Trad Talk Forums banner
41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
remote, in #1 you refer to "natural DL" as nock throat to grip throat..
in #39 you said I think what we're seeing is that the official ATA/AMO DL is more widely used in the North American trad scene than in the EU, which use the back of bow or "true" DL.
yet back some posts you referred to "natural" or "true" DL as similar and one and the same measuring method......referring to the nock to grip method.
yet again above in #39 you refer to measuring to BACK OF BOW as "true" DL.
No, just my bad Anglo grammar. Back of bow, or "true"DL. Two different ways.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,073 Posts
hey your grammar is good. I bet I misread you as saying back of bow or "true DL" being the same, where you truly meant OR...... sorry & I apologize.
what this thread has done is make me aware that in some parts of the world the measure I'm used to - either back of bow OR to grip throat +1.75" - always similar- is not used.
I assumed it was world-wide because it's all I have known & been shown & read of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remote

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
What's clear in any case is that the back of bow method falls apart when your interest includes the likes of Asiatic bows (Twix cited a 1/2" difference) and historical D longbows, and highly deflex risers (esp with elevated rests).
I think you are confusing the terms back and belly of the bow. The back of the bow is the front part of the bow that faces away from the archer. The belly of the bow is the side that faces the archer and is where the grip throat is and thus your TDL measurement. I know this well, and I still accidentally refer to the belly as the back now and then.

i'm pretty sure that some asiatic traditionnal bowyers, are using for the spécifications of their bow, the poundage at the max draw length possible for the bow, and the references points are the throat off the nock and the back off the bow.
exemple 40# @ 32 "
considering the slim riser off asiatic bow the amo system put the end off shaft at approximatly 1/2 " past the back off the bow.
so you have to be carefull if you want a specific poundage if you don't know that because you can get a very less poundage than you expect.
The Cinnabar bow measures their bows that way. Typically Chinese bowers measure from the belly of the bow, often 28" from the belly for western customers. I believe Alibow measures from the back of the bow instead, and on some of their longer draw models they measure at 35".

Korean traditional bows measure draw length at 31" just past the back of the bow. It's pretty close to AMO. This can be odd since some of the high poundage smaller models (44") can't draw that far. I don't have experience with korean bows that short, but perhaps they measure at 29" ~AMO since that tends to be their max draw.
Indonesian, Hungarian and the few other international asiatic bowyers... Who knows. Most likely they measure from the back or belly.

The reality is a person's draw length and even the poundage they are drawing at the draw length can vary by a bunch of criteria. My AMO DL with a high grip is going to be longer than my AMO DL with a low full hand grip. Similarly the type of draw and tab/glove/ring can affect the poundage at full draw.

How is a bowyer weighing the draw weight? Is he/she using a little metal hook under the nock point. If you draw the arrow back with 3 under to the same AMO you will in fact be pulling back farther than with that little hook. That probably sounds a bit confusing so I'll give a real life example.

I have a turkish bow that has a max draw of 28" from the belly. If I draw the bow with my bare thumb I can get the 28" mark on an arrow to the belly just as it hits the wall of exponential stack. If I wear a thumb ring I can only get the arrow about 27.75" to the belly. That slight added thickness of the thumbing extends the real draw length a quarter of an inch. I've never measured it with 3 under (the string pinch would be cruel) but I bet the arrow would be <27" from the belly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
I think you are confusing the terms back and belly of the bow. The back of the bow is the front part of the bow that faces away from the archer. The belly of the bow is the side that faces the archer and is where the grip throat is and thus your TDL measurement.
Hmm, little confusion there. I've always known it as such. On a narrower riser at grip, where the back of the bow is closer to the grip throat (Asiatic bows and English D Longbows), the draw length differs by quite a margin from your stock standard recurve when using the very common 'back of bow to string' DL method.

Similarly, my DL using this method is shorter on the high deflex MyBo Pathfinder with an elevated rest than on my Slick Stick shot off the shelf. About 0.5".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts

This picture better illustrates what Im trying to point out. The back is in fact the front of the bow.
I think you must be reading "back of the bow" on some web sites and getting confused.
The "back" traditional bow is the side farthest from the archer.
The side closest the archer is called the "belly."
It doesnt make sense but its been that way seemingly forever.
The throat of the grip is on the the "belly" side not the "back" side.
Is also trying to point this out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 · (Edited)

This picture better illustrates what Im trying to point out. The back is in fact the front of the bow.

Is also trying to point this out.
Yep, I have always known it as this. On the same page there.

An archer picks up a Bear Cheyenne and reaches full draw. Their draw length is measured from the string to the back of the bow. The same archer then picks up a Welsh Longbow. Their draw length is measured from the string to the back of the bow. These two 'draw lengths' differ. This is why only AMO DL and True DL have integrity, let alone portability across equipment.

---

EDIT: the high/low grip factor you point out above further muddies things, yes, shifting True DL, from which AMO is determined. Still, it's a lot better than the old 'back of bow' method, which is still in such broad use that even a big outfit like 3 Rivers use it in their Dynamic Spine Calculator, and seemingly in calls with customers (at least they did with me).
Rectangle Font Screenshot Parallel Number
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I'm glad we understand the terminology the same. The word back was being thrown around and it seemed even to be associated in some posts with True DL. This is understandable since it is a common word in English and the technical meaning in archery is a bit unintuitive. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

I agree that measuring to the back of the bow is a bad idea. It may seem convenient to measure to that spot, but as you point out it is quite variable between different models and types of bows. Asiatic bows thus tend not to use that measurement. Chinese traditional bowers typically measure to where the hand meets the arrow pass, which is equivalent to measuring to the throat of the grip on a pistol grip style bow. They don't label it True DL, just to the belly. Korean Traditional Bowers also don't really measure to the back. They measure from the same place as chinese bowyers and then add a little bit pretty much like AMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
This is something that immediately confused me as someone returning to archery... Went to my local shop last week who generally really know their stuff, and asked them to measure my draw length. They went from arrow nock to arrow rest on a modern olympic-style recurve.

Now - I have some uncertainty of if this measurement is meaningful 😅
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
I'm glad we understand the terminology the same. The word back was being thrown around and it seemed even to be associated in some posts with True DL. This is understandable since it is a common word in English and the technical meaning in archery is a bit unintuitive. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

I agree that measuring to the back of the bow is a bad idea. It may seem convenient to measure to that spot, but as you point out it is quite variable between different models and types of bows. Asiatic bows thus tend not to use that measurement. Chinese traditional bowers typically measure to where the hand meets the arrow pass, which is equivalent to measuring to the throat of the grip on a pistol grip style bow. They don't label it True DL, just to the belly. Korean Traditional Bowers also don't really measure to the back. They measure from the same place as chinese bowyers and then add a little bit pretty much like AMO.
Very interesting, cheers. Asiatic archery is well outside my knowledge scope. I look forward to changing that one day.

Some European traditional bowyers and store owners work with True DL, while others use 'back of bow' DL. You are always best to ask which they are referring to. I became used to specifying my True DL, which I was raised on as 'natural draw length'.

AMO DL is still not in broad use among stick and string archers here. Oly archers the world over probably standardise on it however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
This is something that immediately confused me as someone returning to archery... Went to my local shop last week who generally really know their stuff, and asked them to measure my draw length. They went from arrow nock to arrow rest on a modern olympic-style recurve.

Now - I have some uncertainty of if this measurement is meaningful 😅
Well the arrow rest is usually located at the same length as the throat of the grip, so just take that measurement and add 1.75" and you get AMO DL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
A bow manufacturer once told me they measure their DL from throat of grip +1.75". When I figured this out everything changed. I was overdrawing so terribly that stringslap was unavoidable and I was drawing 5lbs heavier. My DL is 29.5", so basically 27.75" from anchor to throat of grip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
A bow manufacturer once told me they measure their DL from throat of grip +1.75". When I figured this out everything changed. I was overdrawing so terribly that stringslap was unavoidable and I was drawing 5lbs heavier. My DL is 29.5", so basically 27.75" from anchor to throat of grip.
That’s the tru draw length, which btw is a much more accurate reading than AMO,cause it doesn’t matter how much bow is between throat of grip and the back of the riser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
archery terms are very confusing belly/ back have not really locical sense like a right handed or left handed riser. it seems the archer paradox is allwhere in archery
to remember me where the belly of a bow is, i say the belly of the bow is the nearest face of my own belly
i can't expllain why the archery still using this non logical references.
with a hand gun, a left handed grip is for your left hand for a bow it's the inverse............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 ·
archery terms are very confusing belly/ back have not really locical sense like a right handed or left handed riser. it seems the archer paradox is allwhere in archery
to remember me where the belly of a bow is, i say the belly of the bow is the nearest face of my own belly
i can't expllain why the archery still using this non logical references.
with a hand gun, a left handed grip is for your left hand for a bow it's the inverse............
And whose measurements are with low-resolution units imported from the middle ages, only used officially by one country (ducks)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
And whose measurements use low-resolution units from the middle ages, only used officially by one country (ducks)
units yes i'm agree the unit system is quite mysterious for me, in France we have the decimal measures wich seems so simple than the anglo saxon system of measures ( inch foot oz pounds)
i'm sure anglo saxon school lost a lot of children just because that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The imperial measurement system has roots older than the adoption of Arabic numerals in Europe. It does't conform to a decimal number system since a decimal number system was not what was used prior to the 1500s. For common everyday tasks a measurement system that is based on factors of 3 and 2 is pretty useful.

It is my understanding that France's development of metric was more a political decision than a practical one. I could of course be mistaken, a prerogative of Anglos / Americans such as myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 · (Edited)
The imperial measurement system has roots older than the adoption of Arabic numerals in Europe. It does't conform to a decimal number system since a decimal number system was not what was used prior to the 1500s. For common everyday tasks a measurement system that is based on factors of 3 and 2 is pretty useful.

It is my understanding that France's development of metric was more a political decision than a practical one. I could of course be mistaken, a prerogative of Anglos / Americans such as myself.
Not so much adopted for political reasons but because Imperial became totally impractical for trade, and could be faked and fuzzed for tax evasion and gain. The goal was to use universal constants as they are reliable.

Weighing things portably and reliably became easier with the adoption of the kilogram which was based on the newly defined unit of 1 litre of water, a constant, itself based on the cubic centimeter. Anyone could use that as a reference. The metre was derived from the known size of our planet and was put into platinum as a reference object.

Maxwell then kicked off a bunch of new units derived from universal constants discovered in electromagnetics. Later Hertz gave us the 1 oscillation per second we used today, kicked off radio and formed the basis of all modern communications. No rocket to the moon, nor computation, nor modern sciences without metric!

That said I really like how Imperial stores so much history. Fun teaching it to a kid, however weird. Lots of laughs and head scratching.

I get what your saying about Imperial being practical for rough measurements though. Sometimes use it myself, outside the olde world of Archery.

EDIT: later the metre was altered to be a derived unit from the constant of the speed of light (once folk had worked out how fast that was, and what it was). Pretty beautiful system IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
It is my understanding that France's development of metric was more a political decision than a practical one. I could of course be mistaken, a prerogative of Anglos / Americans such as myself.
may be a political reason but behind this political there is a lot of science mind too.
i'm talking about décimal system and not metric system particulary? metric is decimal.
i criticise the anglo saxon sustem not easy for calculating.
one pound = 16 ounce.
one kilo = 10 hectogramme= 100 decagrammes= 1000 grammes it's decimal unbeatable for the simplicity
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
Top