26 (edited by Pedro C 2017-03-06 09:49:03)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Was thinking of getting their Manchu bow or something. I was about to get their glass Manchu but backed out in the middle.

I imagine heavy arrows would penetrate very well with the Kaiyuan?.. though the energy doesn't seem that amazing. Wait, is that energy potential or KE?

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I didn't know they had a Manchu.  Then again I'm never in the market for that type of bow.

Its kinetic BTW. 

Yeah at the Cinnabar site its mentioned how the bow likes to caste heavy arrows.

Thumbs up

28 (edited by geoarcher 2016-09-05 17:27:56)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

****Update****

So after getting the results I did with the Alibow, I realized I better re-examine what's going on with the Damascus.  I have been using a Vermil silver thumb-ring lately and feel that may make a difference in results.  I think before I was using the plastic thumb-rings that you could get from Cinnabar a while ago.  So here's the Damascus with the silver ring and sharpest, longest draw possible for me at the moment:

Bow Rating: 40@30"
Actual Draw: 41.6@32"
Arrow Type: Goldtip arrow @ 32"
Arrow weight: 416 grains
GPP: 10
FPS: 201


Energy: 37.3122077413403019 ft-lbs
Efficiency: 0.8969280707053

Pretty big difference.

Thumbs up

29 (edited by Pedro C 2016-09-05 18:30:08)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

What?! Only 1.6 pounds increase with 2 inches of draw? Is Lukas a magician?

That's good performance, scorpius is 210fps at a bit more than 10gpp with 30" draw isn't it..

Salukis are still to expensive for me tongue and I think I'd just end up going with a hornbow at that price? though the tatar hybrid looks reaally good.

30 (edited by geoarcher 2016-09-05 18:38:06)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

The Damascus has been a very popular and recommended model by him over the years.  Its basically inspired by the Crim tatar and I have a feeling that hybrid Crim Tatars doesn't perform as well for a number or reasons. 

Unfortunately Lukas is a bit expensive these days and then there's the wait....Yes its over a grand for a fiber glass laminate but you won't go through all the hassles you would with a hornbow on the other hand.  Although I've been hearing but some sources that a hornbow can be quite stable if made by the right hands, but the right hands will cost you even more than a synthetic laminate...So my advice would be to look out for a used Damascus somewhere either on CG or ebay.  That's how I scored mine and it didn't cost me a grand.

Is the Scorpius you reference at 40 pounds of draw weight?

Thumbs up

31 (edited by Pedro C 2017-03-03 03:49:37)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Good to know. The hybrid just looks better aesthetically imo tongue

Yeah. The scorpius is not a very durable bow.. I mean... I guess it's durable if you don't make the mistake of shooting with mismatched arrows or wrong technique. It's very finicky because it's built for maximum performance.
edit: Most manufacturers have bad batches or some bows that break (like with a YMG recently). So. Don't wanna defame, they likely fixed their problems by now.

http://cinnabarbow.com/marinerbows/scorpius.html

Hornbows are stable if they're not Korean (I guess.. haha), if they're well made, properly balanced and strung and balanced for a while. And if the sun doesn't heat one of the limbs more than the other... which only happened to me leaning my hornbow against a wall outside and not walking around with it.
Or... if they don't have a lot of reflex tongue but then they won't perform as well as the glass bows.

32 (edited by geoarcher 2016-09-05 19:05:09)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Pretty much.  Lukas' angle with the hybrids was to create synthetic laminates that have closer dimensions to horn bows so you could have something pretty close to a hornbow but with more stable materials but of course not exactly the same thing.  Interesting idea nevertheless...

So it looks like the Scorpius is the fastest synthetic laminate in the market then and probably the most efficient.  Definitely respectable results and amazing price given the circumstances but Turkish inspired synthetic bows just aren't for me.  I didn't know about the durability factor but noticed over at bamboo archery a limb broke on one and now Ronald constantly talks about matching arrows appropriately....interesting.

Its so much care for a hornbow it seems and so many bowyers claim to make them well enough but do they really I wonder sometimes and then there's the money invested in them which is usually way more than the modern material version.

Thumbs up

33 (edited by geoarcher 2016-09-06 23:35:40)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Saluki Crim Tatar hybrid update:

Bow Rating: 65@31"
Actual Draw: 70.2@32"
Arrow Type: Goldtip arrow @ 32"
Arrow weight: 416 grains
GPP: 6
FPS: 238

Energy: 52.31337579021504069 ft-lbs
Efficiency: 0.7452047833364

Oh the difference having a well made, well fitting thumb-ring makes.  Although I tried hard to get to the 240 fps mark today but to no avail.  Still not as efficient as the Damascus interestingly enough even though effectiveness of draw is increased with use of the Vermil.  And notice the GPP.

Thumbs up

34 (edited by Pedro C 2016-09-07 02:16:46)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Well, of course the efficiency will be less with less gpp? Still pretty good?

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I think you're right actually but don't have enough arrows to test out and I actually broke one today on the crim tatar test.  I may get some real arrows for it in the future, perhaps 32 inches long but 10 GPP.

Still interesting how much difference a thumb-ring can make.

Thumbs up

36 (edited by Hunterseeker5 2016-09-23 17:15:09)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Pedro C wrote:

Good to know. The hybrid just looks better aesthetically imo tongue

Yeah. The scorpius is not a very durable bow.. I mean... I guess it's durable if you don't make the mistake of shooting with mismatched arrows or wrong technique. It's very finicky because it's built for maximum performance.

http://cinnabarbow.com/marinerbows/scorpius.html


So I actually stumbled across that page on Cinnabar Bow myself, and found the numbers...... surprising lets say. So I actually contacted Bamboo Archery Malaysia to ask for more information. What they provided me allowed me to create force draw curves and a more complete picture of the bow's performance. Long story short, the numbers on Cinnabar Bow don't reflect the bow's actual performance data as supplied by Ronald Chong. What you see on that website is probably just an error.


This is what I produced with the data supplied:

https://www.facebook.com/CustomThumbRin … 1280064464

Typically only the Manchu  bows can produce >100% efficiency if looking at KE output divided by #s at full draw. They accomplish this with very long draw lengths and a remarkably flat draw curve due to high early draw and the lever effect of those big siyahs late in the draw. They simply store vastly more energy, relative to their full draw poundage, than other bow types however are quite inefficient at converting it to arrow energy. Hence their high GPP. Any other bow you see reporting numbers near 100% efficiency (again KE output/poundage at full draw) be VERY suspicious. This is particularly true of Turkish bows with their short draw lengths and high brace heights; they're comparatively efficient relative to other bow styles with very light arrows, but store a lot less energy than other bow types.

Data for one of Peter Dekker's Manchu bows:
https://www.facebook.com/CustomThumbRin … mp;theater

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Hunterseeker5 wrote:

produce >100% efficiency if looking at KE output divided by #s at full draw

Hunterseeker5 wrote:

100% efficiency (again KE output/poundage at full draw)

I wish you wouldn't call that efficiency. We already call KE/SE efficiency, why call energy/draw weight efficiency as well? If you have to call it something performance makes more sense.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Mule wrote:
Hunterseeker5 wrote:

produce >100% efficiency if looking at KE output divided by #s at full draw

Hunterseeker5 wrote:

100% efficiency (again KE output/poundage at full draw)

I wish you wouldn't call that efficiency. We already call KE/SE efficiency, why call energy/draw weight efficiency as well? If you have to call it something performance makes more sense.

So I call it efficiency because it is a type of efficiency. With all numbers, you really need units and this is no different. I should also point out that I didn't invent this metric, or calling it efficiency, so even if I agreed with you, it wouldn't be mine to change.

It also is every bit as valid an efficiency metric as stored energy divided output energy. In this case though you are looking at, essentially, how much power you can get out given that you are only so strong.

Sorry mate.

39 (edited by Mule 2016-09-25 17:08:01)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

No, I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, I use it too. Just calling it efficiency is weird and confusing (which is why you keep having to explain what you mean every time you call it efficiency), and values like 122% efficiency makes no sense.

Efficiency is the ratio of useful work to total energy. The % sign also means a ratio, there are no units after a percentage because it's a pure dimensionless metric. 122% ftlb/lb doesn't make any sense.

That's why people just use 1.22 ftlb/lb (or J/lb) and leave it at that, it isn't efficiency.

Thumbs up

40 (edited by geoarcher 2016-10-23 17:28:05)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I think this may be may last bow ever to purchase (nose begins to grow):

Bow: Mariner Yuan
Bow Rating: 50@32"
Actual Draw: 50@32"
Arrow Type: Alibow arrow @ 32"
Arrow weight: 339 grains
GPP: 6.78
FPS: 206

Energy: 31.93741690659905
Efficiency: 0.63874833813198

Now lets look at it with a different arrow:

Bow Rating: 50@32"
Actual Draw: 50@32"
Arrow Type: Goldtip @ 32"
Arrow weight: 419 grains
GPP: 8.38
FPS: 188

Energy: 32.87723458655857
Efficiency:  0.65754469173117

Pretty significant increase in speed, penetration and efficiency compared to the Han I.  To be fair my Han I dates back to 2012 and so I wonder if use has caused it to weaken over the years a bit.  On the other hand, Justin always said those scores would be about right for the bow as his Ming-4s from around that time scored similar to my Han I. 

Of course the designs differ.  The Yuan has a lot less meat on it compared to the Han I.  The siyahs are far more aerodynamic in shape and mass compared to my Han I's boxy rectangular static tips.  I wonder if Mariner has done some redesign to the Han I by any chance? 

But still the designs really do differ between the two so much its almost as if a different bowyer's mind is at play here whereas with some bowyers you can tell its the same guy applying similar principles over and over to different models.  Both the Ming and Han I I shot were 'chunky' to say the least going back to 2012.  And the Han II seemed to follow suite.  So I was surprised at how the Yuan was refined more in certain areas to an almost gracile like mass but still not quite as refined to as what say Lukas would conjure.   

Nonetheless, a huge improvement compared to those earlier days and models with long static tips.  Its a much more efficient bow but with some features that I prefer over even say Lukas', particularly with the grip section being designed with a more appropriate mass and shape (Lukas sometimes has a habit of shaving too much off here in this area, makes it hard to get a good grasp) which was something I always appreciated even from the makers earlier days with the Han I.  Its almost perfect construction save for the bubbles on the upper limb.  Was a bit surprised to see this considering how flawless my Han I was in this regard but it seems like the Chinese makers all want to make things faster nowadays.  3 months as opposed to 6 when I got my Han...actually I think I got this closer to two.  Practically lightening speed in the 'bows to order' world.

Thumbs up +1

41 (edited by Pedro C 2016-10-24 03:15:59)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

But you don't shoot it with a Korean style low wrist? I think that'd require padding the grip?

Interesting, thanks for sharing

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

When I talked to Justin about this years ago, high vs. intermediate, vs. low wrist were considered acceptable in the context of these bows and their use dependent upon the archer's preference in whatever situation.  So I'm not totally sure now if the shape of the grip necessarily determines always the appropriate type of grasp.

Thumbs up

43

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Little tidbit I stumbled across:
https://youtu.be/UAeneaarHtM?t=5m48s

Doppler radar is a fantastic way to measure velocities. It is the preferred way to do so for firearms to come up with more accurate, or in some cases dynamic, ballistic coefficients.

The archer here is shooting a 150 pound longbow. The radar clocks it at 52 meters per second, or about 171fps. Obviously we don't know arrow mass, let alone a nice force draw curve, but I thought it was very interesting none the less.

Thumbs up +2

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Thanks CTR for posting that.  I never did get to re-weigh my English Longbow since the scale I ordered off of Amazon from China never came in.  And after that frustrating experience I just never bothered again with ordering another. 

I know they're constantly re-evaluating the longbow and its 'mystique' I guess you could say.  A lot of what I've seen over the years has been rather critical to say the least.  I've been studying Kyudo lately and find it interesting to see that a bow like the Yumi apparently performs relatively well for a rather longbow per some of the spreadsheets.  Although I have yet to purchase my own (though that will change relatively soon...swear it will be my last bow), I do plan on chronographing one in the very near future.

Thumbs up

45

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

There is so little reliable information available on yumis I've found. They, like the longbow, have so much limb mass I struggle to imagine how they could be efficient, although their considerably longer draw length does give them an outright performance advantage. I've heard a lot of different hypotheses on how and why such a complex design exists. None of them have been terribly compelling though. This sits in stark contrast to most of the asiatic composite bow designs which seem to be rather purpose bound and backed by a surprising amount of published science. *shrug*

What I will say about that 150 pound longbow is that my ~110#@31" Hwarang should be able to spit a 900 grain arrow at over 200FPS assuming a mere 75% efficiency. The bow would likely be more efficient than that, and modern carbon/fiberglass composite bows are SIGNIFICANTLY less efficient than their horn sinew composite counterparts which you would expect to be (all else equal in that comparison) 85% efficient or better. That considered, the bow would be able to shoot said 900 grain arrow at about 217FPS. Or, to put it in perspective another way, my AF Tatar bow which is 55#s@28" (but drawn to 31") would shoot that same 900 grain arrow at 170fps given 80% efficiency.

Now, granted, sources vary but I've heard of English war arrows going up to 1500 grains. That'd have to be a truly massive arrow though as we're now into the weight range of Manchu arrows while being significantly shorter. *shrug*

Thumbs up +1

46 (edited by geoarcher 2017-03-01 18:33:02)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

There is a lot of fill-in-the-blank info aspects regarding the Yumi, really if you approach it from almost any angle.  Its certainly unlike any other Asiatic bow and even if you ask people who've been practicing Kyudo for years about historic draw weights that say the Samurai used during war and what not they really won't know or have much to say of the matter.  A lot of this has to do with how practice with the Yumi is conducted today as well as the overall culture among modern day Kyudo-ka.  Neither really places the same value on select pieces of info concerning the art that may surface among other Asiatic archery traditions that are being resurrected and researched therefore.  Kyudo, which is not to be confused with Kyujutsu or as the over arching term for archery in the language either, by its nature will not lead a person down the path of wondering "how much output efficiency am I going to get out of this bow". 

Aside from the occluded elements surrounding the Yumi when compared to latest research conducted in say the Karpowicz fashion, it at the very least has an unbroken tradition of teaching within its original cultural context as does traditional Korean archery.  So provided you can find a legitimate learning center, you will be receiving guidance on technique that will be quite appropriate to say the least.

I find this very worth it especially since I often wonder how appropriate technique (or inappropriate) may or may not be influencing results here and there with some of these other bows we test.

Thumbs up

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

Ooh, I could get a cheap "chronograph" if I could put some sort of broadcasting thing on an arrow, of insignificant weight (up to 10 grains?)
and then have a sensor
maybe even a beeping thing + a microphone

48

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

I mean, if cheap were the name of the game, why not just build a ballistic pendulum?

Thumbs up +1

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

CTR wrote:

I mean, if cheap were the name of the game, why not just build a ballistic pendulum?

Cheap, *and* accurate?
Interesting...

50 (edited by Pedro C 2017-03-06 10:01:02)

Re: Chronograph + Analysis of Asiatic & Long Bows (natural & synthetic)

CTR wrote:

What I will say about that 150 pound longbow is that my ~110#@31" Hwarang should be able to spit a 900 grain arrow at over 200FPS assuming a mere 75% efficiency

That's about 8.2gpp, so... probably..

CTR wrote:

modern carbon/fiberglass composite bows are SIGNIFICANTLY less efficient than their horn sinew composite counterparts

Not sure about that, maybe it depends on several things. The Korean target hornbows seem very overstrained. Wonder if there's any performance numbers..


I have a Nomad 53" and a Songmugung junggung (50" or so).
Their draw weights are very close, I think. I wonder how their performance differs... don't have a chronograph.

I wonder if I break 200fps using my ~47#@32" Song mu gung with the 7 to 8 gpp Korean carbon arrows. I could compare both 7.5x6.0 and 8.0x8.0 arrows. (respecively 347.2 grains and 463 grains, 32.8" and 33.4" arrows)