How about 2 more with no string and both the limbs on balanced on the tiller tree.

Here is my 52" one piece r/d longbow at 29" draw. 54 @ 29" 10 gpp (540 grains) 188 fps.  9 gpp 196 fps.   Look at the string angle.  This one was jumping up over 3# per inch from 29-30". Never did run a DFC chart on this one. But I hunted elk with it for 2 years.

After I got my shooting form dialed in, and my alignment good, my draw length went to 30". This baby didn't hold up very long shooting 30". She's now a wall hanger.

Here are a few more photos. Keep in mind this was an early prototype and the fades were way too steep on this riser. As I moved forward with this design, I lengthened the fades and got a much better transition. That is where this bow eventually failed was in the fade section shooting 30" draw.

That is a long flat spot along the limb. It looks like the strings had been touching the limbs. Can you explain the features that allowed you to get that performance and that low string angle at 29".  It looks like the was a decent amount of deflex with the limbs behind the riser and the tips don't look like they were really in front of the riser. I thought you wanted your tips ahead of the riser for better cast, I know not too much or things het unstable?

Thank you for sharing.

I'm glad you noticed the flat spot Jay. There is just something about that is special.
I know it's not on the tiller tree, but you can see where that limb is bending at full draw, and further more,  how FAR the limbs are traveling. Not very damn far. Look at the difference between the distance from the deepest part of the grip to the straight edge, and the distance of brace height at 7". The string was only 2.25" shorter than the NTN length . 52" NTN. 49.75" string. I can't tell you what the string tension at brace was because that was before I got into testing that. What I can tell you was that it had a Lot of preload. It also had .003 FT and 6" tip wedges I also believe I was using power lams coming up the belly ramps to extend the fades a bit on that 16" riser.

With this in mind..... You may want to try an experiment with your existing limbs, and build a mock up riser from oak or some other cheap hardwood that pushes the deepest part of your grip forward. Then play with your limb pad anngles,  and use a longer string.

I honestly prefer the flat spot in the limbs with the reflex closer to the tips myself. This gives you a deeper core thickness in the working section and allows a faster taper rate and lighter weight tip.  The width profile on mine is only 1.20" to 1/2" wide at the tip notches.

I reread your reply and wanted to comment on your definition of deflex. Due to the short length of this bow I angled the flat spot to the belly side. There really isn't a de flex  sweep to my design. Instead of using an elliptical shape in that outer portion of the limb get the reflex, I flipped the tips and kept them static with a tip wedge.

I use this flat spot in my Sasquatch hybrid design too, but because of the extra length I straightened out the flat spot to increase preload a5 60" length.


Look at this build album and the shape of the limb and position they are in before brace height.....  these bows will draw 33 inches without stacking, and get incredible performance in the 50-55# draw weights. Below 50 pounds the preload lessons and not as much energy can be transferred to the shafts.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9Je82UHTrGkZpnEF8

Here is another unstrung photo

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LuC8C2VcXWkoiV1P7

Quote from: Kirkll on May 29, 2026, 07:48:12 PMI'm glad you noticed the flat spot Jay. There is just something about that is special.
I know it's not on the tiller tree, but you can see where that limb is bending at full draw, and further more,  how FAR the limbs are traveling. Not very damn far. Look at the difference between the distance from the deepest part of the grip to the straight edge, and the distance of brace height at 7". The string was only 2.25" shorter than the NTN length . 52" NTN. 49.75" string. I can't tell you what the string tension at brace was because that was before I got into testing that. What I can tell you was that it had a Lot of preload. It also had .003 FT and 6" tip wedges I also believe I was using power lams coming up the belly ramps to extend the fades a bit on that 16" riser.

With this in mind..... You may want to try an experiment with your existing limbs, and build a mock up riser from oak or some other cheap hardwood that pushes the deepest part of your grip forward. Then play with your limb pad anngles,  and use a longer string.

I honestly prefer the flat spot in the limbs with the reflex closer to the tips myself. This gives you a deeper core thickness in the working section and allows a faster taper rate and lighter weight tip.  The width profile on mine is only 1.20" to 1/2" wide at the tip notches.

It seems like moving the grip further forward would lose some of the power stroke and stored energy?? Correct? But maybe that is why the string angle was so low because it was drawing like a 26-27"?? Sounds like a forward handle bow with straight limbs and a decent amount of static reflex at the tips a good taper to make the tips act like a recurve snap is the secret sauce.

Damn.... I just lost a long winded post here with this new security protocol in place typing on my iPad.  I'm going to wait until I get on my pc and do my typing in a word program and paste it  into the forum now.... Chit....     

I know better.

The short version is you need a different perspective on the forward riser placement.
You are adding 2" to your draw length before stacking doing this... give that some thought.    To be continued....

Quote from: Kirkll on May 28, 2026, 12:40:17 PMI down loaded that program and tinkered with it a bit this am, and i think i would argue the part about it being way faster than building limbs. yes.... building air bows on a screen will be cheaper than materials used in prototyping, but nothing will replace the tiller tree and actually shooting and testing the bow.....

You're using it for the wrong thing and you only see a rabbit hole because you're used to building and testing to see what happens the old fashioned way.

What it is good for is seeing how trends go and what effects changes have to the bend or draw weight or string tension at brace. This is extremely valuable for newcomers who don't have your depth of experience and don't want to spend years getting it.

We see draw weight questions all the time from people trying something new. Well, the software will get you right in the ballpark on the first try compared to asking people what weight they think a new bow design will be based on taper rates and stack thicknesses.

Yes, you absolutely have to build and test bows as well. But once you've validated the analysis results to real bows then you don't have to build nearly as many bows to test new ideas with.


Mark

Quote from: Kirkll on May 30, 2026, 11:11:00 AMThe short version is you need a different perspective on the forward riser placement.
You are adding 2" to your draw length before stacking doing this... give that some thought.    To be continued....

That's pretty much what I said. You lose power stroke but gain in longer distance before stacking. That is really good if you want to prevent stacking on a short bow with a longer draw. Seems like for that design to be efficient you needed to build a limb that would produce the energy storage a lot sooner as you effectively have a shorter draw stroke. It sounds like you did that. I am guessing it has to do with that flat spot. You definitely have me thinking about how limbs work. Thank you.

Quote from: Kirkll on May 30, 2026, 11:08:51 AMDamn.... I just lost a long winded post here with this new security protocol in place typing on my iPad.  I'm going to wait until I get on my pc and do my typing in a word program and paste it  into the forum now.... Chit....    

I know better.

Ya. I've learned to copy before I hit post. The price of security.

Quote from: mmattockx on May 30, 2026, 11:17:21 AM

Quote from: Kirkll on May 28, 2026, 12:40:17 PMI down loaded that program and tinkered with it a bit this am, and i think i would argue the part about it being way faster than building limbs. yes.... building air bows on a screen will be cheaper than materials used in prototyping, but nothing will replace the tiller tree and actually shooting and testing the bow.....

You're using it for the wrong thing and you only see a rabbit hole because you're used to building and testing to see what happens the old fashioned way.

What it is good for is seeing how trends go and what effects changes have to the bend or draw weight or string tension at brace. This is extremely valuable for newcomers who don't have your depth of experience and don't want to spend years getting it.

We see draw weight questions all the time from people trying something new. Well, the software will get you right in the ballpark on the first try compared to asking people what weight they think a new bow design will be based on taper rates and stack thicknesses.

Yes, you absolutely have to build and test bows as well. But once you've validated the analysis results to real bows then you don't have to build nearly as many bows to test new ideas with.


Mark

Sounds exactly like a lot the engineers perspectives i've worked with over the years. But its "The carpenters perspective" that  validates, or invalidates the data, and in many cases the engineering calcs do not factor in lateral and vertical stability issues with a bow, much less stacking issues at various draw lengths.

Case in point is that according to super tiller calcs a symetrical deflex sweep stores more energy with a thinner limb thickness than an elliptical shape . So therefore it stands to reason it should be higher in performance having less mass weight in the limb. And  "You cant argue with the math."  I tell the engineer i'm not arguing about the math, or your calcs, i'm showing you the practical application, and THAT sucks!

You are right about having many ways to skin a cat. If you are seriously into cad and different programs that simulate building air bows. that's cool. have at it. In my opinion that's wasting time. I build real bows and did my prototyping the old fashion way. There is nothing that replaces experience and time invested in accurate testing.

Here are a few different limb shapes with the same amount of reflex in the limbs.  How would you plug this into the virtual bow program ,and what are the characteristic differences? you need to keep all the taper rates at.003, but the top limb has a 7" wedge 3/8" to nothing in 4" with a flat top. the center one has a 10" wedge milled .30 to nothing in 12" and finished wedge at 10", and the bottom one has the same .30-0 wedge 11" finished length. And... all of the limbs have tip 8" tip wedges milled from.050-0 and drop 6" below the tip notches.

Quote from: Kirkll on May 31, 2026, 01:48:25 PMHere are a few different limb shapes with the same amount of reflex in the limbs.  How would you plug this into the virtual bow program ,and what are the characteristic differences? you need to keep all the taper rates at.003, but the top limb has a 7" wedge 3/8" to nothing in 4" with a flat top. the center one has a 10" wedge milled .30 to nothing in 12" and finished wedge at 10", and the bottom one has the same .30-0 wedge 11" finished length. And... all of the limbs have tip 8" tip wedges milled from.050-0 and drop 6" below the tip notches.

In your experience which one would produce the best performance while still providing good stability?  I am guessing the middle one. How would you predict these limbs behaving at string up and when being drawn? Would you expect the bottom one to bend more at the wedge and straight part because it isnt an arc at stringup? Wouldn't the bottom limb wedge have to be at the same angle as the other two to really show reflex as it would put the tip way further forward ahead of the handle on the same riser? Or am I misunderstanding the term reflex?  Thank you.

Ive beed thinking about this more. The energy to cast an arrow is based on the act of putting tension and compression on a material making it want to return back to a more neutral state right or its original glued up position. On the last limb just to get it to brace because it is far ahead of the butt wedge it seems like it would increase tension and compression more than the others to get it to the same brace, but since the limb is so straight and most of the bend is right by the wedge it seems like all the tension and compression would be in that little spot versus spread evenly over a limb with more arch making that a high stress point??

To answer this properly I need to be on my laptop so I can type it in a word program, then bring it in and post it. The security protocol now has a time out on it. If you take too long typing before posting it, you loose it.

Kirk

Keep something in mind that is hugely important. Performance as pertains to speed and kinetic energy from the arrow is the result of HOW MUCH ENERY IS TRANFERED to the shaft, not how much energy storage the limb has.  The keys to a higher transfer is the preload tension at brace, mass weight in the tips of the limbs, and limb travel.

Of course you need good energy storage to pull that off too.    I'll give you a hint... deep core, narrow limb profile is the ticket. Better stability, Less wind resistance , and lighter mass weight.

Take a set of your limbs and narrow them up skinny as a whip, then match up some arrows at 9-10 gpp at the new draw weight. I think you'll be amazed.

Btw... the bottom two shapes in my drawing will out perform the top one.

The bottom limb has the wedge being pressed into a reflex position putting it in the form. This really adds strength to that fade area, but due to its location at the last 2" of the fades, it works as an overload spring. As the working portion starts maxing out on compression and energy storage, the fades start flexing a bit without causing a hinge effect.  I get incredible performance out of this design, and can draw to 33" on a 60" bow without stacking.

Kirk on your lower limb picture do you use a higher limb pad angle than on the middle one ???

Quote from: OldRawhide42 on June 01, 2026, 09:23:10 PMKirk on your lower limb picture do you use a higher limb pad angle than on the middle one ???

Yes... I actually have two different risers for that limb design. My original had a 22 degree limb pad angle. Then after I designed my Sasquatch SS static tip RC with a 17 degree limb pad angle, I built another form for my hybrid long bow limbs that matched the riser. The original has the deepest part of the grip further forward, than the SS riser. But I can put both longbow limbs and RC limbs on the same riser now. I often have customers that want both designs on the same riser and I build extra limbs.

Quote from: Kirkll on June 01, 2026, 08:23:16 PMThe bottom limb has the wedge being pressed into a reflex position putting it in the form. This really adds strength to that fade area, but due to its location at the last 2" of the fades, it works as an overload spring. As the working portion starts maxing out on compression and energy storage, the fades start flexing a bit without causing a hinge effect.  I get incredible performance out of this design, and can draw to 33" on a 60" bow without stacking.

So you actually bend the wedge at glue up?? That is pretty cool.