String Follow Fiberglass Longbows

[Chase N. Nocks]

Howdy All,

Flicking through Peter O. Stecher's "Legends In Archery" over the weekend and in the chapter about John Schulz there was some discussion on the positive shooting characteristics of the Fiberglass longbow that has the string follow deliberately built into the bow.

I have quickly looked around on the net looking for a consensus and further information. I though it was pretty interesting.

I have naturally gravitated over my archery life to generally faster bows, bows that I still very much expect to behave in a ladylike manner. But these bows have me intriqued and I wondered at others experiences on this board. As shooters and even builders. I have fast bows that are also very sweet handlers as far as I am concerned and feed back from others....but I wonder have I shot a really really sweet bow.?

Has anyone seen or shot one of the Sunset Hill Longbows made by a Nate Steen? He is mentioned specifically but having trouble finding much information other than a few glowing reports.

Any others out there being made. I would also be interested in what some of the resident Bowyers have to say about it.

Cheers
Troy

[longbow steve]

I have to wonder about the so called string follow bows. The bows that I have made on a flat form have taken half an inch of follow and yeah they shoot well but I have never felt they were any more accurate than a bow with reflex or sweet or forgiving. I wonder if those that are deliberately building the follow in are just emulating the natural follow that straight laid bows built by the old timers had?
I haven't heard of Nate Steen sorry Troy. Cheers Steve

[wishsong]

Troy,
I am a bit of a fan of string follow "longbows" and always have been . I suppose reading a lot of John Schulz and Horace led me down this path.

Im think most of mine have taken some 'set' after being straight laid ... except the Miller and Steen

Over on the uber huge T'gang Hill Thread there is a bunch of stuff on it as a topic ..... reading along you'll find a bunch of great archers using them ... Rik Hinton , Charlie Lamb .... me ...

I am not one to ever suggest that Hills style longbows are arm jarring teeth rattlers , heck they are pretty much all I shoot ! But they do IMHO have more recoil / bump at the shot than most other 'longbows' of the d/r variety ... I negate this personally with pretty heavy arrows .....

Enter the string follow bow ... I get all the good bits I like out of my Hill style bows without the bits I'd prefer not to have ..... My preferred makers of these bows are Ken Rohloff at Whippenstick bows [ man is this thing quick ] , Jim Belcher at Belcher/ Sky Bows ..... Steve Turay at Northern Mist ... Dave Miller at Miller longbows [ sweeeet !] ... I also have an order a Nate Steen [ his have a fair whack of string follow but the build quality is amazing ....... and John Shulz is the granndaddy of them all !
I have seen a couple of amazing Mick Lintern bows , glassed that had a bit of SF and they were sweet to shoot !


fit . finish and true Hill / Schulz style string follow .... Dave Millers Ol' Tom every day of the week ... a truly gentle sweet and forgiving ... the delicate lady of my stable .... but boy does it spit an arrow with ease and accuracy


Also I can use 9-10 gns , even lower . without the 'thump' that some feel .... competing in tourneys , shooting many many shots I perefr less 'recoil ' as well and it permits me to shoot / compete with my Hill style bows which I doubt I could do with my 'reflexed' bows

They probably aren't for everyone , just as Hill style bows are not for everyone ..... but for those of us that shoot them ... we dig 'em ! I know quite a few archers who preferthe reflexed straight limb ... and I still own many and shoot them regularly .... but given I had to make a once in a life time shot to save my life , win the the Kings archery tourney or impress the chicks , it'll be with a string follow Hill style longbow


Never noticed any really signifiocant drop in any specs either ... still have approx the same point on etc ...... I have killed over 30 animals with mine , as long as many many others with my reflexed Bows but these days I am a string follow fella and will likley remain so ......
YMMV

[wishsong]

Note ...

Troy ... Nate Steen and David Miller are , I believe , the last two students of John Schulz making bows as he was taught by ol' Howard himself

cheers

Ben

[Stickbow Hunter]

I have to wonder about the so called string follow bows. The bows that I have made on a flat form have taken half an inch of follow and yeah they shoot well but I have never felt they were any more accurate than a bow with reflex or sweet or forgiving. I wonder if those that are deliberately building the follow in are just emulating the natural follow that straight laid bows built by the old timers had?

I think you nailed it Steve!

I'll add that if any string follow longbow shot anywhere near the performance of a good reflexed design longbow I'd eat my hat as they say.

Jeff

[Chase N. Nocks]

Thanks Steve and Ben for chipping in.

Ben what you have said is generally repeated in other forums I have been able to track down so far. I am very interested.

This is from Nate himself from a Pirates of Archery post on the subject.

Hello guys,

thought I'd weigh in here.....I don't know who Jimmyfingers is, but I don't recall ever telling anyone that my stringfollow bows are 10 - 12 fps slower than a straight profile bow. That would be a poorly designed glass-faced stringfollow bow. My bows have a stringfollow design built into the form, and after initial glue-up and final finish, they lose about 1/4" of the original follow. The vast majority of my customers tell me that they can't believe how fast the bows shoot, even compared with their other 'Hill style' bows of straight or reflex design, and many guys are reporting a faster bow resulting in shooting higher spined arrows than they shoot out of their comparable 'Hillstyle' bows.

the main benefit of the stringfollow design is a softer recoil or return of limbs to the original brace height due to the lack of pre-stress built into the limbs. this softness results in a bow that is easy on the hand and bowarm, less 'kick', more accuracy, and quietness. Also, because the bowlimbs aren't pre-stressed as a reflexed bow's are, the weight of the bow during the draw builds at a slower pace, meaning that the drawing arm is further back before the full weight kicks in, meaning an easier draw. This makes the bow feel lighter during the draw because the drawing arm is in a better leverage position. The force-draw curve is a nice gentle slope from start to finish.

Nate Steen, Sunset Hill longbows

I think in some way the same principle is applied (in a way) by Shrew bows and Big Jim's bows. Very short smooth shooting "longbows" that don't have finger pinch. In the way that the limbs immediately either side of the riser sweep back toward the shooter/string.

I may not be explaining that well not being a bow builder. I will try to find some more information.

Your comment about it being a go to bow when it really counts is high praise considering your stable of bows. I would dearly love to see a picture if you get a chance. Maybe one day lucky enough to see it in the flesh.

Cheers
Troy

[Stickbow Hunter]

I think in some way the same principle is applied (in a way) by Shrew bows and Big Jim's bows. Very short smooth shooting "longbows" that don't have finger pinch. In the way that the limbs immediately either side of the riser sweep back toward the shooter/string.

Troy,

Those bows aren’t in any way longbows; they are semi-recurves. Because of their design they simply have no relevance to this thread.

In the quote above I note that Nate doesn’t mention that a longbow with built in string follow will have much less stored energy - which equates to much less performance - than a similar bow of reflex design.

Jeff

[wishsong]

Jeff ... going through a Chrony I have not noticed any more than 5-7fps difference ... My Whippenstick string follow is quicker than even my heavily reflexed Schulz bows ... a fella I know is getting 200 fps with his ... and they are becoming sought after as longbows for 3D in the USA

I'll bring a couple up your way soon and you can put a few arrows through them ... not that there will be any blistering difference for you I wouldn't think ... But at least I have lefties for you to try !

Either way ... they sure work well for some of us ... just as a well made reflexed bow will work , and be preferred by others . Interestingly , of the many Hill style archers I have talked to , written to etc , I'd suggest most stay with a string follow once they have tried them ... mind you I can name others who found much much worse or what they consider unacceptable performance from string follow ... I think Mr Kleinig is one such gent ... his last "photo comp " bow I had sent to him is reflexed

But anywhoo ... Troy , try one for yourself ... I know a guy who sells them ... also , I think some of Nick Lintern's bows have a touch of string follow , maybe even pre stressed string follow .....

they make for a really sweet shooting bow ... I can use 9-10gns and have the same "recoil" as I would with a reflexed bow that i'd have to load up with 11-12 gns ...... a well made low stretch string and away ya go !

but maybe I am just in need of manning up as the 'bump' at the shot is affecting me more as I get older and the nasty arthritis dog seems to bite more often

[Stickbow Hunter]

Ben,

String follow bows are slower than comparable reflexed bows - no doubt about it and my findings would suggest even more fps difference than you have found. Depending on the bows the difference could easily be 10fps or more and that is a lot. You could shoot a 10lb lighter reflexed bow and get the same performance as a string follow bow. I'm simply not prepared to give that performance advantage up for what I see as a very minimal shooting ability gain, if any. For those, like yourself, who like the string follow bows keep on shooting them as we all shoot what we like.

Any flat laid bow will take a little string follow when shot.

a fella I know is getting 200 fps with his ...

All I can say is he must be shooting an extremely heavy bow or very light arras, or both; or he needs to get his chrono checked.

Jeff

[Chase N. Nocks]

I think in some way the same principle is applied (in a way) by Shrew bows and Big Jim's bows. Very short smooth shooting "longbows" that don't have finger pinch. In the way that the limbs immediately either side of the riser sweep back toward the shooter/string.

Troy,

Those bows aren’t in any way longbows; they are semi-recurves. Because of their design they simply have no relevance to this thread.

In the quote above I note that Nate doesn’t mention that a longbow with built in string follow will have much less stored energy - which equates to much less performance - than a similar bow of reflex design.

Jeff

G'day Jeff,

I agree with you here that these bows are not longbows that's why I put the word into "" . I know you and I don't agree on every longbow/not longbow criteria but I do agree with you on these. I do however respect the right of the manufacturers to call the bows what they like and being hybrids give them a little leniancy with titles, even though I can't think of an Archery Body that would accept them as longbows.

The reason I think mentioning these other bows does have relevance is from a design question. The design concept of these bows I was trying to bring into the comparison was the Forward Handle that, to my admittedly untrained bowyer mind, shares this idea of deliberate string follow. When I heard of the deliberate string follow longbows I immediately thought of the forward handle hybrids as they both were aiming at sweet handling with the shorter hybrids trying to eliminate finger pinch as well. To me the string follow longbows were in other words forward handle longbows. It wasn't until after my intitial post that I thought to mention the forward handled hybrids.

That was my immediate association made between the two ideas anyway, but wanted others feedback to see if that was completely off track. If so why. What is the difference that I am missing?

I understand what you mean by much less stored energy. That was my initial view, but I do not know enough about bow design. Nate does reject the degree of arrow speed loss that was mentioned by a previous poster. And he does claim enhanced shooting characteristics of the bow which if a bow is easier on the archer to loose an arrow. Less kick, smoother release, less paradox these things may very well add to arrow speed especially if the archer is also torquing the bow less. What intuitively should be a slower bow due to less stored energy but the other variable maybe what leads to cleaner easier shooting bow so that they balance out. That seems to be the anecdotal evidence anyway which included this many guys are reporting a faster bow resulting in shooting higher spined arrows than they shoot out of their comparable 'Hillstyle' bows

On that note does the energy stored in the limbs matter if the arrow speed from either bow is essentially the same for a same weight arrow. Then it comes down to which bow may be more forgiving (accurate) to shoot.

This is the guist of what I was hoping find out from the post.

Cheers
Troy

[Chase N. Nocks]

Jeff ... going through a Chrony I have not noticed any more than 5-7fps difference ... My Whippenstick string follow is quicker than even my heavily reflexed Schulz bows ... a fella I know is getting 200 fps with his ... and they are becoming sought after as longbows for 3D in the USA

I'll bring a couple up your way soon and you can put a few arrows through them ... not that there will be any blistering difference for you I wouldn't think ... But at least I have lefties for you to try !

Either way ... they sure work well for some of us ... just as a well made reflexed bow will work , and be preferred by others . Interestingly , of the many Hill style archers I have talked to , written to etc , I'd suggest most stay with a string follow once they have tried them ... mind you I can name others who found much much worse or what they consider unacceptable performance from string follow ... I think Mr Kleinig is one such gent ... his last "photo comp " bow I had sent to him is reflexed

But anywhoo ... Troy , try one for yourself ... I know a guy who sells them ... also , I think some of Nick Lintern's bows have a touch of string follow , maybe even pre stressed string follow .....

they make for a really sweet shooting bow ... I can use 9-10gns and have the same "recoil" as I would with a reflexed bow that i'd have to load up with 11-12 gns ...... a well made low stretch string and away ya go !

but maybe I am just in need of manning up as the 'bump' at the shot is affecting me more as I get older and the nasty arthritis dog seems to bite more often

G'day Ben,

I suspect you were familiar with the quoted post from POA that I threw in before.

I am VERY interested in the string follow longbows. Interestingly I have generally found many hybrid and reflexed bows/longbows gentler to shoot than the Hill type bows even though they are storing more energy. Part of this is (I'm sure) in the riser design but how much I cannot say.

Point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. I have had trouble finding contact details for Sunset Hill.

I also very much like Nick's (reverse handle) Barbarian bow so I will drop him an email and see if he can do one in string follow.

I live in Brisbane but if you are ever attending a shoot in or near SEQ I would be interested to know so I might have a look at a bow if you have one along.

Unfortunately I am a "Righty" so shooting would be meaningless.

Cheers
Troy

[wishsong]

Troy ,
Nate builds few bows and the waiting list is long ..... David Miller builds a fine bow in a very similar fashion and is a student of Schulz . I'd suggest that you will not get a bow from either in under 9 months .....

I'd recommed Ken Rohloff at Whippenstick or Jim Belcher at Sky [ the Union Jack model ] ... Craig Ekin will also build a string follow . I'd also heartily recommend Steve Turay at Northern Mist ' "Shelton " model ... a great example of the string follow bow .

[Chase N. Nocks]

Troy ,
Nate builds few bows and the waiting list is long ..... David Miller builds a fine bow in a very similar fashion and is a student of Schulz . I'd suggest that you will not get a bow from either in under 9 months .....

I'd recommed Ken Rohloff at Whippenstick or Jim Belcher at Sky [ the Union Jack model ] ... Craig Ekin will also build a string follow . I'd also heartily recommend Steve Turay at Northern Mist ' "Shelton " model ... a great example of the string follow bow .

Thanks Ben,

Any contact details for Nate? I can always do a post in one of the US sites if not. David at least has a website and it looks like Old Tom is his version. 9 months is not unexpected and I can live with that although that is way longer than I have ever waited for a bow you will wait that long for a Centaur or a Rose Oak.

Steve's prices are very reasonable and he offers white, brown and GREEN glass. Of course Craig's bows are well made and reasonably priced as well. (I owned an Owl at one stage)

I have heard good reports about the Whippensticks and they seem like a good price as well. Shaped and checkered risers are always nice as well.

I would have dearly loved one of Jim Belcher's static tip longbows but he has withdrawn them from his catalog.

Cheers
Troy

[Stickbow Hunter]

I do however respect the right of the manufacturers to call the bows what they like and being hybrids give them a little leniancy with titles, even though I can't think of an Archery Body that would accept them as longbows.

I can’t agree with you on this point as these type bows have historically been called semi-recurves; not hybrids nor longbows etc. To call them other then their correct name is destroying our Traditional Archery history IMO.

The design concept of these bows I was trying to bring into the comparison was the Forward Handle that, to my admittedly untrained bowyer mind, shares this idea of deliberate string follow.

I don’t believe these bows have forward handles at all. Whether the longbow is string follow or reflexed the position of the handle remains the same in relation to the limbs. The limb shape (curve) changes a little is all.

I understand what you mean by much less stored energy. That was my initial view, but I do not know enough about bow design. Nate does reject the degree of arrow speed loss that was mentioned by a previous poster. And he does claim enhanced shooting characteristics of the bow which if a bow is easier on the archer to loose an arrow. Less kick, smoother release, less paradox these things may very well add to arrow speed especially if the archer is also torquing the bow less. What intuitively should be a slower bow due to less stored energy but the other variable maybe what leads to cleaner easier shooting bow so that they balance out.

Nate may seem to reject the degree of arrow speed loss but that doesn’t mean he is right. I have tested many bows of various designs and my findings show that string follow bows are much slower than my reflex designed bows specifically and other reflexed designed bows generally.

I agree that if a person is shooting a bow with bad form and unmatched arrows than he most certainly won’t get the best out of any bow. String follow bows don’t suddenly negate such issues.

That seems to be the anecdotal evidence anyway which included this many guys are reporting a faster bow resulting in shooting higher spined arrows than they shoot out of their comparable 'Hillstyle' bows

No offense intended to anybody but over the years it seems a lot of archers claim the bow that they are presently shooting is the fastest they have ever shot. Most often I take such comments with a grain of salt unless they have tested their bows through a reliable Chrono and can give the bow weight at their draw, arrow weight and speeds recorded etc.

Troy, here is something that may be of interest to you when thinking about the performance difference between a longbow of built in string follow design and one of reflex design. I hope I can explain it clearly enough so you understand what I am getting at.

Let’s assume a few things for my example first. Both bows are the same length and 60# @ 28” draw and both bows are braced at 6”. The arrows are the same weight and matched to each bow.

Both bows will have to be drawn 22” from their braced position to reach their 28” draw.

The string follow bow at brace will have a holding weight much less than that of the reflexed bow. Let’s say 10lbs. This means the bow must gain 50lbs in 22” to reach its 60# draw weight.

The reflexed bow at brace will have let’s say a holding weight of 15lbs. This means the bow must only gain 45lbs in 22” to reach its 60# draw weight.

Upon release the string follow bow will loose weight more rapidly than the reflexed bow as it will loose 50lbs during the 22” from full draw to brace height (this is called the power stroke) as opposed to the 45lbs loss of the reflexed bow. The reflexed bows higher draw weight at the end of the power stroke (at or actually a little past brace height) results in better arrow speed.

Clearly the above also shows a reflexed bow will have higher stored energy which again results in a faster arrow speed.

Regarding the other positives you mention of the string follow bows is less kick, smoother release and less paradox etc. Have a good think about this!

I personally have not found this to be the case and in fact have found some string follow bows to kick like a mule. Bow limb design and proper tiller is what makes a bow shoot sweet and not kick IMO.

Lastly it may seem that I am very negative towards string follow bows; well this is partly true. For performance reasons alone, as a Bowhunter, I would never consider shooting a string follow longbow - especially with my short 26.5” draw.

Having said all the above people need to shoot the bow they like. IMO if someone likes a particular style bow then they will always shoot that bow better than any other and that to me is the most important thing.

Jeff

[GrahameA]

Hi Troy.

I would like to see the numbers.

The Physics of what happens with bows is reasonably well understood. Wishful thinking will not change that. See tag line below.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Thanks Jeff,

I appreciate what you are saying.

I started the thread because largely at face value the performance claims for string follow bows did not make sense to me. But neither did counter steering on a motorcycle. I know that sometimes things work opposite to what is expected.

But my ignorance of bow design is quite profound so I got what I was hoping for. Feedback from users and bowyers, Ben and yourself. Ben's experience is repeated often enough on other forums to ask what is going on here. What is that ratio of less efficient mechanics vs easy of use that provides these positive comments either actually or perceptively.

I would still like to hear more but will jump on some of the other forums to investigate and anything interesting post back here. I am sure that there are, like here, conflicting views. But I am intrigued and think there may be something there.

I really appreciate this explanation

Upon release the string follow bow will loose weight more rapidly than the reflexed bow as it will loose 50lbs during the 22” from full draw to brace height (this is called the power stroke) as opposed to the 45lbs loss of the reflexed bow. The reflexed bows higher draw weight at the end of the power stroke (at or actually a little past brace height) results in better arrow speed.

because to my untrained mind I was thinking that both bows with a draw weight of 60lb @ 28" would have been essentially the same. This some of what I was trying to understand.

Now I am still trying to get my head around this. And the above made sense to me. But then I thought while the string follow bow will lose the poundage of it's power stroke faster it has more to lose. Wouldn't that balance out somehow? I will try and explain this better but at work it is hard to find the right wording.

Sorry probably being completely stupid and I really need to think more about it and re-read what you have written a few times.

The other usual option for me which won't surprise many people from this forum is to save some pennies and do my usual suck-it-and-see.

Cheers
Troy

[Dennis La Varenne]

With this string follow thing, I don't accept the claimed performance advantages and particularly the claims for equal or greater speed. As Grahame says above -

I would like to see the numbers.

Thus far, NOBODY has provided any numbers outside of 'claims' of superior speed. Also, I have NEVER been able to detect the often claimed phenomenon of 'smoothness' of draw and I am highly suspicious of it if it cannot be measured independently of the say-so of its claimants.

Americans seem to be very gullible when it comes to believing their own propaganda and unfortunately, they often pass that credulity on to us. The physics of how bows work IS very well understood as Grahame Amy also says, and I seriously doubt that Mr Steen et al. have discovered a new bow design and theory of bow function which refutes all the well understood knowledge about bows which has been developed over the past 100 years. I do hope that is not being seriously contended here.

I have plenty of bows with varying degrees of string follow. I love them all and I love shooting them. NONE of them have superior performance in any fashion to those bows I have which are straight laid or have reflex in any way that can be measured. It would be a nonsense to claim otherwise. The numbers just are not there to support such a claim.

The further claim of smoothness (whatever that is) has never been obvious to me in any bow I have ever drawn over all my archery career that I could not equally attribute to a bow which had greater or lower draw weight. Whatever 'forgiveness' is, I have no idea. I have read mountains of literature about it, but not a shred of measurable data has been provided to support the claim anywhere, and, how would you set up a reliably objective test method to detect it anyway. The claim is diaphanous and hugely subjective, and as such, could not be reliably detected between all archers. If it exists, it must exist for all archers irrespective of physical ability or trait. If it cannot be proven to all archers, then it is suspect.

The only measurable method of detecting smoothness that I have discovered is the force-draw curve. If the rate to increase in draw weight over the drawing stroke is consistent, then I would call that bow a smooth drawer. If the rate of increase itself increases, then I would NOT call that bow a smooth drawer, because the graph will show a steepening curvature towards the end of the drawing stroke.

On the subject of reflex vs string follow, unless a person compares like with like where all equipment is matched with the one exception of the resting position of the bow tips, then comparisons and claims are suspect. A reasonable comparison can be made between like bows having a different draw weight only if the arrows used are drawn to the same draw length and the arrow mass/lb of draw weight is the same, ie using a 10grains/lb of draw weight for instance.

By this method, it is simple maths to calculate how fast each bow will move 1 grain of arrow mass. The more efficient bow will shift each grain faster irrespective of actual draw weight.

I would like to see protagonists for the superiority of string follow bows to provide force-draw curves for their bows compared to same draw weight reflexed bows along with numbers showing speed/grain of arrow mass.

The absurdity of the string follow claims is exacerbated by the fact that if their claims are true, then the whole reason for the invention and development of the working recurve bow is made completely redundant.

I have a fairly extensive library of archery material from the pre-compound days in which in every instance, great importance was placed upon minimising string follow BECAUSE of the resultant poor performance. Every effort was made by bowmakers in that era to minimise or obviate it if they could. In my Ben Pearson catalogue from 1941, his top design target bow was built with 5-6 inches of reflex with the promise that these bows would NOT develop string follow.

Ben Pearson 1941 catalogue pp5.jpg (162.47 KiB) Viewed 6843 times

Those people in those times were acutely aware of the performance-robbing effects of string follow. They did all they could to prevent it. There were NO benefits that could be measured. Claims of smoothness and especially forgiveness were little more than unmeasurable unsubstantiable frivolities. If you think you need something called 'forgiveness' in your bow, I would strongly suggest that all you really need is more practice and/or a lighter bow.

My opinion on the subject is that string follow is poor design turned into a virtue by advertising and nothing more. For a manufacturer to deliberately build such bows shows a remarkable disregard for and callous appreciation of the gullibility of his market.

[wishsong]

Those people in those times were acutely aware of the performance-robbing effects of string follow. They did all they could to prevent it. There were NO benefits that could be measured. Claims of smoothness and especially forgiveness were little more than unmeasurable unsubstantiable frivolities. If you think you need something called 'forgiveness' in your bow, I would strongly suggest that all you really need is more practice and/or a lighter bow.

My opinion on the subject is that string follow is poor design turned into a virtue by advertising and nothing more. For a manufacturer to deliberately build such bows shows a remarkable disregard for and callous appreciation of the gullibility of his market.

This will be my last post on this matter .

But as someone who sells and shoots these bows I thought I would reply .
I have not seen anyone suggest that these longbows are faster ... although there are those caliming that the Whippenstick model is as fast if not faster ... these are not the claims of the untrained or newbie , or dare I say gullible ... these are the bowyers and archers and hunters who attended the Walk the Talk , have one IBO World Championchips , whose longbow of choice is such a design .
Shootability is subjective , but many many will claim that they do not notice any real world , appreciable difference in performance [ at hunting ranges ] but do notice less handshock and as such improved shootability . Apparently , the people claiming such are have either been hoodwinked , are liars , or trying to sell something . Note that I sell far more reflexed bows than otherwise ..., I have no dog i this fight as such , but my preferred bow style is based upon nearly 25 years of exclusively shooting Hill style longbows .

the current straight Limb longbows in my house are
Jerry Hill [ reflexed
Howard Hill [ reflexed and Sf
David miller [ sf .. pre stressed
John Schulz [ glassed and reflexed]
Jeff Challacombe [ reflxed
Belcher [ sf
Whippenstick [sf
Elburg [ reflxed
Ausbow/ John Clarke [straight
Pete George
Steve Turay [ reflexed and Sf




I also take great offence as inferred that I am spruiking by default a bow that is made purely to pray upon the "callous appreciation of the gullibility of his market " . I am not gullible , have not been hoodwinked nor would I sell something I knew to be inferior . I shoot what I like ... but heaven forbid that my decision be informed basd in years of experience ... I again note that I personally own and still shoot and hunt with reflexed Hils style longbows ... they are great bows and I hunted successfully with them for years ... they do have more handshock than their SF counterparts IMHO .......

If you think you need something called 'forgiveness' in your bow, I would strongly suggest that all you really need is more practice and/or a lighter bow

.

Gee thanks ... I'll take it under consideration ... I am trying to not read that as condascening but sheesh ....... so forgiveness is not definable .... as such , asdie from some dubious personal preference , why would anyone shoot a longbow over a recurve then ? Are there not thousands upon thousands of archers worldwide who prefer a longbow over the recurve as they find it somwhat more "forgiving" ?
Have they to been duped ? Was Howard Hill or Swinehart when they made similiar calims regarding "forgiveness "


I also would suggest that Jim Belcher , Rex Oakes , Ken Rohloff , John Schulz , Charlie Lamb , Nick Lintern , Roy King , Horace Ford , Schulz , John D Lee nor myself have been duped , nor are duplicate in any selling a deliberately made inferior bow .

Perhaps we find them more shootable ?

Anywhoo , have at it .

[Dennis La Varenne]

Ben,

Once again, in respect of your claims about string follow bows - show me the numbers.

I have given you and anybody else who cares to do the testing a simple method of comparing bows and their performance. Anybody can do the testing. It is not rocket science.

All I hear is lots of 'new toy' syndrome and no factual data. If you and any of those whose names you have dropped have the numbers as you claim on their behalf, then provide them. I would also appreciate a method of measuring 'forgiveness'. I will be the first to recant if you can provide testable data along with details of the test methods so I can reproduce those tests. If I get the same result, then the claims are probably valid.

Sadly, the world is full of advertising dupes. I worked in the field. I know it works. That's why people buy stuff they don't need. Advertisers also dupe producers about the standard and ability of their products in order to get an advertising contract. That also works pretty reliably.

Again, I discount utterly the notion that the producers of these bows have invented a building method heretofore unknown to archery which overcomes all the well understood problems of string follow in bows. You cannot be seriously suggesting that they have surely?

If you like shooting such bows and they satisfy your shooting expectations, that is your business and I wish you well, but don't make outrageous claims on behalf of others that you cannot substantiate apart from your personal opinion and preference. You should learn to distinguish between the two.

The often claimed preference by Howard Hill for sting-follow bows lasted ONLY until the advent of fibreglass. After he learned to apply it, he built ALL of his bows with reflex as great as 3 inches unless Bob Burton was lying in his book "Howard Hill Collectibles" where EVERY glassed bow of Howard's that he examined has some reflex. In an email to me on the subject of string follow bows, Craig Ekin also told me that Howard never went back to string follow bows when he learned to apply fibreglass because the performance was just not there.

Howard was not a fool. He very clearly did a great deal of experimenting with the style of bow he preferred in order to get more performance from the design. He did NOT apply fibreglass to keep his bow limbs in a state of string follow. Even in his all-bamboo days, Craig's book details his bow-making process where he ALWAYS put back-set into his bows. Back-set is the old term for bending the limbs forward of the handle to get the tips ahead of the handle - similar to reflex without the curve. Its only purpose was to minimise or obviate string follow and gain arrow speed and Howard was not so stupid as to persist with an outdated bow-building method when better arrived. All of this is well-documented and a matter of historical fact.

The present fascination with string follow bows is no different to the reason I built my all-bamboo Howard Hill replica. It has everything to do with sentimentality and little or nothing to do with measurable performance. If all claims for these bows rely upon purely subjective things like 'forgiveness' and 'smoothness', then the claims are little more than fiction. Just because a bunch of notable Americans can all line up to promote a style of bow based upon unmeasurable qualities which are purely subjective demonstrates nothing valid or conclusive other than that they have found a willing market and have a barrow to push. That many people buy them demonstrates nothing more than a successful advertising campaign.

You have claimed equal performance from your string follow bows against bows with reflexed limbs. What standards of testing did you use? What was your test methodology apart from just shooting through a chronograph. What did you do to measure like against like? Were your tested bows made of the same materials and length? Were your tested bows of the same draw weight? Were your test arrows standardised? How did you measure 'forgiveness'?

I also would suggest that Jim Belcher , Rex Oakes , Ken Rohloff , John Schulz , Charlie Lamb , Nick Lintern , Roy King , Horace Ford , Schulz , John D Lee nor myself have been duped , nor are duplicate in any selling a deliberately made inferior bow .

I am strongly suggesting that they tell themselves what they want to believe, and

Was Howard Hill or Swinehart when they made similiar calims regarding "forgiveness "

yes, I would challenge both of those men to their faces for making that claim and ask them to prove it actually exists outside of their beliefs. If it actually exists, it exists for all archers and not for those of the 'faith'.

Where are your numbers?

[Buranurra]

I would just like to say that this discussion is fascinating. To read this vigorous debate is very educational for a born-again-beginner such as myself. Thanks to all those contributing and I hope this discussion continues.

... Dennis, that newspaper article with prices of $12.50 to $20.00 for those bows was a treat!

Cheers

Jase

[Chase N. Nocks]

With this string follow thing, I don't accept the claimed performance advantages and particularly the claims for equal or greater speed. As Grahame says above -

I would like to see the numbers.

At this stage I neither accept or disagree. I am merely exploring the claims. Of course I would like to see numbers as well.

Thus far, NOBODY has provided any numbers outside of 'claims' of superior speed. Also, I have NEVER been able to detect the often claimed phenomenon of 'smoothness' of draw and I am highly suspicious of it if it cannot be measured independently of the say-so of its claimants.

Not everyone has claimed superior speed. Some supposedly claimed superior speed, others equivalent performance and I have seen some claims for lesser speed. The majority of posters I have found so far have stated perceived superior handling i.e. Smoothness of draw and much reduced hand shock when compared to their stable of straight layed or reflex longbows. The speed element of the claims has been a disproportional focus of your own posts compared with the overall favourable comments about these bows.

I have generally (maybe mistakenly) associated smoothness of draw with bows that have a nice building of draw weight and do not stack. I have very certainly drawn and shot bows that stack. These I would describe as NOT being smooth.

Americans seem to be very gullible when it comes to believing their own propaganda and unfortunately, they often pass that credulity on to us. The physics of how bows work IS very well understood as Grahame Amy also says, and I seriously doubt that Mr Steen et al. have discovered a new bow design and theory of bow function which refutes all the well understood knowledge about bows which has been developed over the past 100 years. I do hope that is not being seriously contended here.

I certainly do not consider myself a gullible person but will leave that for others to judge. While I confess to a remedial knowledge of bow design. I am trying to explore the question and the claim. I don’t feel that I have contended anything. I have merely made constant reference to anecdotal evidence some of which has been made by respected longbow advocates, serious Hill longbow advocates at that. Some by one of our own resident longbowers who I believe has not displayed himself to be a goose in his history of postings on Ozbow. I don't believe that Ben made ANYWHERE a claim of superior speed.

ALL of the points that have been mentioned by those rejecting the claims mirror my own initial thoughts. If someone had shown me a string follow longbow without me having encountered the information that I have recently I would have thought that there was something wrong with it. Now I am not so sure. Ignorance can be fixed, curiosity I believe there is no cure for.

I have plenty of bows with varying degrees of string follow. I love them all and I love shooting them. NONE of them have superior performance in any fashion to those bows I have which are straight laid or have reflex in any way that can be measured. It would be a nonsense to claim otherwise. The numbers just are not there to support such a claim.

I have tried, using my own experience as an Archer, to offer suggestions based on the anecdotal reports as to why these bows with supposedly inefficient limb mechanics may still be able to achieve good performance. These were based on what was often described as refined shooting characteristics.

The points I made are certainly valid for me. I no longer chase speed at cost to other shooting characteristics nor do I desire bows that are slow. Yes I am looking for the sweet spot. BenBow in his recent Penetration Topic speaks of

an arrow that matches my mental computer….to get it's trajectory to match my shooting style

. Not much that is measurable in that statement but as an Archer who has shot mostly “instinctive” I appreciate what he is saying. When Byron Ferguson say ‘Become the Arrow’ I know he is not speaking literally.

BTW do you own a glass laminated string follow bow or experienced shooting one. More specifically experienced one that the owner has made a glowing report about. More specifically one that was designed to be this way.

The further claim of smoothness (whatever that is) has never been obvious to me in any bow I have ever drawn over all my archery career that I could not equally attribute to a bow which had greater or lower draw weight. Whatever 'forgiveness' is, I have no idea. I have read mountains of literature about it, but not a shred of measurable data has been provided to support the claim anywhere, and, how would you set up a reliably objective test method to detect it anyway. The claim is diaphanous and hugely subjective, and as such, could not be reliably detected between all archers. If it exists, it must exist for all archers irrespective of physical ability or trait. If it cannot be proven to all archers, then it is suspect.

I have shot bows that did not have refined manners – one certain Bingham longbow owned by Denis Whitfield? Which Perry will, I am sure, attest to its wrist injuring, teeth rattling qualities. I owned a Martin ML10 whose grip was too big for me, stacked and had quite a bit of hand shock. It was fast and I learned to shoot it well. Having now shot and owned many well-mannered bows since I would not waste my efforts on a bow of it’s like again. (I am not speaking about all ML10 bows). These two bows were not forgiving. That is how I would describe them. This is the way we asks others to offer reviews of certain bows we may be considering purchasing. The information still has value.

The only measurable method of detecting smoothness that I have discovered is the force-draw curve. If the rate to increase in draw weight over the drawing stroke is consistent, then I would call that bow a smooth drawer. If the rate of increase itself increases, then I would NOT call that bow a smooth drawer, because the graph will show a steepening curvature towards the end of the drawing stroke.

Yes no argument that is the best way to arrive at the figures but I don’t need the draw curve to tell me when a bow is stacking badly. The curve will merely explain the degree. A mildly stacking bow I may well not detect especially if the draw weight happens to be within or below my draw weight comfort zone.

On the subject of reflex vs string follow, unless a person compares like with like where all equipment is matched with the one exception of the resting position of the bow tips, then comparisons and claims are suspect. A reasonable comparison can be made between like bows having a different draw weight only if the arrows used are drawn to the same draw length and the arrow mass/lb of draw weight is the same, ie using a 10grains/lb of draw weight for instance.

By this method, it is simple maths to calculate how fast each bow will move 1 grain of arrow mass. The more efficient bow will shift each grain faster irrespective of actual draw weight.

I would like to see protagonists for the superiority of string follow bows to provide force-draw curves for their bows compared to same draw weight reflexed bows along with numbers showing speed/grain of arrow mass.

Of course I would like to see comparisons. Always interested in that level of data. For all I know it may be out there. I have only just started looking into these bows.

Suspicion or acceptance would be a matter of degree based on whose opinion I asked and the quality of their experience and their reputation or familiarity. These things we have to weigh up. I am not asking for sworn testimony.

I am happy to receive knowledgeable opinion. I am grateful for the feedback that Ben has provided so far. I hope he will answer more questions if I have them and I hope publically in the topic as I think others would be interested.

The absurdity of the string follow claims is exacerbated by the fact that if their claims are true, then the whole reason for the invention and development of the working recurve bow is made completely redundant.

I am not sure about this statement. Not arguing against it, merely pleading ignorance of the full scope of bow design. Are all the claims absurd or just some?

I have a fairly extensive library of archery material from the pre-compound days in which in every instance, great importance was placed upon minimising string follow BECAUSE of the resultant poor performance. Every effort was made by bowmakers in that era to minimise or obviate it if they could. In my Ben Pearson catalogue from 1941, his top design target bow was built with 5-6 inches of reflex with the promise that these bows would NOT develop string follow.
Those people in those times were acutely aware of the performance-robbing effects of string follow. They did all they could to prevent it. There were NO benefits that could be measured. Claims of smoothness and especially forgiveness were little more than unmeasurable unsubstantiable frivolities. If you think you need something called 'forgiveness' in your bow, I would strongly suggest that all you really need is more practice and/or a lighter bow.

I can always use more practice. I also understand when I am over-bowed. Lack of any real ego and getting on in years means I have gravitated to lighter bows for the most part. I think I am pretty consistent in not confusing my own failings with my bows’. Your suggestion is noted but I would suggest on my own part that ‘forgiveness’ is a term I have encountered many times in archery conversation. For instance long limbs being more forgiving of a bad release.

My opinion on the subject is that string follow is poor design turned into a virtue by advertising and nothing more. For a manufacturer to deliberately build such bows shows a remarkable disregard for and callous appreciation of the gullibility of his market.

I respect your experience as a bow builder Dennis and the extent of your enthusiasm for archery knowledge. I do not however think that you know everything about bow design and the vehemence of the above statement is actually quite disrespectful in light of your own lack of comparison data. I would welcome any that you find, for or against. I am not interested in winning a debate but finding out more of this type of bow. I am not as ready to discredit other archers-out-of-hand.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Again, I discount utterly the notion that the producers of these bows have invented a building method heretofore unknown to archery which overcomes all the well understood problems of string follow in bows. You cannot be seriously suggesting that they have surely?

Dennis,

Where was this claim made?

I did see somewhere that these bowyers were using what was "known to the oldtimers". I will try to find it again.

Troy

[Dennis La Varenne]

Troy,

Noting all your points, I cannot find anything which substantiates any of the claims touted for string follow bows. There are a lot of speculations but not much else.

If you are going to make a claim about something, it is incumbent upon the proposer of a thesis to back up that claim with factual data if there is any pretention to a scientific approach. I do not have to disprove anything. I am the challenger. I challenge the claims made on the basis of my bowmaking experience and bows I have here at home which I can use for that purpose.

I used to use mostly John Clark's glass bows in my early days which were straight laid on his form and quickly took string follow. They were never quicker nor had any inherent qualities of shootability which all my later reflexed fibreglass bows did not have more of in spades. John never pretended anything else. He made a workmanlike practical affordable bow. I was quite happy with their performance back then and I would not disparage them now. But they did not have any qualities of performance which could be measured which made them in any way superior to bows with reflexed limbs.

Secondly, you don't have to have a glassed string follow bow for legitimate comparison to be made, so long as like is compared with like. String-follow wood bows have a performance level only proportionately less than glassed bows. The difference is a matter of proportionality, NOT materials. A straight wood bow or even a reflexed wood bow has proportionately greater performance in similar proportion to its string-follow comparator as a reflexed glassed bow against a string-follow glassed bow so long as the amount of string follow compared to the straight or reflexed bow is the same. Those proportions can be extrapolated.

So, what is it YOU are actually claiming for the design if anything? If you are not claiming anything for or against, what is the point that you are discussing?

[Dennis La Varenne]

Troy,

To make the performance claims made by the Yanks who are building them is by inference saying that they have invented a bow building method which allows a bow to have string-follow limbs and have equal performance to a reflexed bow. I am not particularly interested in claims of 'forgiveness' and 'smoothness' which exist only in the minds of the believers and cannot be proven in any objective manner.

Do please find the source of that quote. I would most certainly like to follow up on it.

[GrahameA]

Hi Troy.

I was once told. "If you cannot measure it , it does not exist". Experience suggest that there is a lot of truth in that statement. Essentially if you cannot measure something how do compare it.

Once again I would like to see the numbers. I would suggest I have made that comment a few times over the years.

The majority of posters I have found so far have stated perceived superior handling i.e. Smoothness of draw and much reduced hand shock when compared to their ....

How is "smoothness" defined and how is it measured? How is "Hand Shock" defined and how do you measure it?

I have observed people complain about "Hand Shock in Bows", and then it all disappears when they change arrows or try shooting without a Death Grip on the bow. I would suggest in those cases the issue has nothing to do with the Bow rather it has more to do with their choice of Arrows or their "form". So it really needs to be measured by first being defined and then using a standard process.

I have generally (maybe mistakenly) associated smoothness of draw with bows that have a nice building of draw weight and do not stack. I have very certainly drawn and shot bows that stack. These I would describe as NOT being smooth.

Most bows will stack eventually - unless the conditions are defined it means nothing.

'forgiveness'

is another of my favourites. What is it and how you measure it.

I would suggest that bows have many characteristics/properties that are the result of their design/manufacture however it is hard to compare them if they cannot be measured for whatever reason.

If people are interested I would suggest the work of Hickman and Klopsteg as a reasonable starting point.
An introduction to Hickmans simple modelling of bows. http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kobe97.pdf
An introduction to Klopstegs work, http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/thesis.pdf

[Chase N. Nocks]

Hi Grahame,

If it can’t be measured it does not exist.

If you cannot measure it, it does not exist. From
where you are now to where you want to be is a series of steps each of which can
be measured as progress. Lord Kelvin

Hmm an interesting statement. As an “Absolute” statement I cannot agree with it. I know you appreciate language as well does Dennis. There are times when precise language is necessary and appreciated and there are times when precise language is not possible, desirable or even expected.
How do you measure the talent of an artist? How do you measure the effectiveness of a poem? I enjoy the directness and preciseness of language as well as the subtleties. Someone tells me they have a broken heart. I don’t ask them to show me an x-ray.

I did a bit of a search through the Ozbow site an found many references to “forgiving” and “smooth” used by posters. Describing everything from a physical property to bow shooting characteristics, to arrow shelves to fletching. With hardly a howl of misunderstanding, well hardly a whisper actually. The comments are taken for what they are.

I think because we ask what is it LIKE to shoot, how does it FEEL in the hand. And we accept that the reply will be subjective and therefore contain generalities and abstraction. We through familiarity of our community of archery/Ozbow also look at WHO is providing a description. If it is a complete novice with exposure to one bow making a “claim” or whether it is someone like Excelpoint who has considerable experience and shot a wide range of bows.

"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".[10][11] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. However, the use of the word χρήματα (chrēmata) instead of the general word ὄντα (onta, entities) signifies that Protagoras was referring to things that are used by or in some way related to humans. This makes a great difference in the meaning of his aphorism. Properties, social entities, ideas, feelings, judgements, etc. are certainly χρήματα and hence originate in the human mind. Protagorus

Soctratic dialogue can be fun. When used in Psychology it can be enlightening and confronting. But in our conveniant everyday forum we will just get bogged down.

Yes having figures would be great. I have said so from the start. But no one has used language that has not been used hundreds of times on this forum and thousands upon thousands of other times where ever archers discuss bows. I thought there was an aggressiveness that was not required. But still appreciate the technical point of view.

Hi Dennis & Grahame

If someone reads or rereads my intitial post they will see that I was ASKING for INFORMATION. Technical and anecdotal.....Bowyers and users. I was not making a claim. Am not making a claim. I did try to offer what I thought might be some of the variables that might account for some of the glowing performance and characteristic reports of these bows even though the design mechanics (as I have expressed that even I understand them to be) suggest otherwise. Performance/characteristics that were NOT exclusive or even dominated by the speed issue.

I am also very pleased with Ben's feedback, his experience as an archer as well as so far it seems the only poster that has first hand familiarity with these deliberate Glass String Follow bows. I also have complete confidence that he will deliver an honest "opinion" to any question he feels able to answer.

This tread is all about an Inquiry into something in archery that I found interesting, mentioned often enough by other archers including recognised archers and that these bows may be of interest to archers on this forum that had not heard of them before.

Cheers
Troy

[wishsong]

Apolgoes for re entering the fray , but there are questions asked of me after I left the the thread and members have pm's me ...as such I thought some statements needed addressing as I feel they also questioned my intelligence and integrity and II am suprised at veracity of the responces . I'd also note that I have also had private emails with Dennis following our posts .
But publicly as such i will respond as folllows

Ben,

Once again, in respect of your claims about string follow bows - show me the numbers.

Dennis ... what claims are you referencing ? Lack of hand schock ? negligible difference at hunting ranges ? Again there seems to be an inference that I am claiming something that In reading my posts will show is definately not there. these things are somewhat subjective but I stand by them

I have given you and anybody else who cares to do the testing a simple method of comparing bows and their performance. Anybody can do the testing. It is not rocket science.

All I hear is lots of 'new toy' syndrome and no factual data. If you and any of those whose names you have dropped have the numbers as you claim on their behalf, then provide them. I would also appreciate a method of measuring 'forgiveness'. I will be the first to recant if you can provide testable data along with details of the test methods so I can reproduce those tests. If I get the same result, then the claims are probably valid.


Dennis and Grahame ... I do not have a test for forgiveness , nor do I need one . 30 years of releative succes afield and in tourney has shown me what works for me in different situtaions . I have fully bown Oly Rigs , Freetsyle compounds , weighted barebow 'curves and short ILF hunting curves ... all of these bows are wonderful tack drivers , well tuned and IMHO given human error are more accurate than their longbow counterparts . Given a flat track , where the variables are relatively constant they are exceedingly joyful to shoot ... turn these beasts to the hunting field , where quick shots are called for , canting may be varied duie to terrain , uphiil , downhill ... quick shots , snap shooting , variatuions in draw length as sometimes necessetated by the hunting environ, ditto grip pressure ... well this is where the longbow shines .. it seems inherently more "forgiving" to me of possible form flaws and as such I get fewer flyers , or outright blatant misses ....... something that happens more than I'd like with my other gear ... but thats why , aesthetics aside, I find longbows not only preferable as hunting bows but more "forgiving" ...
Have I writen down my findings , recorded dates and numbers etc to ensure my opinion is validated ? of course I haven't but that in no way , IMHO , negates its validity as my experience .
But to suggest that it is , as a concept , non existant because you can't measure it flies in the face of so many many posts here at Ozbow that it belittles much of what has previously written on this website .
Also , I am not name dropping by sharing the simliar results of other people who own such bows ... i know few here In Australia who own or use similiar equipment so reference where I can. But for reference I would suggest that the POA has some posts on the subject ... i do not know the specifics but these gents are far from sprukers , in fact I would suggest that they are the very opposite , but one of the lads found his bow , a Whippenstick Classic , from memory had given him readings of between 178 and 201[ I do not know the specifics asdie from that he chronys it faster than his Howard Hill ... ] I'd also note that Chris Shwantz [ IBO w' Champ ] uses one as he finds it forgiving and exceptionally fast whilst being well mannered compared to other straight limb bows

Sadly, the world is full of advertising dupes. I worked in the field. I know it works. That's why people buy stuff they don't need. Advertisers also dupe producers about the standard and ability of their products in order to get an advertising contract. That also works pretty reliably.

Given that I largely gauge a straight limb longbows shootability primarily on the absence of hand shock , due to continually debilitating arthritis , I find your inference that I have been duped by advertising rather than any working knowledge of longbows , archery etc .. well its rather offensive . Given that I am increasingly shooting competition where many any arrows are loosed ... well I'll make on my own jusdgement based on preference and what any injury tells me .

Again, I discount utterly the notion that the producers of these bows have invented a building method heretofore unknown to archery which overcomes all the well understood problems of string follow in bows. You cannot be seriously suggesting that they have surely?

Where has this been suggested by Troy , any of these bowyers or myself ? Do tell ? Please reference where I can read such a claim ? Personally I have never seen it and find it laughable in the extreme ... a reading of Schulz , Horace Ford or a chat with Jim belcher as he talks of the benefits AND flaws of the design and his tutelage under noted bowyers Rex Oakes and Roy King will fly absolutely in the face of the claim you are suggesting any one has made . In fact think the bow is generally regarded as merely an adaption of some pre glassed bow styling that some people found , myself included, to have favourable shooting qualities .
Again i request that you reference where I made any such claim ? Or anything even remotely similiar . For you to suggest and/or infer that I insinuated or stated otherwise is oncorrect and disengenous
Again all I have said I prefer these bows , have found somewhat comparable results , in that I find little difference at hunting ranges and less hand shock ....

If you like shooting such bows and they satisfy your shooting expectations, that is your business and I wish you well, but don't make outrageous claims on behalf of others that you cannot substantiate apart from your personal opinion and preference. You should learn to distinguish between the two.


Where have I tried to substantiate anything of the sort ... I have not suggested these bows are as fast , nor faster ... I have even stated where people I know personally , Hill style shooters found them sluggish ........ Rather than learning to distinguish between the two , which is totally uncalled for , perhaps others should read what is written and not infer anything that is not as written . I am a relatively easy going and honest man ... But I take great exception when somene suggests I am making outrageous claims ...when I am not . Please reread what I have written in these prev posts

The often claimed preference by Howard Hill for sting-follow bows lasted ONLY until the advent of fibreglass. After he learned to apply it, he built ALL of his bows with reflex as great as 3 inches unless Bob Burton was lying in his book "Howard Hill Collectibles" where EVERY glassed bow of Howard's that he examined has some reflex. In an email to me on the subject of string follow bows, Craig Ekin also told me that Howard never went back to string follow bows when he learned to apply fibreglass because the performance was just not there.

Howard was not a fool. He very clearly did a great deal of experimenting with the style of bow he preferred in order to get more performance from the design. He did NOT apply fibreglass to keep his bow limbs in a state of string follow. Even in his all-bamboo days, Craig's book details his bow-making process where he ALWAYS put back-set into his bows. Back-set is the old term for bending the limbs forward of the handle to get the tips ahead of the handle - similar to reflex without the curve. Its only purpose was to minimise or obviate string follow and gain arrow speed and Howard was not so stupid as to persist with an outdated bow-building method when better arrived. All of this is well-documented and a matter of historical fact.

The present fascination with string follow bows is no different to the reason I built my all-bamboo Howard Hill replica. It has everything to do with sentimentality and little or nothing to do with measurable performance. If all claims for these bows rely upon purely subjective things like 'forgiveness' and 'smoothness', then the claims are little more than fiction. Just because a bunch of notable Americans can all line up to promote a style of bow based upon unmeasurable qualities which are purely subjective demonstrates nothing valid or conclusive other than that they have found a willing market and have a barrow to push. That many people buy them demonstrates nothing more than a successful advertising campaign.


Please please show me an advertsing campaign regarding this ? Jim Belcher does not advertise them , Nate Steen is a part time bowyer who makes maybe two bows a year with no website and I am not even sure if he charges for his bows , nor does he even have a public telephone nos , Charlie Lamb does not sell bows , Howard Hill does not advertise them and that leaves Steve Turay at Northern Mist .. who is barely contactable and hardly the beacon of internet spruking nor advertising ... and David Miller sells far mmore reflexed or Non glassed bows that he does String follow bows ... so given that there are so very very few of us around , this above responce seems comepletely disproportionate

You have claimed equal performance from your string follow bows against bows with reflexed limbs. What standards of testing did you use? What was your test methodology apart from just shooting through a chronograph. What did you do to measure like against like? Were your tested bows made of the same materials and length? Were your tested bows of the same draw weight? Were your test arrows standardised? How did you measure 'forgiveness'?

Where did I claim equal performance ? I merely stated that I can drop arrow weight without any incurred recoil at the arrow weights expense , and that at hunting ranges , with the SF bows I don't really notice a difference in terms of performance

I also would suggest that Jim Belcher , Rex Oakes , Ken Rohloff , John Schulz , Charlie Lamb , Nick Lintern , Roy King , Horace Ford , Schulz , John D Lee nor myself have been duped , nor are duplicate in any selling a deliberately made inferior bow .

I am strongly suggesting that they tell themselves what they want to believe, and

Was Howard Hill or Swinehart when they made similiar calims regarding "forgiveness "

yes, I would challenge both of those men to their faces for making that claim and ask them to prove it actually exists outside of their beliefs. If it actually exists, it exists for all archers and not for those of the 'faith'.

Where are your numbers?

Again , I have made no claims regarding any supriority ... but given Troy an honest appraisal based on years of shooting longbows . The fact that it would appear my opinion and perference based on countless bows , tens of thousands of dollars and many a dead critter is scorned at for the absence of a science lab is sad .. but not as sad as ther being inferences being made which are exaggerated , and given the numerous requests for numbers , I request as written above that the supposed claims , suggested or inferred I made be referenced .
_____________________________________________

[Dennis La Varenne]

I have been having a very long series of private email conversations with Ben in regard to his thoughts and posts on this topic of string follow bows and their relative performance. He has cleared up quite a number of issues for me concerning his posts.

My understanding of the drift of his posts was that he was advocating the superiority of the string follow design. HE CLEARLY WAS NOT and that is my mistake in misreading his posts. I fell into the same trap that many of us do of reading into posts something which is not there.

He has my sincerest and unqualified apologies for that.

And Troy, If I have misunderstood you in the same way, you also have my apology.

However on this one thing about 'forgiveness' I remain unrepentant. Archery is a PHYSICAL science not one of the arts. LIke all the hard sciences, it relies upon hard data to prove its claims. The physical sciences are nothing if they cannot prove outside of personal impression or beliefs that something exists. We can demonstrate and quantify a quality which we term 'smoothness' by measuring it in the form of a force-draw curve and plot it graphically for analysis. 'Forgiveness' remains merely notional and the fact that a whole flock of archers susbscribe to the belief does not prove existence. It proves only that the notion is believed. If it is genuinely true, I should be able to perceive it despite my lace of faith. I cannot and never have been able to. If it exists, it exists for all and not only for some.

[wishsong]

Thanks Dennis ... I too may have misconstrued some of the posts, albeit unintentionally . I would concur that Dennis and I shared further correspondence , and as of those convversations I respect him all the more , not only for his obvious working and practical knowledge of archery [ and argument! ] but also as a forthright and honest gentleman in the truest sense of the word . A rare thing these days and a reminder to me that we are lucky to have him here .
So i too unreservedly apologize for a heavy handed response , all the more if I have indeed misinterpreted any of Dennis questioning .


However ... obvioulsly the "forgiveness" argument remains the proverbial elephant in the room so I can only suggest

A ... opening another thread as not to derail Troy's topic
or
B ... string follow longbows at 20 paces .......

[GrahameA]

Hi Troy.

If it can’t be measured it does not exist.

If you cannot measure it, it does not exist. From
where you are now to where you want to be is a series of steps each of which can
be measured as progress. Lord Kelvin

Hmm an interesting statement. As an “Absolute” statement I cannot agree with it.

Absolute being a good choice given the Author

How do you measure the talent of an artist? How do you measure the effectiveness of a poem?

Without going on to much, by defining the outcome and then comparing the result or by comparing one against another. It may be hard to to give a number but easy to compare. However, since you are the one doing the measuring it is up to you to set the criteria. (Consider the work of Kepner and Tregoe in the larger sense.)