|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Mar 6, 2009 16:20:34 GMT
ok, we talk a lot here about swords and how some of them are "whippy" and that's bad but we also say the swords should be flexible. so my question to the forum is this: where do we cross the line from good-flexible to bad-whippy?
I like single handed swords in the medium length and I like my swords STIFF. I feel they cut better if they are stiff. I'm thinking stiff like a katana here. my Valiant Armory Practical arming sword is very comparable in stiffness to a katana. it's also rather thick to achieve this but I feel it moves very well. however in a recent discussion with a forum member whose oppinion I respect I was told that sword is over-built, heavier and stiffer than it needs to be and it would cut better if it were thinner and more lively.
I don't have much experience with longswords but they seem to be very wiggly to me.
I know that cutting at the COP make for better cuts because the blade moves less in the cut and absorbs the shock of impact better in that spot. Katana reviews usually completely ignore COP because people believe they don't have one since you can't smack the side of most katana and set them wiggling. there IS a COP on katana, it's just that they are so stiff you have to find it other ways. if you lightly tap or let the weight of the sword drop a few inches onto the top of a cutting stand or a wood block you can feel the vibrational distribution. (is that anything like a correct term? sounds accurate to me, I'll use it) the areas that wiggle the most also bounce on the drop/tap test while the parts that wiggle the least (COP) land and park with little to no bounce. those places cut best.
so what am I missing? it seems like it just isn't possible or correct for a longsword to be as stiff as a katana but I must assume the Longsword was still a plenty effective weapon. how stiff should a longsword be? how can I test it to determine flexible vs. whippy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 16:33:09 GMT
I'm sick of this "whippy" stupidity, different swords have different profiles. I have seen swords that are limp as a noodle cut better than so called "stiff" swords. It is not about whippy or not whippy, it is geometry and ability. Good geometry on a whippy blade is better than bad geometry on a stiff blade. We should be talking about geometry not how limp or not limp a sword is, sounds like a viagra ad when we talk about whippies and stiffies. *rolls eyes*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 17:28:55 GMT
I'm sick of this "whippy" stupidity, different swords have different profiles. I have seen swords that are limp as a noodle cut better than so called "stiff" swords. It is not about whippy or not whippy, it is geometry and ability. Good geometry on a whippy blade is better than bad geometry on a stiff blade. We should be talking about geometry not how limp or not limp a sword is, sounds like a viagra ad when we talk about whippies and stiffies. *rolls eyes* Amen brother...in reference to the "too whippy to cut" debate. I have seen and used original swords dating to the late 1600's to the early 1700's + (particularly Scottish basket-hilts) with blades that you could almost make a complete circle with and still cut like mad.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Mar 6, 2009 18:10:46 GMT
I am running late today for an appointment but would toss this out to those sometimes a bit obsessive about numbers. The perceived center of percussion is often not where a sword is going to handle long swords most efficiently.
Mull about over that a bit and I'll be back to explain. Some may already get it. It is also something I found to be quite variable very early on in my pursuits in cutting stuff.
Cheers
Hotspur; cross town traffic, hmmm I wonder if that disc is loaded along with rainy day (there is an obscure and interesting thought for Bill to consider)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 19:09:52 GMT
I started forming an opinion a while ago that the degree of blade flex is a matter of personal preference both today and in period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 19:56:56 GMT
In a mainly cut oriented blade, flexibility is not necessarily a bad thing. Some folks prefer a thin flexible blade for cutting work (as do I in many cases). Where an overly flexible blade becomes troublesome is in a blade designed primarily for thrusting, or one that's supposed to function for both the cut and thrust. If I take a stiff blade and thrust it into my foam archery target (20x20x12" multi-density foam), it penetrates deep. If I take a "whippy" blade and do the same, the point sticks in just fine, but then the blade often deflects out of the line of the thrust and doesn't go nearly as deep.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Mar 6, 2009 19:57:51 GMT
As has been said depends on the type of sword and intended use along with personal preference. Personally I like ShooterMike's "Whippy test" as a general rule. (Please ignore that nonsense by the OP in that link.)
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Mar 6, 2009 21:07:14 GMT
Since I am one of the initiators of this being bandied about, I guess I should address.
This matter has gotten blown all-out-hand IMO. What I was most concerned about were swords that were so overly flexible that a powerful blow from an opponent could flex the so much that the offensive blade would bend the defending blade out of the way and cut through the guard if the edge made contact with the flat of a "whippy" sword.
This came about when I got hold of a Windlass Arbedo sword. The blade resembles nothing so much as an old hand saw they used to flex back and forth to play hillbilly music on. It has a very sharp tip, but if placed against a person's sternum who was wearing a leather jacket, it will bend double and not hardly penetrate the skin.
Flexible and whippy should not be thought of as the same. I propose a new test:
If you can hold a sharp sword by the grip, grab the tip, and bend it 90 degrees without cutting yourself... then maybe it should be called "whippy."
By the standards some here seem to want to apply, almost every good cutting ATrim I own would be called "whippy" and seen as undesirable.
Tom, as an aside, the "was-a-1429" is one of the stiffest ATrims I have seen.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Mar 6, 2009 21:31:12 GMT
Good point, Mike. Tho I think I'll pass on that suggested test, I cut myself enough as it is. LOL
My own opinon of what's whippy or not as evolved. My Hanwei Bastard is quite flexable, yet not what I'd call whippy. My Atrim 1315+ also has quite a bit of flex. Ditto my Windlass Military Sword-Rapier. I don't have a sword I'd call whippy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 22:44:26 GMT
Ric, don't you think the windlass military rapier will be perfect with a little bit more stiffness ? I say that because some thrusts you did in your video are not very successful...
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Mar 6, 2009 22:58:35 GMT
Flex testing gets blown out of proportion as well. Here is a sabre I am pinching by the tip and it is the weight of the sword bending it to ninety degrees (more or less). A pommel thump may give some a rough idea what to expect but often not how the sword will perform at it's perceived center orf percussion. just because the location exists, doesn't mean it will cut the best of What in particular and in what manner the swing is made. Do use the tips of swords for the velocity and geometry of blades. We see a lot of bottles flying from folk determined to use the center of percussion as the best place to strike with. This could be made easier by some struggling with the concept. We could do a straight vs curved debate as well but I find it often others things at play that make a sword work for a given person with a given sword. Are you chopping or slicing? it does make a difference, doesn't it? How much of a curve is there really in the last ten inches of a katana? What other benefits of a katana are there? Is that real or perceived? Wondering minds and all that. So anyway, flexibility can effect poor cuts but a thinner crossection can make a difference (even with katana in grass cutting). A very flexible sword can be onery and particular about edge alingment but guess what? So can other swords like a XVa that may best cut well inside the cop insted of at that or more towards the point. A last plea to the flex buddies out there and best to push the sword into a bow by bracing the side of the point. Don't start by pushing a point into wood and then pushing to a bow. Don't unduly stress blades uness you are as foolish as my picture which I do as a demonstration to others. I have terrific pinchers for fingers, the sword was hanging over a couch and the blade is not razor sharp (but is sharp). Cheers Hotspur; more later but it has often been said before
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Mar 6, 2009 23:41:21 GMT
Good points Glen. My personal preferences run toward swords that tend to be relatively stiff for the first half of the blade, then tend to become much more flexible in the last third toward the tip. This is as much a function of distal taper as anything. I find these swords to handle the best overall. They turn during realistic cutting exercises (simulating combat, not just lining up the edge and having a slice at the target) and don't flex sideways in the first half of the blade when subjected to something like cutting an Oberhau from Ochs while gaining or giving ground with a passing step. A lot of it is a personal thing, I suppose. But I am becoming a fanatic about wanting swords to cut smoothly and well anywhere along the blade from the center to the tip, with special emphasis on how well cuts work with the last 6 inches of the blade. I feel that's really where the majority of cutting would happen in a real fight. And that's what I'm really interested in, given that I consider myself a "collector of functional weapons" instead of a "collector of pretty objects"... so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Mar 7, 2009 0:24:28 GMT
Hi Mike,
I think we're in more agreement than not except that I'm liking my pretties and my cutters as well. Having pretty much run up a collection of the basic Oakeshott categories, I find myself going back to just few for tricks at the cutting stand.
I have to tip my hat to the amount of cutting enthusiam exhibited by many here. I went through a couple of phases that included bottles, mats, tubes from hell and the like. I can't really say that I've had my fun if I never can get well no more but I've slowed down a lot. It has been a good long time since I haven't simply folded a cracker box for recycling instead of magic tricks with light/quick swords. It has been a long time since i have hauled out the 2 litre filled with .50 caliber round lead and stuffed that in a stiff leather boot. It has even been a long time since we went at empties one day.
Gus used to talk about flying pizza boxes as targets and quarter inch plywood as a standard. I do hope that either in cutting or even gazing at pretties (even if it those aren't swords) is still on the fun list.
I need to spend a good bit of time just getting used to a couple of swords again. It has been a long few years since cleaving unpegged mat stumps with my too flexible Gus XIIIa.
Cheers
Hotspur; keep it safe, keep it sane
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Mar 7, 2009 0:40:10 GMT
For what I do, I've never found an advantage to having a sword that is overly flexible (whippy). A sword should have flexibility to absorb shock during impact. Aside from that it should, in my opinion, be a stiff as possible. I don't want a blade that gets wiggly while I'm maneuvering for leverage in the bind. I don't want a blade that, when changing angles of attack in mid swing, wants to guide itself through the air like an airfoil instead of going where I put it. I don't want a sword that would bow out if it hit a sternum rather than punching straight through.
It may be that others who have different uses for their blades find an advantage to a very flexible blade. I personally have handled swords which had blades that were too flexible to properly function for their intended purpose.
If I hold a sword with the flat of the blade parallel with the ground and the tip is sagging under it's own weight, it's too whippy for me.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Mar 7, 2009 1:39:19 GMT
You can almost make out the tubes from hell in this picture. These were cores for pallet wrap plastic something like 3/8" to 1/2" wall thickness and quite gritty. We were having difficulty in cutting these free standing and with several different types of swords. In further experiments, it turned out to be a trick/methodology that belied it being only stiffies or wimpies. However, the PK failed every time. The three successes were actually three very different swords. My quite limber XIIIa, the brute of A&A, a German Bastard which few would care to call the late blades of that version whippy. Then there was the shorter Edward III blade in Urbino mounts. Thinner thsn the XIIIa overall except for the very tip. While quite flexible for its length, the first sword we broke that barrier with until we learned the trick. Tip speed and mass behind the tip. Truly cloven in this instant, very little draw to the cuts (which is how we mostly cut bottles, mats and light trick shots). We also determined that hosts shouldn't have to clean up and that if you are too far away to reach the stand, someone needs to pick up a bit. Cheers Hotspur; I don't think Jay ever forgave us for that mess
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Mar 7, 2009 3:06:45 GMT
thanks for all the responses guys. I have heard the term Whippy bandied about a lot here and I thought I knew what it meant. but today I cut with a longsword that I would have called droopy and whippy. the thing droopes when held sideways and it wobles like mad when I smack the pommel but when I'm swinging it and the edge hits a target it feels as wobbly as an I-beam and it cuts great. so I was wondering if I had missed something. this is why I started this thread: because I have a "whippy" sword that I love and cuts great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 3:42:53 GMT
Which sword is it tom?
Now we have to be even more specific, are we talking about cutting swords or combat swords? Forgive me but these days I place them in two different categories. After doing WMA I find that there is a big difference in desirable quality between a sword for target cutting and a sword for actual combat purposes. For combat purposes a stiff blade is a must especially for the likes of lichtenauer and ringeck and such. I shudder to think what would happen to an overly flexible blade if I was blocking and someone cut into the block. However if I am just cutting targets then thinner and more flexible blades are preferred.
From what I have experience with overly flexible blades in cutting when you get the edge alignment right they seem almost to "snap" into a rigid edge with enough blade that if you botch it you won't damage the weapon. I am the sort of person who likes lighter, thinner blades because of my build and my preferred way of fighting. My ultimate blade would probably be a thin edged sabre or shamshir with a reasonable amount of flex. The true difference between flexible and inflexible blades is how forgiving they are of bad form and bad edge alignment. A sword that is too inflexible will punish you, a sword with a greater amount of flex or play will not punish you as badly.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Mar 7, 2009 4:01:42 GMT
This shows how terms and perceptions can diverge so much from person to person, simply based on perception. Tom's talking about the lighter of my two VA Practical Tuned Sharp Longswords (which he just traded for). His take is that it is very flexible. I would personally rate it as a fairly stiff cutting sword. It has about half the flexibility of an AT1566 or about the same as my "heavier than spec" AT1562 warsword. I think it's pretty stiff. Tom feels it's very flexible. And we're both right, from our points of view. It's all in the perceptions I guess?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 4:05:56 GMT
I guess it's the old addage with a twist "one mans inflexible is another mans flexible." Isn't everything in life about ones own perception? I mean what I think is heavy, to someone else is perfect, case in point my sakura. My sensei thinks it is a beautifully handling very light blade, whereas I found it tip heavy and irritating. Different strokes, as with everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 4:32:29 GMT
Hence the reason there are so many different kinds of swords! Even swords that generally look the same are of differing weights, lengths, PoB's, thicknesses, and, of course, stiffness.
|
|