I think you're very correct about the limbs being the limiting factor and not being able to push the lighter arrows faster. The same thing happened with black powder firearms. In an effort to get more power, they kept increasing shot size. They would build strong actions and longer barrels but they reached a point where black powder just wouldn't push the bullet faster. You had 50, 58, 64, 72 caliber rifles, and a bunch of others. Big bore rifles continued up until the smokeless powder became popular and then smaller, faster bullets became more common. They started out big with the 8mm and large 30 cals before working down to smaller 30 cals and now to 5.56 and 5.45. The crossbow proves that propellants have always been an issue and limitation
That actually would be a good test - take a variety of bow weights and a series of standardized bolt weights. Measure speed at each bow at each draw weight. If your theory is (and I'm interpreting on this) that the heavier bows were entirely to bring up heavier bolts up to the same speed as the lighter ones could be, and there's a maximum speed achievable that doesn't depend on bow draw, then you should see a consistency with the lighter bolts hitting that limit and the heavier ones travelling faster until they also reach a limit. A ballistic chronograph would give you the speed but I'm not sure how well the usual firearm ones work on crossbow bolts. I would imagine they should still work.
There's a museum in Poland with historic bolts and they look like bloody circus tent pegs. This meshes with research that puts bot weights much heavier than people assumed.
Makes sense, they wanted maximal Penetration to get their Man down for good and not a distance record while knocking lightly on his Helmet to tell him; "Hi, I'm over here and it will take me some time to reload".
I would have thought it depends on who they are fighting. If they are defending against heavy cavalry then penetration is what matters, but if they are looking at lighter armoured opponents then it may well be the earliest moment of engagement (i.e. engagement at greatest distance, preferably before they are in range to shoot back at you) might be the better option.
Hellequin, with these thick bolts they never got penetration, they generated impact, but not penetration thru armor... putting deeper dents nto a knights armor instead of a hole, that is what they did. No chance they put holes into steel armor and arrow penetrating 10cm thru hole when using 20mm arrowheads
Thanks Jason, and of course I would like to think so! There is still so much to look at with this whole area. Just for the record, this was shot a couple of weeks before yours came out. Speak soon
@@tods_workshop so weird seeing all these videos that are essentially doing babies first crossbow/longbow tests, yet they are produced by a clearly skilled, professional, craftsman who should already know the results but clearly doesn't
@@kingkarlito having watched said videos I'm baffled by why you'd think they should empirically know already. Nobody normally lofts a bolt into the next field to lose it in long grass. Nobody normally wants to spend the time, effort and cost to make period correct equipment and then smash it into other expensive gear to see what exactly happens. We've mostly come up to the skill/experience level knowing that using the gear in any other way than carefully within established safe guidelines leads to a high chance of loss, breakage and danger. Securing a location to shoot safely and consistently is difficult year round at our lattitude at any moderate+ distance. Practical 'hunt' distances are near 'point blank', targets need to be lit for half the year mid-week for most users, hard targets equate to just throwing money down range. I used to be a pretty good Town and County competitive archer and I'm not ashamed to say the majority of my practice time was indoors at sub-trial range. 90%-95% of our focus is about what happens within a 3' radius of our heads to allow us to not botch our release and miss our intended, soft target. Scientific flight data has only been delved into with modern materials because of competitive sports. These guys are testing the mechanics of technology essentially abandoned before the modern scientific model was thought of.
@@tods_workshop do you have any plans to colab a wider range of bows, crossbows, arrows and bolts to establish deminishing returns of ammo weight vs launchers of period accurate equipment? I'm fascinated to see where our ancestors balanced the performance vs logistics compromise. Afterall there's a large gap between making one bow shoot once amazingly and making thousands shoot consistently throughout a campaign.
@@trevorWilkinson I think his crossbow really isn't 1000 lb, it just can't be. The string on it looks really really thin, especially compared to all these heavy crossbows you see on Tod's channel
So Tod, Modern History TV recently did a video testing the range of a heavy crossbow he had, and he noted that his string wore out rather quickly. He speculated that over the course of a battle, a substantial number of heavy crossbows could become non-functional from the wear. How long do you find your heavy crossbow strings last before requiring repair or replacement?
I did notice on that video when Jason was loading the bow for his first shot the string looked odd (2.58) and after he fired there is clear evidence on the video of damage to the string (9,20). I wonder if the string was not already faulty before the video starts. I almost noted the string that Jason uses is much thinner than the one Tod uses in this video on a 850lbs. That may also be part of the problem
InSanic. The bow was made by a chap called Robin Knight and was old and tired when Jason got it. He asked e to service it, which I did and provided attached bolts at 80g for it and it shot OK here at short distance. I didn't weigh it, but the bow is longer than mine and the same thickness so I suspect it was more likely 600lbs but inefficient. The string was OK when here. I chatted to Jason last week and we are planning some vids together about crossbows and a particular aspect of them
It really is interesting to me that the limitation on range and speed at the top end of the performance curve is not poundage, or draw length, or even how mechanically 'smooth' things are but instead the material of the bow not being able to move any faster than it does.
Not really sure that's quite true. The higher the poundage (assuming constant proportions of the crossbow), the more acceleration the bolt experiences while being fired and therefore the higher the final velocity when it leaves the crossbow. This is because shooting the bolt is simply the reverse of powering up the crossbow, which requires greater and greater force the further you pull the string back, recalling that (Net) Force = mass x acceleration. The mass is constant so the acceleration 'effect' is what must grow as you power it up. The act of firing the crossbow is simply the inverse of this, where the acceleration of the bolt starts off high and then decreases to zero by the time string is back in neutral position. Despite the acceleration falling though, the speed of the arrow will continually grow because the acceleration is still always positive in the direction firing, therefore the string is in constant contact with the bolt the whole time it's being fired, imparting kinetic energy on it and speeding it up. The only way I can think of you getting a diminishing returns effect with an equally proportioned, higher poundage crossbow (firing the same bolt) would be from drag on the bolt - drag increases greatly at higher and higher speeds and you're likely to get more bending in the bolt too which wouldn't help with aerodynamism. Drag depends on the shape and velocity of an object (and also the viscosity of the medium its moving through, in this case air) but not on its weight. Therefore, a heavier bolt might experience less diminishing returns and go further at these higher poundages because its moving slower at launch thus experiencing less drag and any drag it does experience would have less of an effect because of its higher inertia (due to its higher mass). You can think about this phenomenon by imagining you had two balls of the same volume, one made of paper, the other of metal. If you made weak under-arm throws of equal force for each then you could imagine throwing the paper ball further than the metal one. Now imagine throwing them over arm with all your strength, clearly the metal ball will go further than the paper ball in this case because drag will drain the energy of the paper ball but less so the metal ball with its higher inertia. Hence, the diminishing effect is due to the drag on the bolt at higher poundages rather than some unexplained phenomenon of 'the string not being able to move any faster'.
The place is open so come down, see what’s going on, get hit by a stray bolt, you know? Fun for all the family. **YES OF COURSE I’M JOKING! NOBODY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME!**
The adding weight to offset speed limitations thing is pretty ubiquitous in terms of black powder firearms as well, conical bullets were developed for additional accuracy, but also enabled them to fit a cylinder into the bore with more mass, because black powder only burns so fast, then you see bullets start to become smaller and faster with the advent of modern gun powder.
Yes, the Whitworth rifle is a particularly fascinating look at the beast, launching a 580gr .452" bullet, when the typical .45-70 is 405gr. That's gr as in grains (7000 per lb), not grams!
Do a vid talking about how you got into history and all that stuff! Origin stories are interesting! (also: hope you got somewhere warm & dry as soon as you could)
@01:37 archers today use smaller similar shaped arrow heads for stump shooting and small game (bunny / bird) hunting www.merlinarchery.co.uk/maximal-fox-blunt-point-100g.html ...
I see that crown bolt head I immediately think "shotgun slug." If you could get the diameter down under 18.5 mm so it'd fit in a 12-gauge barrel (with sabot) and cut the weight in half, you could send a few of them to Jeff at TAOFLEDERMAUS, and the guys could run them through the mass accelerator. Excellent collab potential.
I shot an arrow in the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where; But, strangely, at my journey's end, I found it again in the neck of a friend. Misattributed to Longfellow
This is all simple physics (F=ma at the bow, kE=1/2mv*2 in flight and thus at the target) but the Devil's in the details like the throw of the string, the weight distribution and aerodynamics of the bolts and so many other things. I really enjoy it when you point out how seemingly irrelevant small changes can have such large differences in outcome.
Tod - 12 blunt tip arrows, 6 archers VS knight in full armor (plexiglass over front of helmet), walking towards them for 100 feet / - would love to hear him explain the experience ! ! !
A few questions first, why weren't the bows wider, with lower draw weight? (i know that a bow the size of a long bow gets unwieldy but double or triple could work) Second how does the power stroke scale with the bow size(double the bow size double the power stroke). Double the size half the draw weight equal energy? Why this could be interesting: easier cocking= higher fire rate. i dont think bow would be that much more expensive (longer, thinner) i would love to hear your thoughts ps: amazing content
One thing I'd like to add, concerning the physics of the bolts. It isn't necessarily a fact that lighter bolts will travel farther. Air resistance and "overpower" of the bow might make a difference. If the bolt is very light, the bow might shoot it at almost the same speed as a bolt that is a bit heavier, because it's almost the speed with which the flex in the material of the bow jumps back. In that case, a lighter bolt would carry less energy, and having the same friction with the air, it will fall shorter than other, heavier bolts (a real-life example like this are airsoft bb guns. Sometimes heavier bbs make for better long-distance shots because the lighter bbs are more heavily affected by air resistance.) Another factor in play is aerodynamics. It is of great influence to air resistance how aerodynamic the bolt is that is shot. The bolts here followed the same principle in weight as they did in aerodynamics, so it's just adding to the fact that the lighter bolts will generally fly further, but air resistance greatly depends on the shape of the object flying through the air. Physically there are many things in play that might make a lighter bolt fly less far and it wouldn't break the laws of physics, even if the bow performs exactly the same for each launch (which is another possibility for variance, when regarding bolt friction during launch, bot flex, and so on.) Just wanted to add that, and also congratulate on the awesome video, very scientific with great consistency. I loved it! Thank you so much!
You've probably encountered this before, but if not, you should give the wikipedia article on the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem a read. It's about electricity, but it applies to mechanics as well. To paraphrase, you need to match the resistance of the load to the power source, otherwise the power source is not efficient at transferring power to the load. Or, a big heavy crossbow needs a big heavy bolt to get all the energy out of the limbs.
Hmm. Maybe the principle in slingshots also applies to crossbows? There is a speed limit with slingshots and the only way to take advantage of the heavier draw weight is to use heavier projectiles. Therefore is is important to match the weight of the projectile to the power of the band. Don't longbows also follow this with rules of thumb stating you should use about 8-10 grains per pound of draw weight?
I think getting shot at point blank with a mace bolt is going to take you off your feet..... then your done. I think these had a purpose; maybe getting someone unseated from a horse?
While shooting them all at the same angle might give results that are easy to compare, but are we sure the optimum angle of flight is the same for each weight of bolt?
The jack you are using to check the draw weight of the limb at the end is known as a "hi-lift" jack here in the states. We use them for big vehicles like tall off-road SUVs, Jeeps, delivery vans and the like.
You might be getting the same distance because the arrows are hitting their terminal velocity. have you ever done a test to figure out the terminal velocity for the arrows?
One question, we have all seen how in a movie they use an arrow or a bolt to shot a rope over something like a tall wall to climb it, but could that be done historically with heavy crossbows and have a rope attached to the bolt? Or would it be better to just tie a rock to the end and throw it as a sling (grappling hook)
IF Monty Python gang took one of these arrows to the knee, they'd have had their entire leg torn off. We are talking black knight stuff here! "merely a flesh wound, he's had worse!"
Cool stuff Todd! Could you perhaps paint arrows for video tests with neon colors (or maybe even glow-in-the-dark arrows to shoot in the evening) so we can see them shoot?
Two points: 1) It would be interesting to test a full-metal thin/aerodynamic bolt equivalent in weight to the "end 'em rightly" one. 2) 45 degree angle is NOT optimal for distance in the real world where there is air resistance. Optimal angles are usually somewhat lower (around 40 degrees), depending on the parameters of air resistance.
The fact that the bolts entered the ground at different angles shows that they were not at optimal angle for distance given their weight, initial velocity, and aerodynamic profile.
Tod, what happened if you mount a long bow in a crossbow frame? I imagine the extra length of the limbs would propel the bolts/arrows an incredible distance, enabling an ordinary man to shoot a 170 pound bow
You see that with crossbows in the Far East, lower draw weight but more power stroke compare to their European counterparts. Tradeoff is a bulkier crossbow that shoots slower than a regular warbow.
Didn't you mention in an older video that feather fletched bolts have a lower drag? Also 45° is only gonna give the longest range if there is no atmosphere maybe better to try 30° to 40°. There are dopler radars for measuring bullet velocity's that give a graph of the projectile speed over distance traveled and allow to calculate the coefficient of drag of the projectile your shooting they would allow to figure out the optimal angle for each type of bolt to get maximum range.
HI Erik, Yes years ago I tested feathers v wood and feather came out marginally better and as for the angle....Yes, I don't know what I was thinking of, but I feel another test coming....
Oddly, the most important thing that I've learned from this series is the massive importance of the cams in a compound bow. I hadn't considered how much of the bow's energy was consumed by the acceleration of the limbs, and consequently how much difference a reduction in that load would make for the velocity of the arrow/bolt. I wonder if that's part of the reason why increasing the draw weight doesn't help: the bow is expending most of the increased energy into accelerating itself, leaving little to accelerate the arrow. If that's the case, it certainly backs up your theory on the solution: increase the mass of the projectile, such that it accounts for a greater fraction of the load and allows more of the bow's energy to be converted into a useful form. Finally, it's still very tempting to consider how a cam system with a longer bolt but the same massive draw weight would've looked in terms of late medieval or renaissance technology.
So apparently people were talking about how 45° isn't actually as efficient as possible based on air resistance but at least your results were measured consistent
The heavier bolts will decelerate due to air resistance slower, therefore if you are unable to increase the bolt velocity further you can still increase the range with bolt mass provided you can maintain that high velocity.
I just watched the Agincourt video you did in 2019 with Mr. Capwell. In that video, you came to an "agreement" that further testing of distance, angle (from side or behind but also lobbing an arrow) and endurance (how many arrows per minute in an extended battle setting could be shot) would be good. Can we see further experiments with Mr. Gibbs?
Something I found interesting in particular on the rewatch was that at the end after you measured the draw weight the draw weight started to go down before you jecked the bow down. Was this the string relaxing and losing the energy?
Excellent as always (nice threads btw). Very interesting point about the steel having a finite speed regardless of the draw weight (within reason). This gets me thinking; by extension, the various different draw weight crossbows should all have a bolt weight that is optimal for that power. By this I mean the heaviest bolt it can shoot at full speed? Any lighter will not increase the range, any heavier and the launch speed (hence range) will decrease. That would be an interesting experiment, find the ideal bolt weight for the 850 lb draw crossbow vs say a 250 lb draw. Would the relationship be linear? If that was the case, could a graph of optimal weight bolt vs draw weight predict accurately for other crossbows? Ok maybe a bit laborious to get two fixed points to start with but once you have the graph, in theory (if it is indeed linear), you should be able to pick any crossbow draw weight and match it to it's ideal bolt weight. I hope I explained it clearly? It would really complicate things if different steel thicknesses/ or compositions had different potential (return?) speeds but I won't go into that here (don't even start on flight characteristics of different bolts!). Still though, worth a 'shot or twenty'? I would love to see the results. Pax dude.
Also I'm curious Tod, if you were transported back in time - do you feel like you could transfer your skills with modern equipment to a medieval bowyer/crossbow-maker's workshop quickly? Or do you feel the learning curve with the medieval tools would be steep?
Brings back memories of trying a flight shoot 25yrs ago, walking to and from 305yds got a bit old. Target recurve, 50lbs, alu/carbon arrows, speed unknown, slight headwind.
Hey Tod! Great video, I would love to see you use one type arrow and test a few different angles. I am aware that 45° is not really the ideal angle for range... however, many people think it is. The problem is that 45° is based on no air resistance--nonsense for an object hurling along at 150+ fps. I know the true ideal angle must be less than 45° based on physics understanding, but I don't know how much less. It would be cool to test 35, 40, and 45° I think you might get the longest shot around 40°, but that is just a guess. I'd love to see it tested.
Physicists in the comments already know this, and you might too, but the "45 degrees for maximum range" thing is a myth. The best angle for maximum range, or "Terminal angle" varies on weight, mass, (Yes, there's a difference in this situation.) speed and projectile geometry + ballistic coefficient. I'm well aware you simply wanted a benchmark for all projectiles to be tested by, but this is a fun, interesting fact none the less.
Great job as always, Todd. Rather than the level ap, I'm wondering if wooden platform (sort of like a podium) with a 45° slope might be more stable and reproducible than hand held. Todd probably could throw one together in 5 minutes.
Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank (PIAT): A spring powered WW2 era British hand-held anti-armor weapon. Tod’s version: Projector, Infantry, Anti-Knight (PIAK): A spring powered medieval era British anti-armor weapon.
Regarding the weight of the projectile, it is kind of similar (and dissimilar) to Airsoft. Us snipers use heavier and heavier bbs for extra effective range, as they fly farther and straighter. While they move slower out the gun initially, heavier bbs retain their momentum much longer. Obviously, your lighter bolts fly further, but I wonder what the relative energy loss is compared to heavier ammo. too lazy to math it. There's also a phenomenon known as "joule creep" where increasing the weight of the bb results in better system efficiency, as the acceleration of the bb more closely matches that of the piston. I wonder if something similar might be happening here too. On the topic of fetching embedded arrows being annoying, one of the first times I shot my modern crossbow I went into an indoor range. The arrows sank into the target halfway down the fletching - it was a bear to get them out. It is also annoying when you hit another one of your arrows and split it...happens more often than people think, and definitely more often than you like at $6 a pop
My students (high school physics in the US) are in need of a light end of year session or two to show them how useful physics is. I've queued up about five of your crossbow (and longbow) videos for them. Thank you for them; they are wonderful.
Thanks Tod. That was a video I definately wanted to see! You've probably done it before, but I'd love to see what the different bolts would do to various armours & none at all, especially the heaviest bolts. Can they hit hard enough to blunt trauma the wearer even without penetrating?
Hahahaha....I just got finished watching Modern History TV shooting a 1000 lbs crossbow for distance. At the end, the crossbow was shot--I left in the comments, "Clearly that crossbow wasn't made by Tod..." Modern TV's 1000lbs crossbow shot crap compared to your 850. Might have been the bolts...now I wonder...
So the crown bolt is basically an "END THAT ANIMAL (but not his pelt) RIGHTLY!" bolt? That's great. It may have been a mistranslation, but who cares? It's an awesome saying.
Interesting. Tests with Mary Rose (150 flb/667N) type longbow achieved shots of 328m/359 yds with a 1.9oz/53.6g shaft and 250m/273.5 yd with a 3.4 oz/96g shaft. My theory is that the speed of recovery of the tips of the limbs has a massive effect. This speed will be effected by material and angular deflection of the limbs as well as the mass of the string
Kentwell Hall, I remember it well! Grew-up in South Suffolk & North Essex 70s-80s. School & family trips to Kentwell were fantastic, it did feel like genuine time travel!
200 yards doesn’t sound impressive at first but then you picture yourself standing at the end of a football field looking down the field and imagine sending a bolt over twice that distance and it suddenly feels much more impressive.
I see you're going for the casual pope look 😂
😂
😂
😁😁
🤣🤣🤣
Well, God did indicate his blessing with that rainbow...
I think you're very correct about the limbs being the limiting factor and not being able to push the lighter arrows faster. The same thing happened with black powder firearms. In an effort to get more power, they kept increasing shot size. They would build strong actions and longer barrels but they reached a point where black powder just wouldn't push the bullet faster. You had 50, 58, 64, 72 caliber rifles, and a bunch of others. Big bore rifles continued up until the smokeless powder became popular and then smaller, faster bullets became more common. They started out big with the 8mm and large 30 cals before working down to smaller 30 cals and now to 5.56 and 5.45. The crossbow proves that propellants have always been an issue and limitation
That actually would be a good test - take a variety of bow weights and a series of standardized bolt weights. Measure speed at each bow at each draw weight.
If your theory is (and I'm interpreting on this) that the heavier bows were entirely to bring up heavier bolts up to the same speed as the lighter ones could be, and there's a maximum speed achievable that doesn't depend on bow draw, then you should see a consistency with the lighter bolts hitting that limit and the heavier ones travelling faster until they also reach a limit.
A ballistic chronograph would give you the speed but I'm not sure how well the usual firearm ones work on crossbow bolts. I would imagine they should still work.
Be interesting to see just how hard that Mace on a stick would hit using a force/ G-sensor of some kind. Would not like to get hit by that thing.
Easy done - get a pandulum target. You can directly read out by how much it swings out on impact.
There's a museum in Poland with historic bolts and they look like bloody circus tent pegs. This meshes with research that puts bot weights much heavier than people assumed.
Just to give more context for people who can't visualise metres or yards, 238 yards is 714 feet!
'238 yards' doesn't 'feel' as much as 714 feet, Tod!
How do you NOT keep the rainbow in frame?????
Just a head of the curve. Flares come back in yet?
Optimal angle is between 33° - 35°
Makes sense, they wanted maximal Penetration to get their Man down for good and not a distance record while knocking lightly on his Helmet to tell him; "Hi, I'm over here and it will take me some time to reload".
Old crossbows have very little draw length
@@heldermonteiro2718 but you do need a windless to load most of them
I would have thought it depends on who they are fighting.
If they are defending against heavy cavalry then penetration is what matters, but if they are looking at lighter armoured opponents then it may well be the earliest moment of engagement (i.e. engagement at greatest distance, preferably before they are in range to shoot back at you) might be the better option.
max distance of turkish bow ~400 meters, but what an arrow was used.. for practical pusposes unusable.
Hellequin, with these thick bolts they never got penetration, they generated impact, but not penetration thru armor... putting deeper dents nto a knights armor instead of a hole, that is what they did. No chance they put holes into steel armor and arrow penetrating 10cm thru hole when using 20mm arrowheads
"But really, it's a mace on a stick."
Isn't that just a mace?
What he has there is the handy snack size Mace on a Stick.
In this case, it's a projectile mace.
@@StergiosMekras a missile mace sounds much cooler
Yes, it's just a mace
A flying finned mace ? Finned flying mace? Arrow mace. Mace arrow? The clobberer!
"But it got me thinkin'...", it always gets good after that!
No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but a Tod with a crossbow. Poetic!
What was not shown in this video was dead leprechaun with crossbow bolt in his back, next to a empty pot.
@@IamOutOfNames well of course what else do you think he was aiming for
"Faith and Begorrah! "
Looks like the Wizard of Crossbows is at it again...
We're off to see the Wizard
The Wonderful Wiz of Arroz!
Arrowmancer.
@@yajurka Beware, Bodkin, the Boltomancer!
"I cast Crossbow Bolt!"
@Alorand I thought of sth along of Todstradamus, but yours is better ^^
nicely done, and a much better bow than I used!
Thanks Jason, and of course I would like to think so! There is still so much to look at with this whole area. Just for the record, this was shot a couple of weeks before yours came out. Speak soon
@@tods_workshop so weird seeing all these videos that are essentially doing babies first crossbow/longbow tests, yet they are produced by a clearly skilled, professional, craftsman who should already know the results but clearly doesn't
@@kingkarlito having watched said videos I'm baffled by why you'd think they should empirically know already. Nobody normally lofts a bolt into the next field to lose it in long grass. Nobody normally wants to spend the time, effort and cost to make period correct equipment and then smash it into other expensive gear to see what exactly happens. We've mostly come up to the skill/experience level knowing that using the gear in any other way than carefully within established safe guidelines leads to a high chance of loss, breakage and danger. Securing a location to shoot safely and consistently is difficult year round at our lattitude at any moderate+ distance. Practical 'hunt' distances are near 'point blank', targets need to be lit for half the year mid-week for most users, hard targets equate to just throwing money down range. I used to be a pretty good Town and County competitive archer and I'm not ashamed to say the majority of my practice time was indoors at sub-trial range. 90%-95% of our focus is about what happens within a 3' radius of our heads to allow us to not botch our release and miss our intended, soft target. Scientific flight data has only been delved into with modern materials because of competitive sports. These guys are testing the mechanics of technology essentially abandoned before the modern scientific model was thought of.
@@tods_workshop do you have any plans to colab a wider range of bows, crossbows, arrows and bolts to establish deminishing returns of ammo weight vs launchers of period accurate equipment? I'm fascinated to see where our ancestors balanced the performance vs logistics compromise. Afterall there's a large gap between making one bow shoot once amazingly and making thousands shoot consistently throughout a campaign.
Glad to see this cross pollenization. Came to watch Tod's test immediately after watching yours.
Modern History TV Collab coming up? :P
Just watched his distance video the other day, definitely something wrong with his bow after seeing this.
@@trevorWilkinson I think his crossbow really isn't 1000 lb, it just can't be. The string on it looks really really thin, especially compared to all these heavy crossbows you see on Tod's channel
2 of my fav youtubers, can't wait
@@trevorWilkinson He was shooting into a reasonable head-wind in his video.
@@CountCrapula. could be different materials of string?
Have fun with a crossbow in an open field, with the rainbow ... What more could you ask for? 😁
Dressing up adds to the level of authenticity. PS I bought one of your daggers to support the channel. Love your work!
I love how it requires an off-road car jack to test.
heavy stuff
It's just crazy to me to think at 230lbs I could hang on that crossbow and it wouldn't even be close to full draw.
That's a good point. Gearing is an amazing invention.
You need to eat more cake, also makes you harder to kidnap.
Some of your plays aren't half bad, can go on a bit, but definitely have potential.
Crossbow, big bulky robes and an agile mind... Looks like Chancellor Ridcully is having fun outside again xD
That's ARCHChancellor Ridcully to you, me lad...🤨
@@Lucius1958 It's all about the hat, you see
@@Lucius1958 He'd be an Archancellor if he had the Hat. Without it, he's just good old Hughnon.
@@DjDolHaus86 Exactly !
ARCHchancellor Ridcully testing his latest acquisition from a shop in the Street of Cunning Artificers. Shame there's nothing left to shoot at!
big props to the video-bombing rainbow in the background, btw
Would have been interesting to see a chronograph of the launch speeds on those bolts.
That is coming
So Tod, Modern History TV recently did a video testing the range of a heavy crossbow he had, and he noted that his string wore out rather quickly. He speculated that over the course of a battle, a substantial number of heavy crossbows could become non-functional from the wear. How long do you find your heavy crossbow strings last before requiring repair or replacement?
I did notice on that video when Jason was loading the bow for his first shot the string looked odd (2.58) and after he fired there is clear evidence on the video of damage to the string (9,20). I wonder if the string was not already faulty before the video starts. I almost noted the string that Jason uses is much thinner than the one Tod uses in this video on a 850lbs. That may also be part of the problem
I thought this video is an immediate silent response to Modern History TV about distances and going wrong
InSanic. The bow was made by a chap called Robin Knight and was old and tired when Jason got it. He asked e to service it, which I did and provided attached bolts at 80g for it and it shot OK here at short distance. I didn't weigh it, but the bow is longer than mine and the same thickness so I suspect it was more likely 600lbs but inefficient. The string was OK when here. I chatted to Jason last week and we are planning some vids together about crossbows and a particular aspect of them
lol the one on Todd's can't even be called a "string", look at the SIZE of it! Looks almost as thick as my wrist. "Bow rope".
@@BobT36 Or a chonker plonker, as it were.
Good timing, with Modern History's last video on his crossbows lackluster range :)
Wow! How strong are you to be able to pick up and wield that 850lb crossbow, so easily?!?!
The weight of this joke is astounding.
@@epauletshark3793 You're really drawing out this joke as far as it will go
Sorry but I didn't get it, it flew right past me
Others have remarked Tod, but you resemble a cardinal of the crossbow.
I love it.
It really is interesting to me that the limitation on range and speed at the top end of the performance curve is not poundage, or draw length, or even how mechanically 'smooth' things are but instead the material of the bow not being able to move any faster than it does.
Not really sure that's quite true. The higher the poundage (assuming constant proportions of the crossbow), the more acceleration the bolt experiences while being fired and therefore the higher the final velocity when it leaves the crossbow. This is because shooting the bolt is simply the reverse of powering up the crossbow, which requires greater and greater force the further you pull the string back, recalling that (Net) Force = mass x acceleration. The mass is constant so the acceleration 'effect' is what must grow as you power it up. The act of firing the crossbow is simply the inverse of this, where the acceleration of the bolt starts off high and then decreases to zero by the time string is back in neutral position. Despite the acceleration falling though, the speed of the arrow will continually grow because the acceleration is still always positive in the direction firing, therefore the string is in constant contact with the bolt the whole time it's being fired, imparting kinetic energy on it and speeding it up. The only way I can think of you getting a diminishing returns effect with an equally proportioned, higher poundage crossbow (firing the same bolt) would be from drag on the bolt - drag increases greatly at higher and higher speeds and you're likely to get more bending in the bolt too which wouldn't help with aerodynamism. Drag depends on the shape and velocity of an object (and also the viscosity of the medium its moving through, in this case air) but not on its weight. Therefore, a heavier bolt might experience less diminishing returns and go further at these higher poundages because its moving slower at launch thus experiencing less drag and any drag it does experience would have less of an effect because of its higher inertia (due to its higher mass). You can think about this phenomenon by imagining you had two balls of the same volume, one made of paper, the other of metal. If you made weak under-arm throws of equal force for each then you could imagine throwing the paper ball further than the metal one. Now imagine throwing them over arm with all your strength, clearly the metal ball will go further than the paper ball in this case because drag will drain the energy of the paper ball but less so the metal ball with its higher inertia. Hence, the diminishing effect is due to the drag on the bolt at higher poundages rather than some unexplained phenomenon of 'the string not being able to move any faster'.
People walking by at 6:48 "Who's the bloke in the funny outfit with the crossbow?"
"Shhhh...That's Tod...Don't make eye contact." 😄👍
45 deg isn't going to be the max distance due to gravity's influence. planetcalc.com/1508/ might help define best angle with known m/s
Superb work, scares the shit out of me when you measure the bow pull weight at the end, if that gives way it's going to hurt 🤪
Medival man trying to shoot leprechaun RECOLOURED
The place is open so come down, see what’s going on, get hit by a stray bolt, you know? Fun for all the family.
**YES OF COURSE I’M JOKING! NOBODY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME!**
That end bit makes your first part sound sarcastic...
@@epauletshark3793 nope, just been on TH-cam comments before.
The adding weight to offset speed limitations thing is pretty ubiquitous in terms of black powder firearms as well, conical bullets were developed for additional accuracy, but also enabled them to fit a cylinder into the bore with more mass, because black powder only burns so fast, then you see bullets start to become smaller and faster with the advent of modern gun powder.
Yes, the Whitworth rifle is a particularly fascinating look at the beast, launching a 580gr .452" bullet, when the typical .45-70 is 405gr.
That's gr as in grains (7000 per lb), not grams!
Oh my, did I spot a rainbow in the backgroudn there? :D
Do a vid talking about how you got into history and all that stuff! Origin stories are interesting! (also: hope you got somewhere warm & dry as soon as you could)
Imagine what a strategic asset Tod would have been. Wars would have been won using his knowledge of the technology of the time.
@01:37 archers today use smaller similar shaped arrow heads for stump shooting and small game (bunny / bird) hunting
www.merlinarchery.co.uk/maximal-fox-blunt-point-100g.html ...
I see that crown bolt head I immediately think "shotgun slug." If you could get the diameter down under 18.5 mm so it'd fit in a 12-gauge barrel (with sabot) and cut the weight in half, you could send a few of them to Jeff at TAOFLEDERMAUS, and the guys could run them through the mass accelerator. Excellent collab potential.
I shot an arrow in the air,
It fell to earth, I knew not where;
But, strangely, at my journey's end,
I found it again in the neck of a friend.
Misattributed to Longfellow
This is all simple physics (F=ma at the bow, kE=1/2mv*2 in flight and thus at the target) but the Devil's in the details like the throw of the string, the weight distribution and aerodynamics of the bolts and so many other things. I really enjoy it when you point out how seemingly irrelevant small changes can have such large differences in outcome.
Tod - 12 blunt tip arrows, 6 archers VS knight in full armor (plexiglass over front of helmet), walking towards them for 100 feet / - would love to hear him explain the experience ! ! !
Wow that draw weight is heavier than us bigfoots
A few questions
first, why weren't the bows wider, with lower draw weight? (i know that a bow the size of a long bow gets unwieldy but double or triple could work)
Second how does the power stroke scale with the bow size(double the bow size double the power stroke).
Double the size half the draw weight equal energy?
Why this could be interesting: easier cocking= higher fire rate.
i dont think bow would be that much more expensive (longer, thinner)
i would love to hear your thoughts
ps: amazing content
One thing I'd like to add, concerning the physics of the bolts.
It isn't necessarily a fact that lighter bolts will travel farther. Air resistance and "overpower" of the bow might make a difference. If the bolt is very light, the bow might shoot it at almost the same speed as a bolt that is a bit heavier, because it's almost the speed with which the flex in the material of the bow jumps back. In that case, a lighter bolt would carry less energy, and having the same friction with the air, it will fall shorter than other, heavier bolts (a real-life example like this are airsoft bb guns. Sometimes heavier bbs make for better long-distance shots because the lighter bbs are more heavily affected by air resistance.) Another factor in play is aerodynamics. It is of great influence to air resistance how aerodynamic the bolt is that is shot. The bolts here followed the same principle in weight as they did in aerodynamics, so it's just adding to the fact that the lighter bolts will generally fly further, but air resistance greatly depends on the shape of the object flying through the air. Physically there are many things in play that might make a lighter bolt fly less far and it wouldn't break the laws of physics, even if the bow performs exactly the same for each launch (which is another possibility for variance, when regarding bolt friction during launch, bot flex, and so on.)
Just wanted to add that, and also congratulate on the awesome video, very scientific with great consistency. I loved it! Thank you so much!
You've probably encountered this before, but if not, you should give the wikipedia article on the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem a read. It's about electricity, but it applies to mechanics as well.
To paraphrase, you need to match the resistance of the load to the power source, otherwise the power source is not efficient at transferring power to the load. Or, a big heavy crossbow needs a big heavy bolt to get all the energy out of the limbs.
Hmm. Maybe the principle in slingshots also applies to crossbows? There is a speed limit with slingshots and the only way to take advantage of the heavier draw weight is to use heavier projectiles. Therefore is is important to match the weight of the projectile to the power of the band. Don't longbows also follow this with rules of thumb stating you should use about 8-10 grains per pound of draw weight?
Maintaining that level of enthusiasm in that much rain is impressive :)
It's an essential quality for being british
I think getting shot at point blank with a mace bolt is going to take you off your feet..... then your done. I think these had a purpose; maybe getting someone unseated from a horse?
Just out of curiosity, who is the cameraman? Are these films making enough to employ one now? ;)
While shooting them all at the same angle might give results that are easy to compare, but are we sure the optimum angle of flight is the same for each weight of bolt?
this is booooring ! nothing to see from the shots, possible a joke ...... ( the caesars new wear )
The jack you are using to check the draw weight of the limb at the end is known as a "hi-lift" jack here in the states. We use them for big vehicles like tall off-road SUVs, Jeeps, delivery vans and the like.
Here is a handy guide to their use for those who want to know more.
th-cam.com/video/xPLrHw2At7s/w-d-xo.html
You might be getting the same distance because the arrows are hitting their terminal velocity. have you ever done a test to figure out the terminal velocity for the arrows?
Have you thought of putting something like that bright reflexive orange on the arrows so they are easier to spot?
One question, we have all seen how in a movie they use an arrow or a bolt to shot a rope over something like a tall wall to climb it, but could that be done historically with heavy crossbows and have a rope attached to the bolt? Or would it be better to just tie a rock to the end and throw it as a sling (grappling hook)
Not possible
@@tods_workshop Uh Hmm Tod... th-cam.com/video/h4TNAmH_Od8/w-d-xo.html Not a "rope" but a guide line perhaps.
IF Monty Python gang took one of these arrows to the knee, they'd have had their entire leg torn off. We are talking black knight stuff here! "merely a flesh wound, he's had worse!"
Cool stuff Todd! Could you perhaps paint arrows for video tests with neon colors (or maybe even glow-in-the-dark arrows to shoot in the evening) so we can see them shoot?
did anyone ever make a English long bow into a crossbow?, because that would be very powerful in my opinion, because of the longer draw length.
Where can I find a sewing pattern for that awesome coat?
Two points:
1) It would be interesting to test a full-metal thin/aerodynamic bolt equivalent in weight to the "end 'em rightly" one.
2) 45 degree angle is NOT optimal for distance in the real world where there is air resistance. Optimal angles are usually somewhat lower (around 40 degrees), depending on the parameters of air resistance.
The fact that the bolts entered the ground at different angles shows that they were not at optimal angle for distance given their weight, initial velocity, and aerodynamic profile.
Tod, what happened if you mount a long bow in a crossbow frame? I imagine the extra length of the limbs would propel the bolts/arrows an incredible distance, enabling an ordinary man to shoot a 170 pound bow
You see that with crossbows in the Far East, lower draw weight but more power stroke compare to their European counterparts. Tradeoff is a bulkier crossbow that shoots slower than a regular warbow.
I love your use of a cell phone as an inclinometer...brilliant
Indeed, a cell phone inclinometer and a laser ranger-finder; truly this is a high-tech medieval experiment.
Didn't you mention in an older video that feather fletched bolts have a lower drag?
Also 45° is only gonna give the longest range if there is no atmosphere maybe better to try 30° to 40°.
There are dopler radars for measuring bullet velocity's that give a graph of the projectile speed over distance traveled and allow to calculate the coefficient of drag of the projectile your shooting they would allow to figure out the optimal angle for each type of bolt to get maximum range.
HI Erik,
Yes years ago I tested feathers v wood and feather came out marginally better and as for the angle....Yes, I don't know what I was thinking of, but I feel another test coming....
Oddly, the most important thing that I've learned from this series is the massive importance of the cams in a compound bow. I hadn't considered how much of the bow's energy was consumed by the acceleration of the limbs, and consequently how much difference a reduction in that load would make for the velocity of the arrow/bolt. I wonder if that's part of the reason why increasing the draw weight doesn't help: the bow is expending most of the increased energy into accelerating itself, leaving little to accelerate the arrow. If that's the case, it certainly backs up your theory on the solution: increase the mass of the projectile, such that it accounts for a greater fraction of the load and allows more of the bow's energy to be converted into a useful form.
Finally, it's still very tempting to consider how a cam system with a longer bolt but the same massive draw weight would've looked in terms of late medieval or renaissance technology.
Por qué no comparan las armas aztecas y los petos de los españoles
Lovely garb. Enjoy seeing Tod in his mating plumage.
🤢🤮
So apparently people were talking about how 45° isn't actually as efficient as possible based on air resistance but at least your results were measured consistent
Retest coming on I think
The heavier bolts will decelerate due to air resistance slower, therefore if you are unable to increase the bolt velocity further you can still increase the range with bolt mass provided you can maintain that high velocity.
also every bolt weight will have its optimal angle for getting maximum range.
I just watched the Agincourt video you did in 2019 with Mr. Capwell. In that video, you came to an "agreement" that further testing of distance, angle (from side or behind but also lobbing an arrow) and endurance (how many arrows per minute in an extended battle setting could be shot) would be good. Can we see further experiments with Mr. Gibbs?
its already planned, he talked about it a few vids ago. But covid is making it take longer then first planned
I love the sound the spinning nut makes
Finally distance test ...👍 Please more distance test of crossbows
Something I found interesting in particular on the rewatch was that at the end after you measured the draw weight the draw weight started to go down before you jecked the bow down. Was this the string relaxing and losing the energy?
What was the wind doing that day? Judging by the trees it looked pretty calm but I'm just curious.
Fire at an angle of 33-35 degrees next test.
Excellent as always (nice threads btw). Very interesting point about the steel having a finite speed regardless of the draw weight (within reason). This gets me thinking; by extension, the various different draw weight crossbows should all have a bolt weight that is optimal for that power. By this I mean the heaviest bolt it can shoot at full speed? Any lighter will not increase the range, any heavier and the launch speed (hence range) will decrease.
That would be an interesting experiment, find the ideal bolt weight for the 850 lb draw crossbow vs say a 250 lb draw.
Would the relationship be linear?
If that was the case, could a graph of optimal weight bolt vs draw weight predict accurately for other crossbows?
Ok maybe a bit laborious to get two fixed points to start with but once you have the graph, in theory (if it is indeed linear), you should be able to pick any crossbow draw weight and match it to it's ideal bolt weight.
I hope I explained it clearly? It would really complicate things if different steel thicknesses/ or compositions had different potential (return?) speeds but I won't go into that here (don't even start on flight characteristics of different bolts!).
Still though, worth a 'shot or twenty'?
I would love to see the results.
Pax dude.
That crossbow sounds like a small caliber rifle when it is fired.
Uploaded 11 seconds ago. Sweet. Nice coat.
Also I'm curious Tod, if you were transported back in time - do you feel like you could transfer your skills with modern equipment to a medieval bowyer/crossbow-maker's workshop quickly? Or do you feel the learning curve with the medieval tools would be steep?
Brings back memories of trying a flight shoot 25yrs ago, walking to and from 305yds got a bit old. Target recurve, 50lbs, alu/carbon arrows, speed unknown, slight headwind.
interesting that you shot further than Jason Kingsley even though he had the stronger crossbow
Hey Tod! Great video, I would love to see you use one type arrow and test a few different angles.
I am aware that 45° is not really the ideal angle for range... however, many people think it is. The problem is that 45° is based on no air resistance--nonsense for an object hurling along at 150+ fps. I know the true ideal angle must be less than 45° based on physics understanding, but I don't know how much less. It would be cool to test 35, 40, and 45°
I think you might get the longest shot around 40°, but that is just a guess. I'd love to see it tested.
Physicists in the comments already know this, and you might too, but the "45 degrees for maximum range" thing is a myth. The best angle for maximum range, or "Terminal angle" varies on weight, mass, (Yes, there's a difference in this situation.) speed and projectile geometry + ballistic coefficient. I'm well aware you simply wanted a benchmark for all projectiles to be tested by, but this is a fun, interesting fact none the less.
The demo would look great if you attached some kind of smoke releasing device on the bolts to leave a trail arc.
Fire Arrows!
Visually, yes, but it would mess up they weights of the bolts.
@@suntiger745 Depends how miniscule you could make them.
Great job as always, Todd. Rather than the level ap, I'm wondering if wooden platform (sort of like a podium) with a 45° slope might be more stable and reproducible than hand held. Todd probably could throw one together in 5 minutes.
Just come from scholagladiatoria
100% NEED to see this period compound crossbow with pulleys and such.
MIGHTY NEED
Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank (PIAT):
A spring powered WW2 era British hand-held anti-armor weapon.
Tod’s version:
Projector, Infantry, Anti-Knight (PIAK):
A spring powered medieval era British anti-armor weapon.
Regarding the weight of the projectile, it is kind of similar (and dissimilar) to Airsoft. Us snipers use heavier and heavier bbs for extra effective range, as they fly farther and straighter. While they move slower out the gun initially, heavier bbs retain their momentum much longer. Obviously, your lighter bolts fly further, but I wonder what the relative energy loss is compared to heavier ammo. too lazy to math it.
There's also a phenomenon known as "joule creep" where increasing the weight of the bb results in better system efficiency, as the acceleration of the bb more closely matches that of the piston. I wonder if something similar might be happening here too.
On the topic of fetching embedded arrows being annoying, one of the first times I shot my modern crossbow I went into an indoor range. The arrows sank into the target halfway down the fletching - it was a bear to get them out. It is also annoying when you hit another one of your arrows and split it...happens more often than people think, and definitely more often than you like at $6 a pop
My students (high school physics in the US) are in need of a light end of year session or two to show them how useful physics is. I've queued up about five of your crossbow (and longbow) videos for them. Thank you for them; they are wonderful.
Thanks Tod. That was a video I definately wanted to see! You've probably done it before, but I'd love to see what the different bolts would do to various armours & none at all, especially the heaviest bolts. Can they hit hard enough to blunt trauma the wearer even without penetrating?
So basicly if they run out of bolts, they could haveshot their enemys with the legs of a broken chair... and maybe they did, who knows ; }
Hahahaha....I just got finished watching Modern History TV shooting a 1000 lbs crossbow for distance. At the end, the crossbow was shot--I left in the comments, "Clearly that crossbow wasn't made by Tod..."
Modern TV's 1000lbs crossbow shot crap compared to your 850. Might have been the bolts...now I wonder...
So the crown bolt is basically an "END THAT ANIMAL (but not his pelt) RIGHTLY!" bolt? That's great.
It may have been a mistranslation, but who cares? It's an awesome saying.
Interesting. Tests with Mary Rose (150 flb/667N) type longbow achieved shots of 328m/359 yds with a 1.9oz/53.6g shaft and 250m/273.5 yd with a 3.4 oz/96g shaft.
My theory is that the speed of recovery of the tips of the limbs has a massive effect. This speed will be effected by material and angular deflection of the limbs as well as the mass of the string
"after this whole covid mess"
sad 2022 delta omikron french subtype deltakron loughs
Using yards and pounds in 2021?
Ok, crossbows are medieval stuff, so maybe it’s still appropriate.
Always with a great experiment, Tod !!
Congrats !!!!
Kentwell Hall, I remember it well! Grew-up in South Suffolk & North Essex 70s-80s. School & family trips to Kentwell were fantastic, it did feel like genuine time travel!
200 yards doesn’t sound impressive at first but then you picture yourself standing at the end of a football field looking down the field and imagine sending a bolt over twice that distance and it suddenly feels much more impressive.
850lb-drawing pulley system flailing wildly + long, awkward cloak. The mad alchemist!