51

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

We're of course all familiar with Adam Karpowicz's work:
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc … _table.htm

So how about the opposite end of the spectrum?

Peter Dekker and a Manchu bow:
http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows

Sure, 15GPP, but 95% efficiency.


I have no doubt that you can make a horn-sinew composite exceptionally inefficient, but given those two examples against the best I've seen from modern glass and carbon laminates from the likes of Saluki, Kaya/Nomad/Freddie/etc, AF, Grozer, Spitfire, Alibow, Jia Zhiwei, and the list goes on, I feel reasonably confident in saying that in their design class the best of the horn sinew bows are significantly superior in performance to the best of the glass carbon bows. I was having a conversation with a gentleman, also into asiatic archery, who showed up with a chrono to a shooting range and ran a lot of different bows people showed up with. The most efficient of the glass composites was actually a modern "longbow," and was not close in performance to one of Karpowicz's bows. (being below 90%)

How strictly fair is this comparison? Not super scientific, but still....

Thumbs up

52 (edited by Pedro C 2017-03-21 05:38:42)

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

Hmm. This + slow motion video??

http://physlets.org/tracker/

Was reading this - https://www.wired.com/2011/06/how-fast- … f-bullets/
Maybe it wouldn't be so accurate. ... ...

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

Hmm. This + slow motion video??
http://physlets.org/tracker/

Having heard of a smartphone app that uses an audio-based approach, I tried something similar.
Just having a dumb phone, I switched equipment ...

I recorded myself shooting over a known distance, using a standard SD camera.
The video file is then converted to audio. I'm using "fre:ac", a free tool for Linux.
And finally, I used a standard audio editor (Audacity) to view the audio, and measure the time between shot and impact.
In an average environment, the two events are very distinct and easy to make out, simply by the audio level.
There are two issues, though.
First, sound travels much slower than light. That means one needs to correct the times for the signal propagation delay, which is about 30 milliseconds for 10 meters (about 20 per cent for a 150 fps bow at 10m). And, depending on camera position, this time needs to be added or subtracted.
Second, the shot event especially looks a bit protracted, not sure where exactly start to measure.

I might toying around with it in the next time, and see what results I get.
A Chronograph is currently not worth my money, and too boring ...
And for video analysis, I guess one needs a good camera, supporting at least 200 frames per second.
In "normal" video mode, I usually don't see the arrow, or just a fuzzy line.

Thumbs up +1

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

Yeah, I get what you mean by the shot event being protracted. I guess it becomes less of an issue with longer distance, but then the measured speed will be lower because of air drag on the arrow, and even gravity (unless one measures the distance of the curve the arrow takes vs. the straight line distance)

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

Exactly.
BTW, according to post on other fora, mentioned smartphone app requires some "tweaking" and "calibration shots".
That sounds to me like cheating, i.e. aligning results to a more precise device (the light barrier based Chrono) by a fudge factor.

Anyway, the video method is fine for me. I'm happy with this ballpark numbers ...

Thumbs up +1

56 (edited by geoarcher 2017-09-05 12:55:56)

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

******Update******

Its been a while but after studying Kyudo for a year and actually going out for a rank I finally got my first Yumi.  These bows are rated in the metric system but of course all of the other bows and stats in this thread are in English foot system.  So prepare thyself for some ugly numbers.  Here we go:

Bow: Renshin Yumi (Nisun-Nobi length type)
Bow Rating: 24.2508 @ 35.4331"
Actual Draw: 23.89516440874825 @ 35"
Arrow Type: Easton 1913 shaft with typical 'Kyudo style' fletching and nock from Sambu-Kyuguten @ 36"
Arrow weight: 404.48211 grains
GPP: 16.92736250234442
FPS: 142

Energy: 18.106877129199482 ft. lbs.
Efficiency: 0.7577632369238

Provided I did the math right, not bad for output efficiency.  Wasn't expecting this per se yet....

And I couldn't even get to my actual full draw given the odd angle I had to shoot my Yumi at.

Thumbs up

57

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

Don't exactly know what I was expecting, but that is not exactly great. Not as bad as I was expecting either though. Since you have an efficiency number, I presume you have a force-draw curve generated somewhere? Can we see it?

Thumbs up

58 (edited by geoarcher 2017-09-10 18:20:42)

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

CTR wrote:

Don't exactly know what I was expecting, but that is not exactly great. Not as bad as I was expecting either though. Since you have an efficiency number, I presume you have a force-draw curve generated somewhere? Can we see it?


I've never done them.

Since it was a longer bow I thought it would be way worse.  But I remember in the discussion here you bringing the issue up regarding longer draws and how this test rewards such and penalizes shorter draws.  I've been thinking about that too in relation to this a bit.  Although, it sounds like per these discussions and tests, as you have brought up as well, its actually longer bows that perform quite well such as the modern laminate 'longbow' you mentioned above, sometimes better than what we'd expect compared to the shorter Asiatic types.

Thumbs up

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

Since it was a longer bow I thought it would be way worse.

With my superficial knowledge of Yumis and Japanese archery, I agree.
I would put it in a class with flatbows and ELBs, thus efficiency ought to be compared to this bows - or ?

Thumbs up

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

I have a traditional ELB in this thread, and needless to say the results were abysmal for it.  However, the materials for it are natural (100% yew) and thus not an apples to apples comparison since my Renshin Yumi is synthetic.  I'd have to chrono someone's traditional bamboo yumi one day for a more level comparison.  Sometimes the natural materials come to surprise us and sometimes not.

Thumbs up

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

IMHO the ELB is a military weapon, designed to deliver a certain "punch", while being easy to produce, cheap, and robust and weatherproof. It was mainly the weapon of conscripted Yeomen and farmers, not (or rarely) of highly trained professionals.

In contrast, e.g. Chinese Ming and pre-Ming bows were the weapon of the cavalry, i.e. professionals.
Less trained infantry soldiers had the cheaper crossbow. It requires just a few hours of training to be battle-ready, and the lower efficiency of it's simpler limps can easily be compensated with higher draw weights.
The 50# Windfighter I have is quite a challenge for me, but my 150# crossbow is not.

My two cents, based on limited knowledge.
I know at least of Korean medieval crossbows, and considering the costs of making a gakgung, I assume conditions were similar. Would be nice to hear an expert opinion.

Thumbs up

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

There was some history channel show a long time back that did a documentary on a relatively early period of Chinese military history.  I can't remember the period but I was surprised at how early it was and how all the soldiers were apparently at that time being armed with crossbows in favor over any type of say 'vertical bow'.  So there are periods where the crossbow is apparently recognized as the more pragmatic weapon. 

On the other hand we often hear more about the importance and almost near sacred level of the bow in East Asian military history: how it was actually regarded as the most important weapon (more than the sword at times) and used in Japanese military history among the Samurai to decide victors in what I'd describe here as a type of pre-battle ritual challenge , how many great Chinese generals were expert archers etc. etc.

Asiatic horn composite bows of course suffer from instability problems.  Reading about the Huns, they would apparently take two horn composite bows into battle because one was bound to break or twist while fighting with it on horseback.  This precaution was practiced by quite a few nomadic horse archer military groups.  The effectiveness of the horn composite bows in battle also relied greatly upon tactics but also who was your target (consider peasant pikeman vs. heavily armored warrior).  In a discussion over at ATARN, it was mentioned that some of the more successful groups, such as the Mongols and Manchus often road close in to deliver fatal shots.  English longbowmen were of course subject to similar limitations based upon who their target was.

Thumbs up

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

Another thing that comes to my mind are coincident documentations about English and Mongolean war arrow designs.
For both, the long fletching effectively ensures a fast stabilisation, which in turn would suggest a focus on short-distances.
The documentation about the English design (forgot the URL ...) suggested 15 ... 30 yards.
Seeing the shooting style of ELB enthusiast, I have difficulties to believe anyone was able to consistently hit an apple-sized target at 90 yards with a 160# ELB.
Or a 200# Manchu bow, for that matter ...

Thumbs up

64 (edited by geoarcher 2017-09-13 01:23:26)

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

When I was first got into archery, I'd go to the local range and attend its annual festival.  Naturally, you always had the old guys there who imparted their wisdom and I'd hear the same thing year after year time after time from them: 'contrary to popular belief, the bow isn't exactly a long range weapon'.

Usually in warfare, volley's of arrows loosed at long distances were often meant to harass the enemy.  This was particularly true during the Crusades where Saladin's archers would leave armored Frankish warriors looking like porcupines in the lead up the Battle of Arsuf as Richard I had his army on the march.

Thumbs up

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

This was particularly true during the Crusades where Saladin's archers would leave armored Frankish warriors looking like porcupines in the lead up the Battle of Arsuf as Richard I had his army on the march.

I heard about this, too. And one needs to mention that those Frankish warriors were mostly unharmed by this arrows. The many penetration tests (Youtube and TV channels) usually fail to mention the gambeson under the under the steel armor.

Confusing and scattering the enemy forces was surely a main target. Especially the conscripts / non-professional warriors were easy to impress and scare.
I assume the understanding of "long range" was to hit the enemy before his swords, lances and battle axes could reach you.

Thumbs up

66 (edited by geoarcher 2017-09-13 02:46:50)

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

Hence why I mentioned this in the context of harassing as that's pretty much the outcome of such engagement in this context.  Saladin's horse archers would have had to ride in pretty close for the kill or even for a remotely punishing injury against Richard I's more heavily armored men.  If harassing got too close, it was mentioned over at ATARN, that that often would lead to Crusader knights charging against the offenders in this context.

As for TV specials with ballistic teams and what not, you pretty much, like anything else on TV, have to second guess and actually go to the primary literature.  TV will leave out precious details more often than not.  Besides there are many good resources now online and in print on this particular subject.  I hardly even watch TV at all these days....

Steering the conversation back to traditions further east, and I know this has been mentioned here before, but this is a very good page for some historical info on Korean hornbows:

http://www.manchuarchery.org/korean-vie … hu-archery

There was some page too that discussed counter tactics in ancient Korea among the locals and how retaliation to the invaders occurred.  Would be nice to find that page again.

Thumbs up

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

I hardly even watch TV at all these days....

Me neither - I don't even have TV anymore. For that reason.

Steering the conversation back to traditions further east, ...

Curiously, history suggests the Ottomans already practiced flight shooting in this period, with achieved distances significantly beyond 500 yards.
Which seems rather "useless" in the context of war or hunting.

Thanks for the link.
Albeit I know manchuarchery.org, I missed this sub-page.

Thumbs up

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

I believe flight archery was more of a pleasure/pastime thing among the Sultans.  And you're welcome, hope you enjoy.

Question for CTR and bringing this discussion back to chronographing and what not, I was on your FB page and noticed you have many stats for AF Bows, Gungsolwon, etc.  I noticed the results for the AF Crimean Tatars were particularly good.  But I couldn't find any info on draw weight jumping out at me.  Would you care to share here?  Also what type of AF Crim. Tatars were they?  The 175 vs. 275 vs. 325 USD versions?  I believe the 325 USD one has a carbon core.

Thumbs up

69

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

geoarcher wrote:

I believe flight archery was more of a pleasure/pastime thing among the Sultans.  And you're welcome, hope you enjoy.

Question for CTR and bringing this discussion back to chronographing and what not, I was on your FB page and noticed you have many stats for AF Bows, Gungsolwon, etc.  I noticed the results for the AF Crimean Tatars were particularly good.  But I couldn't find any info on draw weight jumping out at me.  Would you care to share here?  Also what type of AF Crim. Tatars were they?  The 175 vs. 275 vs. 325 USD versions?  I believe the 325 USD one has a carbon core.

The poundages can be found in the force/draw curves. If memory serves one was nominally 45 and the other the maximum they offer, perhaps 55? Little relevance though, why look at hypothetical poundage when you have actual poundage.... and at whatever your draw length of choice is?

They're the ~200$ versions. At the time of purchase, those were the only versions available. I think I purchased one of the first clear glass decorated offerings when they were offered at some sort of introductory price. That repsents the Turkish bow, seen in some of our stock photography.

I should note, I popped one of the Tatar bows. Failure of the core around the grip taper. They replaced it, no problem, but ever since then I've not been shooting them as much....... in part because I prefer my birch bark covered Korean bows.

Thumbs up

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

CTR wrote:

The poundages can be found in the force/draw curves. If memory serves one was nominally 45 and the other the maximum they offer, perhaps 55? Little relevance though, why look at hypothetical poundage when you have actual poundage.... and at whatever your draw length of choice is?

They're the ~200$ versions. At the time of purchase, those were the only versions available. I think I purchased one of the first clear glass decorated offerings when they were offered at some sort of introductory price. That repsents the Turkish bow, seen in some of our stock photography.

I should note, I popped one of the Tatar bows. Failure of the core around the grip taper. They replaced it, no problem, but ever since then I've not been shooting them as much....... in part because I prefer my birch bark covered Korean bows.

Those are some pretty good results I must say.  And customer service.  I've heard of those issues before associated with them from the Bamboo Archery guy in Malaysia.  Tempted to pull the trigger on one of the carbon core ones.  Really it seemed just about everything from that go around did pretty well.

Thumbs up

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

Since it seems to fit here somehow:
Anybody aware of the free "Bowometry" App for Android devices ?
It measures arrow speed (and energy) using acoustics, and runs on Android devices like smartphones and tablets.

I tested it last week with an older tablet, with mixed results, most probably because of the poor microphone of the device.
Readings of 10 shots with a 30# "Carbon Forever" and 380gn carbon arrows were either about 120fps, 150fps, or 200fps.
Not really conclusive, but I try my wife's smartphone as soon as I can.

I read reports of others, claiming results quite close to "real" archery Chronographs.

Thumbs up

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

Not familiar with it...

Thumbs up

73

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

If it worked well, it could actually be a significant tool for measuring performance. That said, it has limitations. Aside from the obvious audio pickup/analysis, at best the app could only hope to give you the AVERAGE velocity over the course of your arrow's flight. That isn't very good, because you'll get significantly higher results with improved form and minimalistic fletching. Ryddragyn's video is the perfect example of this in effect:
https://youtu.be/nj2Qsxov2tM

That said, a good chrono is expensive and shooting over a chrono is hard, so this may well be a great tool for a lot of people since just about everyone seems to have a smartphone these days......

Thumbs up

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

As said, I'm going to give it a try with my wife's phone soon (meaning, around Christmas ...).
But there is another catch which is not stated in the app or documentation- you need to make the measurement beside the bow, or behind.
With acoustics, you can't ignore signal runtime, and in-between or at-target measurement would require a different runtime correction.

Thumbs up

75 (edited by geoarcher 2018-10-29 21:29:37)

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

******Update******

Bow: Elong Outdoor's NIKA ET-4 Meng Yuan Traditional Bow
Bow Rating: 18#@28"
Actual Draw: 24#@32.5"
Arrow Type: Easton Axis 700s @ 32.5"
Arrow weight: 311 grains
GPP: 13
FPS: 127

Energy: 11 ft. lbs.
Efficiency: 0.46

Hopefully this all makes sense as its been a while since I've done one of these. 
And now for a few thoughts: 

I'd say despite such results, this is really the perfect bow to begin with or teach someone else Asiatic archery with the thumb-draw.  You wouldn't even have to give the beginner a leather thumb-ring/protector to teach them.  They could get used to the feeling bare thumbed and eventually make their way up to a thumb-ring.  Its really a shame this bow wasn't around the many many moons I first began shooting Asiatic bows.  Back then most of us started with Toth or Kassai and they were horribly designed and overpriced for what they were.  Plus, we  often times would buy too heavy because those typically were the base entries thinking we would grow into the bow but rather we'd usually end up selling it at a loss without gaining good form and or thumb technique.  At around 80 USD, compared to those bows, which could go anywhere from 300-500 USD, what Elong offers is the perfect solution.  And the bow really is aesthetically pleasing, something that a youtuber actually brought up as being remarkable for a bow at this level.  I'd also like to add that use of molded material seems to allow the bow to have more of harmonious look to it which the laminates seem to lack at times.  Granted, it doesn't really pay to get this caught up over aesthetics but feel its worth bringing up here regardless due the novelty of this bow.

Obviously its not a great performer per the numbers but I wasn't expecting that anyway.  You're pretty much buying this bow for the reason I stated above or because you want something that's 'crab bow' like which I myself have waited eons for to arrive on the market.  Wasn't too keen on it being a take-down especially after seeing that new sensei video but decided to let that go given the price.  Can't tell if that will problem yet as the weather is bad where I test my bows and keep getting rained out.  I was only able to get a few shots off within a minute today before again getting rained out.

As for the feel of the bow, the material seems to give it one of the smoothest, most elastic feels you could get for a bow.  Very bendy.  Feels cool.  Biggest problem is still with arrows, as the Easton Axis 700s tend to fish tale too easily as they do with every bow I shoot them with.  Think it has something to do with the fletching....

Bottom line:  If you aren't expecting astronomical performance numbers, want to try something different, or just starting out or teaching someone, then this bow will deliver.

Thumbs up