I have a shorter draw, 27in or so (depending on how cold it is) :-). I was wondering n the benefits of a short bow and gaining arrow speed, etc. Im looking at getting a recurve in the 55" range. Any suggestions would be great.
Greenhed, The notion that shorter bows perform better for those with shorter draws is a theory/myth that's been floated around so long it's accepted as "fact" when the opposite is the truth. On average, the longer bows perform better at any draw length you want to pick. If comparing bow "A" to bow "B" and the only info is at 28 or 30", which ever one performs best at 28" or 30" will also perform best at 24", reguardless of it's length....O.L.
The only thing that factors in is the mass of the limbs. Example there is if a person is drawing 24" and the bow he uses has short limbs that bend to their max potential at 24" and lets use 50#, those limbs whill snap back faster than a bow made to flex at it's maximum potential at 28" or 30" even if they both draw 50# @ 24". Simply because the limbs on the longer bow have more mass than those of the shorter bow. I've experimented with this in my shop to great lengths.
The down side, if a person draws 24" 0r 22" 0r 23" and he / she wants a bow built to have a max draw of that short length, optimizing the whole limb, he or she is pretty much stuck with that bow and can't let somebody else with a normal lenbgth draw of 28" + "try it out". However in all instances of bows I've built short, for those with short draw lengths, the person that got it is so thrilled to have a bow that fits them they don't want to give it up anyway.
Mike I have thought the same thing as you have stated. Another factor for the short draw length person is that they may shoot a lower draw weight and then performance is everything. How would you evaluate bow performance for a short draw length/low draw weight shooter in using a shorter bow and in particular one that fits that person. Add to that the height of the shooter and the question becomes one of manuverability of the bow as well in the hunting situation (heavy cover/tree stands). Just wondering what the opinions on this might be from a variety of people.
I have a short draw, 27" and I just bought a used Check-mate hunter 1 the bow is 56" 46 lbs @27" I'm shooting cedar arrows 55-60# that are 28" to BOP with 160 grain glue on tips. The arrows fly like darts and penetrate really good into my block target. My son has a 60" PSE Heritage recurve that's 55# @ 28" he draws 28" he's shooting 29" to BOP aluminum arrows with 125 grain tips. I get deeper penetration in my target than he does. Not any real technical information just my observations.
Daren
Mike, It's mass, force, distance, and time...Yes a shorter bow will have slightly less mass but they travel a further distance negating any potential increase in efficiency..Then add a higher string angle, shorter bows for any given draw length will store less energy then longer ones. The highest performing bow Norb Mulaney has ever tested was 66", the best recurve, 60"...In the flight shooting game, the longer bows 64"+ out distance the shorter bows 52"+ with the same arrows. It's a mis-guided theory that doesn't hold water. Choose short bows for blinds and tree stands, longer ones for performance and accuracy.....O.L.
No doubt O.L. is correct about this. The key is his last sentence. Choose the design of the bow for the purposes it will be used.
Allan
Ok..then why did Mike's testing prove other wise?
A bow designed like Mike gives example of is the way to go. Get something that hits it's peak at your draw length and you'll be ahead in the game.
There are a few bowyers out there who do this and seem to have pretty good performance with their bows.
Interesting thread... especially to me. You guys who think you have short draws and then cite 27"... uh, uh. I have a short draw... 25" or a bit less! I've tried all the variations of approach above, long and short bows and bows tillered to my draw vs. short drawing bows tillered longer. No science talking here, but shorter bows tillered for me definitely seem to perform better for me. Now that i'm faced with strength problems as well, it's gotten really critical. I've recently begun to try to learn to build bows. As a challenge I want to learn to build the best performing 30# bow I can. Something to learn in my old age... Everything you guys have had to say will get put into my notebook and cranked into my experiments.
Guru, His testing?? I assume he's making comparisions between a very narrow range of designs. We've tested dozens of many designs. ALL bows function the same. I could put up f/d curves between longbows and recurves mixed from 52" to 70" and you'd be hard pressed to pick out which are which. I can show you examples of 66" longbows out performing 52" recurves at 24" draw...There is no "sweet" spot other then where they start stacking...Below that point, they are the same. Good performing longer bows gain that advantage in the first half of the draw, not the last half.
Dick, If you are dealing with self or wood composites, most can get better performance out of somewhat shorter bows. That's not because they are shorter, it's because it requires more skill and better design for the longer lengths. Those that do it well, Like Tim Baker and Dan Perry can smoke everyone elses 60" bows with 66"+......O.L.
I think it all depends on how the bow was designed as far as pre-load goes for shorter draws. A bow designed for a short draw would outperform a "Long" bow not designed necessarily for a short draw archer. IMHO
Wow I didnt expect this much discussion....thanks for the info. Now if anyone knows of a nice little recurve 55"-60" or so (for treestands and blinds) that will fit a short pudgy guy, let me know! :-) :goldtooth:
Lewis, That's true, "design" trumps length. But if the designs are "equal", the longer length will win. The only ways one bow out performs another is from efficiency or energy storage or both. Going shorter hurts both....O.L.
Very interesting. I have two bows of the exact same design. Both are Elburg Jaguar Mites. One is a 48"er and the other a 54"er, both are the same weight. So, when I test them for distance with the same arrow, the longer one should shoot further than the shorter one?
Foxbo, Those would be a good test subjects. However unless you are willing to put a LOT of effort into the distance part, it won't tell you much as so many other details are involved. Just chrono them at the same gr/lb and be sure to weigh them on the same scale....That would be 1 data point. Individual bows vary a lot even if they are the same length and design. I base my opinion on the testing of many. Looking at those below 60", they store less energy and are less efficient then those over 60"...On average. You can pick out good short ones that will out perform poor long ones, but the best short ones don't come close to the best long ones....O.L.
Mr. Adcock, I've tossed this idea around a good bit because I have a short draw myself. I would like to propose my question in the form of a hypothetical situation.
Let's say we're gonna build two Hill-style longbows, out of the same materials, same riser length, shot with the same weight arrow, etc. They will both have a draw weight of 45#@28".
The first bow, Bow A, will be 70". The second bow, Bow B, in order to REALLY maximize the potential energy stored by longer limbs, will be four times the length of Bow A, 280" (I know this is a totally unrealistic example, please bear with me).
Now both bows will be drawn to 20" and shot (again, a ridiculous example only used for illustrative purposes). Bow A's limbs are flexed sufficiently and the bow shoots, say 150 FPS. Now by the "longer limbs are faster" rule, wouldn't Bow B be faster at 20", even though the limbs barely flex due to the extreme length of the bow and the extremely short draw length?
I'm sure you can see with this ridiculous example what I'm getting at here. I was always of the opinion that a longer bow would perform better for someone with a longer draw, and a shorter bow would perform better for someone with a shorter draw. Not necessarily because of energy storage purposes, but mainly because someone with a shorter draw would not be able to sufficiently flex the limbs of a much longer bow in order to maximize the longer bow's energy storage potential.
I am in no way intending to disrespect your statements, as I'm quite sure there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of my example - I just don't see the fatal flaw in my line of reasoning.
I just got a new A&H ACS-CX in 58" and I'm really tickled with it. I have around a 27-27.5" draw and I got it mainly for hunting purposes, but I also thought that it would be best for me as Dan told me the 58" bows are kind of stacky at anything past 28". So I thought that it would be the best length to maximize the potential energy of my shorter draw compared to, say, a 66" model. However, I know that with the ACS cross section limbs, conventional rules probably don't apply.
I have a very short draw of 25" on a good day and have read most everything that Mr. Adcock has had to pass on to us as beginners. I have been building bows for friends and myself for 3 years.Being short I experimented with several designs and lengths. Everything I built from 62" down to 54" all shot within 3 feet per. sec. of each other. Most of the difference seemed to in the material and wood used. The best shooter for me is 58-60"
OL,you have paid you dues and I am grateful to have learned so much through your long time knowledge. My hat is off to you......Chortdraw
Hmmm, I always like to read these sort of threads and I like to hear your point of view O.L. but a couple things have always kinda nagged at me about some of the common statements made when comparing bows. There is always the "gotta compare apples to apples" slant and I agree with that.
O.L. said "Design trumps length but if designs are "equal", the longer length will win." On the face of it that makes sense but when I think about it I don't honestly see how two bows can be the same design but two different lengths. No matter how you slice it, changing the length changes the design doesn't it? I mean, if bow X is 60 inches long and bow Y is 68 inches long, then the designis different. The handles and limbs are different lengths so design is different. If you make the handles the same length, the limbs have to be different length or vice versa. The design is different. If you compare a 66 inch recurve to a 66 inch longbow, the design is different. I realize you are talking about say a 60 inch r/d bow compared to a 66" r/d bow but again, to my mind, longer is different.
Then I think force draw curves. Now, I've NEVER plotted a force draw curve on ANY bow so take this for what it is, an armchair question... You say you can put up force draw curves from different length longbows and recurves from what was it 52 to 70 inches? And that we would be hard pressed to tell which is which. Are force draw curves that similar? If so, what is the point? Or do you mean that a 52 inch bow and a 70 inch bow tillered to the same draw length and with both bows having efficient designs, both force draw curves would be similar? That's kinda a lot of "ifs".
I'm wondering how, if a bow design that was for an efficiently designed 50 inch recurve could be magically enlarged in every dimension exactly the same percentage so that it was say 60 inches long, would perform? Which would shoot better? Of course, to keep things equal, the arrow would have to be enlarged, the string would be proportionately larger and heavier but so would the draw weight, brace hight, draw length etc.
Man, my head is starting to hurt. I think I'l leave this to you guys...
Howzit Greenhed,
Good post---Lots of interesting reads. I shoot a Great Plains SR recurve 56" 44lbs@ 26" draw. It is a short riser bow with longer working limbs. For "ME" it is plenty fast.
I would suggest that you find a bow that "YOU" can shoot accurately first and then work your way up in poundage if you still "feel the need for speed". I always joke with my friends that shoot wheelies, "Brah at 70lbs you sure when miss um fast!"
As someone posted above, try and match the bow to the type of hunting that you will do. Over here all of my hunting is done spot and stalk. I find that 60" plus bows tend to hang up in branches and brush. For "ME" 56" is the perfect length to hunt with---stable and easy to maneuver.
I suggest that you also look at the bows mass weight. I find that "I" shoot "heavier" riser bows better than lighter ones. I find them more stable after the shot.
Jus my 02 cents
Aloha,
Mark
Dave, "On the face of it that makes sense but when I think about it I don't honestly see how two bows can be the same design but two different lengths. No matter how you slice it, changing the length changes the design doesn't it? I mean, if bow X is 60 inches long and bow Y is 68 inches long, then the designis different. The handles and limbs are different lengths so design is different."
Yep, there sure could be and that's what bowyers do is try to adjust "working" limb for different draw lengths either with bow lengths, riser lengths, ect....
"I'm wondering how, if a bow design that was for an efficiently designed 50 inch recurve could be magically enlarged in every dimension exactly the same percentage so that it was say 60 inches long, would perform? Which would shoot better?"
Yep, I've done that only the opposite direction, trying to get shorter bows to perform as well as longer. The problem is geometry. The lower the string angle off the tips the more energy a bow stores early in the f/d curve. the lower that angle the less distance the tips move for any given draw length. There is NOTHING we can do to a short bow to change that without crossing over into Turkish type bows to keep the string angle low but the tip movement is still there and excessive.
Some jump on the mass thing. Yes that's important but we have to reduce the mass a lot to see any benefit. By a lot, 100-200 usn't squat, it'd have to be 500-1000 to make a big difference. It's about a 5:1 ratio betwween limb tip weight to arrow weight. The distance/movement thing. KLook how heavy compound limbs are yet they perform and are fairly efficient. Watch one shoot, the limbs only move 1/2" or less while ours moves 5-6". That's a biggy.
Chortdraw, "Everything I built from 62" down to 54" all shot within 3 feet per. sec. of each other."
I'm looking at numbers from big name bows you'd recognize tested at 24, 26,28, and 30", 9gpp at each length. There is almost 25fps difference between the best and worse at 24". The best shoots as fast at 24" as the poor one does at 30". The poor one would have to be at least 10# heavier in draw weight to catch up. Most for sure hover around the middle. To gauge it, a decent bow should shoot about 175 AMO at 24" and 180+ or a bit better at 26".
I personally have a long draw but pay close attention to the needs of short draws since I'm married to one! :) I wish she'd quit beating me on the flight range however! :) ....O.L.
O.l. with your cross sectional design those limbs have much less mass than a longbow without that cross sectional design. Now you take the best, most inovated limb design available today (like yours) and put it up against a longbow with a standard, flat/trapazoidal cross section, with shorter limbs, yours, even though drawn short, will out perform it. But not too many people make bows with limbs like you do. When you bend the limb's cross section like that you can probably get 55# pounds from a limb around .075" thinner (or 3/16" norrower) than a limb with standard flat cross section right?
Mike, Oh yes, but I'm not looking at those in the length department. The best recurves and some agressive longbows can come close to matching it however so that's not warping numbers. That's part of the point, if dropping length really helped you'd surely think a 56" recurve could match or beat a 64"+ longbow if shorter lengths helped. I don't know if you read John's post on another thread but he and I both have worked on the shorter bows independantly to see if we could come up with a way to help the shorter bows. Even using the ACS when we drop length, energy storage drops. Changing riser lengths, deflex, reflex, ect..makes minor changes but the net result is still in a negitive direction. It drives me nuts! :) ....O.L.
QuoteOriginally posted by O.L. Adcock:
Greenhed, The notion that shorter bows perform better for those with shorter draws is a theory/myth that's been floated around so long it's accepted as "fact" when the opposite is the truth. On average, the longer bows perform better at any draw length you want to pick. If comparing bow "A" to bow "B" and the only info is at 28 or 30", which ever one performs best at 28" or 30" will also perform best at 24", reguardless of it's length....O.L.
OL, you are the myth buster, :scared: I was under the same thinking, shorter has to be faster because it loads the limbs to the max at that draw length.
Let me see if I got this straight:
If I take, lets say Hoyt's high end recurve limbs, they make short, medium, and long limbs,
If you took the long limbs and put them on a short riser, going from 70 to 62 both drawing to 50lb@28 are you saying the 70" will always be faster, even at the same draw and weight?
Also how much differences between 62" & 64" same bow
Thanks for challenging the statuesque, and helping us think outside the box. :clapper:
King, someone did that in a for real test not long ago. I'll see if I can find it. If I remember correctly going from long limbs on a short riser and vice versa they saw 1-2fps difference. That difference could easily be in the risers, not the limbs or the length. Risers just like arrows are stiffer the shorter they are.
Between 62" and 64"..Little to zero from the length. What screws up conclusions is if the question is "length" and it's effects, all other variables have to be controled or, a lot of tests have to be done and averaged. Looking at 2 different bows, variations in limb materials and risers gets involved. Riser stiffness alone can account for 4-5fps......O.L.
O.L. Don't let it drive you nuts, just do what the voices tell you, every now and then poke them with a 'Q' tip, and no matter what happens, don't do what the rice crispies tell you.
Blacky Schwarz tested 3 different limblenghts on the same riser at 28 inch draw lenght: 60" was the fastest,58 second, 62 was the slowest.
www.bowreports.com (http://www.bowreports.com)
psav, that was the one I'd seen. The obviosly are way different in that the "short" limbs have the stiffest tips and lowest string angle. I'm not sure how he's measureing it thou?....O.L.
Very interesting thread. I have built about a dozen or so "junker" longbows from the same form. My 66" bows shot faster than the 62-64 bows of the same lbs and arrows.I thought it was because I was cutting some of the curve off the shorter bows.RC
O.L., I just had a thought.
Could longer bows be faster mainly because the tips travel a shorter distance for the same draw? Kinda goes back to the mass/time/movement/distance thing.
I know I have a 68" Root Targetmaster that I can pull 32 inches and the tips only appear to move 2 or 3 inches. Shorter bows the limbs seem to move a lot farther and of course the string angle changes faster too. Now that bow is no speed demon but it's got a lot "wrong" with it from design standpoints. Riser is straight, limbs are straight until the curves with no r/d, glass is the old crossweave stuff. Still, it shoots quite well for what it is. Has a little thump like a straight longbow but boy is it smoooooth to draw.
Dave, "Could longer bows be faster mainly because the tips travel a shorter distance for the same draw? Kinda goes back to the mass/time/movement/distance thing."
Exactly, I mentioned that earlier. Some of the conventional "flight" records set with 36-40" recurves are going to fall to 50"+ "longbows" in the next year or two. One fell last September. The efficiency and energy storage on the 50"er sucks compared to the longer bows and I'm considering something even longer. 14" arrows with an 18" power stroke are interesting! :) ...O.L.
I have a short draw 26". I think O.L. is correct. I have done f/d curves on different bows. What you see is that the longer bows build up weight quicker
making them more efficient. But I shoot a 58" longbow and a 60" recurve just because I like it.
O.L. As a short draw length and low draw weight shooter the issue of what bow and bow design to shoot for the best performance is of paramount importance to me. I am a bowhunter and really have no interest in target or 3D shooting. As a hunter the capability of the equipment to provide the mechanical means to harvest an animal is also of importance. At this time I shoot a recurve that is 46#@26", though I think I draw about 25", and have been told that with such a short draw length I should shoot a recurve as opposed to a longbow in order to get the best performance. Along with shooting a recurve my setup includes a 1916 aluminum shaft (FOC of 25%) with three four inch parabolic feathers and a two-blade 145 grain Magnus broahdead. My hunting interest at this time is in hunting hogs but am uncertain as to whether my bow and setup is enough to hunt hogs at my draw length and draw weight. Based on what you have been saying in this thread what would your recommendation be in selection of a bow that would give someone like myself optimal performance?
When I first started shooting and building bows I went with the idea shorter was better for my 26" draw length.Several years latter and many bows later I realized the idea was wrong.My draw length is still short but my bows are long and are faster and much easier to shoot well.Short is fine when you need to fit in a tight hole but longer wins out every other place on performance and shooting manners.All wood bows can be an exception depending on who is building them however.jmo
Great thread but now I'm really confused.
I had a number of Palmer recurves in 58", 60" & 62" lengths. All had the same length riser, the limb lengths differed by 2". The shorter 58" bows had 1-1.5" less brace height and were always several feet faster than the 60 & 62" limbed bows.
Bob Morrison's bows are the same way. Bob's shorter length bows have less brace height than his longer bows. My Cheyenne's all have A risers with 56" 58" & 60" limb lengths. The shortest bows are just as fast if not a few faster than the longer lengths.
Doesn't less brace height equate to longer power stroke which give it more speed?
Makes sense Ghostman, however, if the brace height is different it isn't really apples to apples. Try shooting all at the same brace height and see what happens. Don't know the answer myself (and frankly I've never been one to look for a few fps), but maybe will answer your question...Mike
and i thought i know quit abit about bowbuilding and design........
im a noob
thanks OL
shantam
Yea i think this is one of the most interesting threads i have seen. need to read it again a couple times to wrap my head around it. These discussions have been going strong since at least the 1930s as well as physical testing and i hope it never stops. Jim
Good stuff Guys, Good to see you back around O.L.
This reminds me of our talks last year. I just try to remember that low string angle and short tip movement is key. It helped my longwalker out and the resulting numbers are great. That 14" arrow and 18" powerstroke sounds fun, you got my head spinning now.(AGAIN!)
GREENHED:
since you asked for a short bow, I make a 50" recurve that does well at a short draw.
Chuck
Well this thread is two years old. I think he probably allready got his bow.
LOL
Mike
I hate when I do that
Thanks for pointing that out so kindly Mike.
Chuck
P.S
It's only one year old LOL
Might be old but good information.
Dave