I gotta admit though, I'm torn between lust for an obviously superb piece of gear, and me wondering: is all that complexity really necessary? I wonder if a fine wooden bow from the height of bowmanship before guns, wouldn't do as well?
OK, admittedly I know nothing of bows. Maybe a wooden bow couldn't even come close, or maybe it's just much harder to use, could be. But complexity is just interesting as a subject, sometimes it necessary or advantageous, sometimes it's not.
Update: Andreas has some info, see the comments.
8 comments:
That's a compound bow, meaning it's much much more energy efficient, has less "recoil" and most importantly provides a significant "let off". I.e., due to the string being guided over the two excentrical cams the maximum force needed to pull that bow is reached somewhere halfway through its draw - instead of at the holding position where you want to hold that thing still to aim. Some designs today offer 99% let off, meaning you have to hold only 1% of the maximum force the bow provides for acceleration of the arrow.
Sights and stabilisers are just the cherry on top ;-)
Oh that's what the cams are for. At least I think I understand that... quite a brilliant invention. And down to 1% is just ridic.
So the pull gets harder until about the middle, and then it gets easier? So you have a much more relaxed hold on it when you aim?
The cams also simply act as pulleys, allowing the use of much stiffer throw arms which travel less and in turn are much more energy efficient and provide less shift of weight. How the force varies vs. drawn length can be tailored (within limits) by the shape and angular positon of the cams, but yeah, the idea is that you pull the hardest where it's easiest for you.
I don't know if a certain amount of force wouldn't actually help you steady (never shot such a thing). At least Concept Archery who offer the 99% off bows have adjustability of all their bows to 80% let-off as well.
Btw., there are a lot of things we take for granted in modern bows, like materials which don't loose their tension through humidity (medieval fights have been decided by rain showers - no, Helms Klamm is no realistic depiction).
Also notice that Mrs. Brown doesn't let the string roll over here fingers when she releases it, she's got a trigger device in her hand.
Over all, no, neither an English longbow nor even a Hunnish composite bow would hold a candle to that thing ;-)
All right, thank you.
I did notice the trigger, and I can see how using the fingers only can not only be hard on the fingers, but also less precise, the string will tend to move towards the finger tips.
It would probably be a lot more respected a sport if they did have to compete with traditional wood bows - sounds like it would require even greater skill. Not that these bows make it easy, but a wood bow would add a huge level of difficulty.
You mean just like the muzzle loaders are respected much more than the small bore or air rifle shooters? ;-)
Btw., archery competions have several different classes, including compound, recurve and barebow ...
O.I.C. interesting.
You mean just like the muzzle loaders are respected much more than the small bore or air rifle shooters? ;-)
They probably would be, for the same reason (far greater difficulty, due to far lesser accuracy). Well, that really didn't work out for you.
Btw., archery competions have several different classes, including compound, recurve and barebow ...
Not in the Olympics. Only recurve. Another swing and a miss for you.
Post a Comment