman Turkish Bows, performance numbers that were not in the ATARN link. Now PLEASE quote some numbers for self bows. Is it so much to ask?

(Besides, I have to appreciate self bows and wood/bamboo laminates because they are part of Chinese archery as well, which is a very heterogeneous archery tradition.)