who used & what were the effects of using string bridges
Hi, i am attracted to string bridges whenever i seen them. however, my knowledge of who used them is nonexistent. any suggestions?
also, when they were used on a bow is there a particular design reason why?
and, are there advantages or disadvantages to using them?
regards ewan
also, when they were used on a bow is there a particular design reason why?
and, are there advantages or disadvantages to using them?
regards ewan
In some traditions, it was thought useful to have the siyahs at an angle forward of the string when the bow is at rest. In theory, the arrangement provides for a longer draw and cast. There can also be some mechanical leverage advantages (i.e. smoother pull near full draw).
The increased cast probably helps when launching long, heavy arrows. This might explain why forward siyahs are particularly associated with Manchu bows.
The bridges help stop the bow unstringing or reversing in cases where the siyahs end up forward of the alignment of the string. I would say that in a such a design, you have to have bridges. Other bow designs (e.g. Korean, which has very narrow limbs) also have small pads to act as bridges.
Where the siyah alignment is parallel to or behind the string alignment, bridges are not necessary.
The increased cast probably helps when launching long, heavy arrows. This might explain why forward siyahs are particularly associated with Manchu bows.
The bridges help stop the bow unstringing or reversing in cases where the siyahs end up forward of the alignment of the string. I would say that in a such a design, you have to have bridges. Other bow designs (e.g. Korean, which has very narrow limbs) also have small pads to act as bridges.
Where the siyah alignment is parallel to or behind the string alignment, bridges are not necessary.
thank you.
so would it be fair to describe a bow that requires this to have to 'work' more in the middle limbs than other designs? are the Manchu bows built a little thicker in the limb than others?
i suppose my last question, aside from being rudimentary, would be .. these are on bows that are described as having static or nonworking ears? unlike a modern recurve.
so would it be fair to describe a bow that requires this to have to 'work' more in the middle limbs than other designs? are the Manchu bows built a little thicker in the limb than others?
i suppose my last question, aside from being rudimentary, would be .. these are on bows that are described as having static or nonworking ears? unlike a modern recurve.
To add to what Stephen has said, the forward angled ears (and the associated bridges) are more common in bows with reflexed grips. It is because without the angled ears these bows would tend to stack when drawn. The angled ears (as Stephen said) make the bow easier to draw with long arrows. A tall bridge increases this effect.
The bows are not more stressed than other designs. Note the presence of bridges/angled ears requires a longer string to maintain the same brace height. The longer string = less stress in the limbs at full draw.
Adam
The bows are not more stressed than other designs. Note the presence of bridges/angled ears requires a longer string to maintain the same brace height. The longer string = less stress in the limbs at full draw.
Adam