My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Moderator: BullWhipBorton
My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Last edited by KeepaySF on Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:26 pm, edited 6 times in total.
-
Canuck Digger
- Professor of Archaeology
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:24 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Wow! That's a monster of a whip; guess you're planing on working out whilst you crack, yeah?
It has a decent taper on it, though it is a bit on the large side.
That butt knot is huge! Can you even fit it in your hands? But at that size, I'm sure it must be perfectly balanced, if somewhat awkward to use.
You certainly put a lot of work into it, congratulations on your foray into whipmaking! I trust it was a stimulating experience.
As for the help, you are quite welcome
) It's how we roll in the whipmaking world. Pass it on so it's around for the next generation.
Cheers,
Franco
It has a decent taper on it, though it is a bit on the large side.
That butt knot is huge! Can you even fit it in your hands? But at that size, I'm sure it must be perfectly balanced, if somewhat awkward to use.
You certainly put a lot of work into it, congratulations on your foray into whipmaking! I trust it was a stimulating experience.
As for the help, you are quite welcome
) It's how we roll in the whipmaking world. Pass it on so it's around for the next generation.Cheers,
Franco
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hey there Franco,
It is a monster, and your point re: the butt knot is 5x5 dead on. I've experimented with odd and ends of lead pipe connectors, heavy bolt nuts, and coins to provide counterbalance on the whips I've made (none of the others made it through the subsequent "how did I screw this one up" whip autopsies) but I've not found anything dense or heavy enough to really provide a clean solution. As I won't be smelting lead from my apartment anytime soon, I'm lost on what to use. (did you notice the cunning way I beg for advice without actually being honest about it?)
I'm actually curious of what you think of only using braided bellies. In all seriousness, I want to make clear that I know I have no business theorizing about whip construction when I'm so wet behind the ears. And that I have a deep and robust respect and even a certain amount of veneration for what the REAL whipmakers, on this board and everywhere else, can do in their sleep that I can't even approach yet.
So I hope I just sound enthusiastic rather than absurdly naive and presumptuous to even bring this up. But I'm really compelled by the superior physics of plaited bellies - interactive, interlocking structures constructed in replicatable modules v. bolsters which I see as mostly "dead" single components that don't appear to contribute much more than just bulk to the whip. I know clearly I could be dead wrong about this, which would be AS interesting to me as being correct (maybe more so since bolsters are a heck of a lot cheaper, quicker and SO much less work!) I've made about 2 dozen whips and all but the last 3 had bolsters but I found them to be, again in my very amateur and naive experience, a partially wasted bit of space where more active, controllable structures could contribute a lot more. Then I found Bernie Wojcicki's website and it looks like he's abandoned bolsters already. Of course I scoured his website for why he'd done that, but I didn't see he reasons posted anywhere. And finally, I thought I'd read something similar in one of your comments on here or the Aussie Whipmaker Assoc. page about just using plaited bellies. At any rate, I'm going to take it a few steps further with the whips I'm starting now and see where it goes, but I'd love to hear what people think.
It is a monster, and your point re: the butt knot is 5x5 dead on. I've experimented with odd and ends of lead pipe connectors, heavy bolt nuts, and coins to provide counterbalance on the whips I've made (none of the others made it through the subsequent "how did I screw this one up" whip autopsies) but I've not found anything dense or heavy enough to really provide a clean solution. As I won't be smelting lead from my apartment anytime soon, I'm lost on what to use. (did you notice the cunning way I beg for advice without actually being honest about it?)
I'm actually curious of what you think of only using braided bellies. In all seriousness, I want to make clear that I know I have no business theorizing about whip construction when I'm so wet behind the ears. And that I have a deep and robust respect and even a certain amount of veneration for what the REAL whipmakers, on this board and everywhere else, can do in their sleep that I can't even approach yet.
So I hope I just sound enthusiastic rather than absurdly naive and presumptuous to even bring this up. But I'm really compelled by the superior physics of plaited bellies - interactive, interlocking structures constructed in replicatable modules v. bolsters which I see as mostly "dead" single components that don't appear to contribute much more than just bulk to the whip. I know clearly I could be dead wrong about this, which would be AS interesting to me as being correct (maybe more so since bolsters are a heck of a lot cheaper, quicker and SO much less work!) I've made about 2 dozen whips and all but the last 3 had bolsters but I found them to be, again in my very amateur and naive experience, a partially wasted bit of space where more active, controllable structures could contribute a lot more. Then I found Bernie Wojcicki's website and it looks like he's abandoned bolsters already. Of course I scoured his website for why he'd done that, but I didn't see he reasons posted anywhere. And finally, I thought I'd read something similar in one of your comments on here or the Aussie Whipmaker Assoc. page about just using plaited bellies. At any rate, I'm going to take it a few steps further with the whips I'm starting now and see where it goes, but I'd love to hear what people think.
-
Indiana County Jr.
- Dig Leader
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
"I Like Big Butt Knots...." no, wait a minute that's not the words.... 
Making them is how we learn, yours looks good, keep it up!
Crack On!
Allen
Making them is how we learn, yours looks good, keep it up!
Crack On!
Allen
-
Canuck Digger
- Professor of Archaeology
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:24 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Well listen, there are many ways to make a whip, and there is a matter of personal preferences here. I learned a lot from Bernie and he has a lot of experience making whips, so please don't take what I say as being in opposition to him or his technique, but rather as a different take on the subject.
I have made whips with many (read more than 2) bellies, like Bernie in the past. My experience with those was that generally speaking, they were easier to taper nicely and were a bit denser in leather. I don't know if that means it's a "better" whip, but there you have it.
Now, as far as bolsters go, which incidently is my present modus operandi, they present a very different way of looking at the problem of creating a nice taper; they are only one layer, which means you have a bit more leeway to fine-tune the shape with the next bolster (this is an option I find very comforting...), because it is a single layer, it can be split to make thinner, it can be made out of leather of varying thicknesses depending on your needs and/or preferences. But when working with bolsters, one has to look at the whip not solely as a series of layers, but as a mass. Meaning that if you have a section in your whip where it gets thinner all of a sudden, then you can add a fish to fill it out (this you can do regardless of your building technique of course). Well the opposite is true as well when using bolsters; so if a section of your whip is too thick, you can take a bit of material out of your bolster to even it out, and because a bolster can be split, this can be done very smoothly. But let's say you don't have a splitter, well you can still cut out a bit of bolster and provided it is well-rolled, a similar result will be achieved this way. This you cannot do quite so readily with bellies alone. There are work-arounds if you only use bellies of course, but they are a little bit more involved (IMHO). One could argue that taking a bit of bolster out in one section will modify the whip's behavior in that area, and in the worst case scenario, throw-off the whip's action. I suppose that theoretically this is true, but unless you've really mucked-up all the previous layers in your whip, the adjustments made with the bolsters are minimal at best and should not change significantly the whip's action. At least, I have never seen one that was rendered useless because I'd removed a bit of bolster at one point.
Since one now looks at a whip ALSO as a single unit of matter which can be modified along the way, and not just as a series of rigid layers that cannot be manipulated, the use of bolsters can greatly simplify arriving at a satisfactory taper. Let's say you're marking out the second and last bolster on a whip, and that you are doing this by wrapping it around the core and marking the leather as you go along the length of the whip, what you will get once you've done it all, is a series of marks on your side of leather that dillineate roughly where you ought to cut out your bolster. You could follow this outline, which would give you a bolster that fits perfectly to the core of your whip. Nothing wrong there. Or, you could use those markings as a starting point, and using a straight-edge ruler, mark out a perfectly straight line. Now let's assume further still, that your whip isn't perfectly tapered and that you have places along the thong where your whip is thicker and other places where it's thinner, a straight cut bolster will effectively balance out these small irregularities (to a degree), and help rectify the taper. So you will have places with little holes in your bolster, but if you roll your whip well, these will get filled by the layer underneath, thereby evening out the variations. This is what I mean when I say looking at the whip as matter and not just layers that don't interact with each-other. It's one way of doing it. There are others I'm sure, as I'm certain that some whipmakers will have something to say about this technique, and that's fine. But that's the nature of people; we all find a way that works for us and go from there. As long as you know the various techniques, so you can choose which is best for you, and as long as you understand the pros and cons of each, you are all set to go.
Hope this helps,
Franco
I have made whips with many (read more than 2) bellies, like Bernie in the past. My experience with those was that generally speaking, they were easier to taper nicely and were a bit denser in leather. I don't know if that means it's a "better" whip, but there you have it.
Now, as far as bolsters go, which incidently is my present modus operandi, they present a very different way of looking at the problem of creating a nice taper; they are only one layer, which means you have a bit more leeway to fine-tune the shape with the next bolster (this is an option I find very comforting...), because it is a single layer, it can be split to make thinner, it can be made out of leather of varying thicknesses depending on your needs and/or preferences. But when working with bolsters, one has to look at the whip not solely as a series of layers, but as a mass. Meaning that if you have a section in your whip where it gets thinner all of a sudden, then you can add a fish to fill it out (this you can do regardless of your building technique of course). Well the opposite is true as well when using bolsters; so if a section of your whip is too thick, you can take a bit of material out of your bolster to even it out, and because a bolster can be split, this can be done very smoothly. But let's say you don't have a splitter, well you can still cut out a bit of bolster and provided it is well-rolled, a similar result will be achieved this way. This you cannot do quite so readily with bellies alone. There are work-arounds if you only use bellies of course, but they are a little bit more involved (IMHO). One could argue that taking a bit of bolster out in one section will modify the whip's behavior in that area, and in the worst case scenario, throw-off the whip's action. I suppose that theoretically this is true, but unless you've really mucked-up all the previous layers in your whip, the adjustments made with the bolsters are minimal at best and should not change significantly the whip's action. At least, I have never seen one that was rendered useless because I'd removed a bit of bolster at one point.
Since one now looks at a whip ALSO as a single unit of matter which can be modified along the way, and not just as a series of rigid layers that cannot be manipulated, the use of bolsters can greatly simplify arriving at a satisfactory taper. Let's say you're marking out the second and last bolster on a whip, and that you are doing this by wrapping it around the core and marking the leather as you go along the length of the whip, what you will get once you've done it all, is a series of marks on your side of leather that dillineate roughly where you ought to cut out your bolster. You could follow this outline, which would give you a bolster that fits perfectly to the core of your whip. Nothing wrong there. Or, you could use those markings as a starting point, and using a straight-edge ruler, mark out a perfectly straight line. Now let's assume further still, that your whip isn't perfectly tapered and that you have places along the thong where your whip is thicker and other places where it's thinner, a straight cut bolster will effectively balance out these small irregularities (to a degree), and help rectify the taper. So you will have places with little holes in your bolster, but if you roll your whip well, these will get filled by the layer underneath, thereby evening out the variations. This is what I mean when I say looking at the whip as matter and not just layers that don't interact with each-other. It's one way of doing it. There are others I'm sure, as I'm certain that some whipmakers will have something to say about this technique, and that's fine. But that's the nature of people; we all find a way that works for us and go from there. As long as you know the various techniques, so you can choose which is best for you, and as long as you understand the pros and cons of each, you are all set to go.
Hope this helps,
Franco
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
First off....thanks for the booster Allen, and the heretofore unrecognized (at least by me) anatomical implications of my overly generous, um, er, handle ends. )
Franco,
You were bright-eyed to snap out as first business that there many ways to make whips - I would bet lifetimes on lifetimes of learning and paths to success; I unreservedly acknowledge my narrow lens, constricted real-world experience, and thank you for keeping me in line.
I see what you've presented as immediately rich and valuable. The adaptability of bolsters must be a real advantage. I was particularly struck by your argument for real-time error correction, or more precisely, a fail-safe, that plaits simply cannot provide. It's one thing to shave off a bit here and there from a bolster, but digging into strands to correct taper, flow, etc. is (as I have discovered time after time) a can of worms that ends up very often in subsequent strand breaks, uneven tension, unplanned handling characteristics, and hour after hour after hour (after hour) of corrective actions that are only partially successful and never satisfying.
I don't know that I'd ever have tried to do this stuff if not for the whipmaking bibles out there (where would many of us be without Ron Edwards, David Morgan and others) and in-the-trenches blogs and online tutorials? But there is SO MUCH more to it than is written anywhere, frankly, your deep bolster exploration providing a ready example. I keep wanting to shoehorn an amazing, wonderful, and flexible but let's face it natural product, kanagroo hide, into being perfect. The "bibles" instruct us to be wary of the stretchy parts of the hide when cutting out strands, and mention to stretch the strands before plaiting. But as is no doubt ancient history for you, "stretch the strands" is really a book all by itself, as would be so much of what needs to be known to make a really, really great whip.
For instance, I found tiny imperfections in strands bourne of oftimes inconsistent responses to stretching even in the same gang of strands from the same latitudes of the origin hide. And just like the character of the Princess from the old Princess and the Pea fable, I saw those tiny imperfections at a given spot and given interior layer mushroom into hideous hunchback lumps bursting from the overlay like a python that's just swallowed a wild pig. So given that even the most learned hands, let alone mine, cannot force an imperfect substance to behave perfectly, I concede to your point of the bolster advantage.
)Franco,
You were bright-eyed to snap out as first business that there many ways to make whips - I would bet lifetimes on lifetimes of learning and paths to success; I unreservedly acknowledge my narrow lens, constricted real-world experience, and thank you for keeping me in line.
I see what you've presented as immediately rich and valuable. The adaptability of bolsters must be a real advantage. I was particularly struck by your argument for real-time error correction, or more precisely, a fail-safe, that plaits simply cannot provide. It's one thing to shave off a bit here and there from a bolster, but digging into strands to correct taper, flow, etc. is (as I have discovered time after time) a can of worms that ends up very often in subsequent strand breaks, uneven tension, unplanned handling characteristics, and hour after hour after hour (after hour) of corrective actions that are only partially successful and never satisfying.
I don't know that I'd ever have tried to do this stuff if not for the whipmaking bibles out there (where would many of us be without Ron Edwards, David Morgan and others) and in-the-trenches blogs and online tutorials? But there is SO MUCH more to it than is written anywhere, frankly, your deep bolster exploration providing a ready example. I keep wanting to shoehorn an amazing, wonderful, and flexible but let's face it natural product, kanagroo hide, into being perfect. The "bibles" instruct us to be wary of the stretchy parts of the hide when cutting out strands, and mention to stretch the strands before plaiting. But as is no doubt ancient history for you, "stretch the strands" is really a book all by itself, as would be so much of what needs to be known to make a really, really great whip.
For instance, I found tiny imperfections in strands bourne of oftimes inconsistent responses to stretching even in the same gang of strands from the same latitudes of the origin hide. And just like the character of the Princess from the old Princess and the Pea fable, I saw those tiny imperfections at a given spot and given interior layer mushroom into hideous hunchback lumps bursting from the overlay like a python that's just swallowed a wild pig. So given that even the most learned hands, let alone mine, cannot force an imperfect substance to behave perfectly, I concede to your point of the bolster advantage.
-
SHoWhips
- Archaeology Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:29 pm
- Location: Upstate NY
- Contact:
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hi Keepay,
First off great job on the whip. I can't add anything more to what Franco has mentioned regarding the whip itself.
As far as bolsters, the other practical aspect is cost. Kip is much less expensive than 'roo. By using it to fill out
and shape the whip, you've brought the price of the finished whip to a reasonable dollar amount for the majority of
customers. With that said, once your skills are honed you could use the multiple 'roo belly construction for your
high end designs. I nearly fell off my seat the other day when I saw the current price for Packer drum stuffed hides!
Regards,
Scott
First off great job on the whip. I can't add anything more to what Franco has mentioned regarding the whip itself.
As far as bolsters, the other practical aspect is cost. Kip is much less expensive than 'roo. By using it to fill out
and shape the whip, you've brought the price of the finished whip to a reasonable dollar amount for the majority of
customers. With that said, once your skills are honed you could use the multiple 'roo belly construction for your
high end designs. I nearly fell off my seat the other day when I saw the current price for Packer drum stuffed hides!
Regards,
Scott
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hi Scott,
Thanks very much for your pricepoint analysis....another critical issue that has never crossed my mind. And boy do I hear you on hide costs....I approached this whole effort as a "hobby" and started order roo hide right away; I'm trying not to think about how many Morgans, Strains, Jackas, Murphy, Bernandos etc I could have bought for all the hides I've totally wasted cutting my teeth in the last 18 months.
Thanks again
Thanks very much for your pricepoint analysis....another critical issue that has never crossed my mind. And boy do I hear you on hide costs....I approached this whole effort as a "hobby" and started order roo hide right away; I'm trying not to think about how many Morgans, Strains, Jackas, Murphy, Bernandos etc I could have bought for all the hides I've totally wasted cutting my teeth in the last 18 months.
Thanks again
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Wow a 20 plait belly!!! I love that a belly has a higher plait count than the overlay!
When I first started making whips I was scared of bolsters. I didn't know how to get the right shape, length, etc. Over time they get much easier and I know the places that my whips taper and measure at those spot.
When I make my bolsters I draw a center line, then measure around the whip at my taper spots, divide that in half and measure out that distance from both sides of my center line. I find that having the bolster measures from the center gives me a better fit.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but you can also use bolsters of different weights. So if you are making a whip and you already have two bellies finished and you want the bullwhip a bit heavier in the thong, you can use a heavier hide for the the final bolster.
Also I think that bolsters (in my whips) help to give them a nice taper.
louie
http://bullwhips.org
When I first started making whips I was scared of bolsters. I didn't know how to get the right shape, length, etc. Over time they get much easier and I know the places that my whips taper and measure at those spot.
When I make my bolsters I draw a center line, then measure around the whip at my taper spots, divide that in half and measure out that distance from both sides of my center line. I find that having the bolster measures from the center gives me a better fit.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but you can also use bolsters of different weights. So if you are making a whip and you already have two bellies finished and you want the bullwhip a bit heavier in the thong, you can use a heavier hide for the the final bolster.
Also I think that bolsters (in my whips) help to give them a nice taper.
louie
http://bullwhips.org
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hey Louie,
Yeah, I know the high plait count in the last bellly is weird but when I do this again next time all the bellies will have at least as many strands as the overlay. I know it's indefensible but I think having bellies with at least as many plaited strands as the overlay might be interesting , especially if all the belly seams line up perfectly with each other and the overlay. However, I suspect that I'm off my rocker on that theory too, so get ready to say I told you so.
By the way I'm no stranger to your insane legacy whipmaking blog...I started reading your stuff over a year and a half ago...I think the first thing I read was about you taking apart a Morgan (got my attention), although that might have been part of your archive. At any rate, you make whips about 150 times faster than I ever will!
For fun I've posted a pic with a pile of failed bolsters etc. below with a few inlaid pics of more of my crappy bolsters...whip autopsy leftovers. The second pic is of strands I've recycled out of some of my mercy-killed whips. All of that in both pics is roohide...I try not to think about all those kanagroos who died for nothing! (just kidding, sorry)
Yeah, I know the high plait count in the last bellly is weird but when I do this again next time all the bellies will have at least as many strands as the overlay. I know it's indefensible but I think having bellies with at least as many plaited strands as the overlay might be interesting , especially if all the belly seams line up perfectly with each other and the overlay. However, I suspect that I'm off my rocker on that theory too, so get ready to say I told you so.
By the way I'm no stranger to your insane legacy whipmaking blog...I started reading your stuff over a year and a half ago...I think the first thing I read was about you taking apart a Morgan (got my attention), although that might have been part of your archive. At any rate, you make whips about 150 times faster than I ever will!
For fun I've posted a pic with a pile of failed bolsters etc. below with a few inlaid pics of more of my crappy bolsters...whip autopsy leftovers. The second pic is of strands I've recycled out of some of my mercy-killed whips. All of that in both pics is roohide...I try not to think about all those kanagroos who died for nothing! (just kidding, sorry)
-
Canuck Digger
- Professor of Archaeology
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:24 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Listen mate, I'm not trying to sell you on any particular way of doing things, I'm simply trying to convey what little I have learned thus far, and a lot of that knowledge I owe to Bernie. Just keep trying out new things and you will eventually settle on what's best for you. Once you're there, keep on plugging away, because although there's something to be said about tried and true methods, it's always a good idea to keep asking questions. Keeps one honest.
All the best,
Franco
All the best,
Franco
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hey Franco,
Please - sell me, sell me! I know you guys are the learned hands and I unreservedly believe and accept what you've so kindly provided...I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anything anyone has said and in fact, I can't fathom being anything but eager to hear more and apply it......this is all GREAT STUFF.
Everyone seems open to discussing ideas or approaches without any drama...even tolerating crazy newbies like me and giving out very valuable, reasoned and robust suggestions, critiques and course corrections....this is like an online brain trust or think tank. I don't see attitude, just dedicated and vibrant exchanges about ideas, and nothings personal. So I'm sold on trying bolsters again for a target whip I'm starting and jazzed about....thanks!
Please - sell me, sell me! I know you guys are the learned hands and I unreservedly believe and accept what you've so kindly provided...I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anything anyone has said and in fact, I can't fathom being anything but eager to hear more and apply it......this is all GREAT STUFF.
Everyone seems open to discussing ideas or approaches without any drama...even tolerating crazy newbies like me and giving out very valuable, reasoned and robust suggestions, critiques and course corrections....this is like an online brain trust or think tank. I don't see attitude, just dedicated and vibrant exchanges about ideas, and nothings personal. So I'm sold on trying bolsters again for a target whip I'm starting and jazzed about....thanks!
-
floridacrackerbullwhips
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:39 am
- Location: Tampa, Florida
- Contact:
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Quite frankly I think you did a great job on the taper of that whip and in my opinion I prefer all braded construction I have been making whips that way for quite some time and my opinion on the subject can be found hear http://floridacrackerbullwhips.com/Bolster%20new.html .
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Wow...I read you statement on bolsters (and everything else on your site, actually) and you've obviously put a great deal of thought into this issue. I'd not considered, for instance, your conclusions around bolsters, whip stiffness and breaking in periods, among other things. Thanks for giving me still more to chew on. Thanks as well for the kind words, it's sincerely appreciated. I've actually seen your whips on ebay a few times and downloaded pics of them...your mastery of latigo is singular and your whips utterly distinctive and very striking. Quite memorable, actually, and a great "brand!
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
KeepsaySF... Hey man, that whip must have had involved lots of work hours!!! I like the way it turned out. Congratulations on experimenting on whipmaking so much. I see the whip has a smooth taper, but it seems to me that it is heavier for a longer section (perhaps a 60%) longer and then tapers faster into a nice thin point. I like the idea, because that way the whip may preserve more energy for a 10 footer, giving a nice crack with less effort.
Concerning bolsters, I like them because they seem to give a smooth shape, and that they are stiffer for longer. I have made whips with no bolsters, and didn't like them very much. To me it isn't always a matter of which is best or better. I have found that either because of lack of ability or patience I have not been able to make a particular technique work well for me. So I think we wind up using and making whips the easiest and effortless way for each of us. If I don't like my whips without bolsters, it is because I have not been able to develop satisfactory results using that technique and I prefer to stick to bolsters... which in a way, is I guess, what Franco was trying to say.
All the best,
Aldo.
I like the way it turned out. Congratulations on experimenting on whipmaking so much. I see the whip has a smooth taper, but it seems to me that it is heavier for a longer section (perhaps a 60%) longer and then tapers faster into a nice thin point. I like the idea, because that way the whip may preserve more energy for a 10 footer, giving a nice crack with less effort.Concerning bolsters, I like them because they seem to give a smooth shape, and that they are stiffer for longer. I have made whips with no bolsters, and didn't like them very much. To me it isn't always a matter of which is best or better. I have found that either because of lack of ability or patience I have not been able to make a particular technique work well for me. So I think we wind up using and making whips the easiest and effortless way for each of us. If I don't like my whips without bolsters, it is because I have not been able to develop satisfactory results using that technique and I prefer to stick to bolsters... which in a way, is I guess, what Franco was trying to say.
All the best,
Aldo.
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
KeepsaySF, First, that's a very nice whip and as I asked Franco recently, what is the diameter of the handle? It gives me a reference to scale as this can be difficult to judge in photos. Second, thank you for this post as I find it very interesting and hope it goes on for awhile. I too am a novice whipmaker and have recently went from the conventional bolsters to all plaited bellies. (4 plaited bellies and the overlay ala Bernie) Definitely more cost and time, but I'm in no hurry to finish a whip, it takes as long as it takes. Thanks again for the post.
Gary
Gary
-
Indiana Leon
- Laboratory Technician
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:44 am
- Location: Switzerland
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Yeah! This whip loooks awesome! Great job! 
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Gary,
I don't know if more bellies necessarily equals more time and cost. At the end of the day roo isn't that much more that kip. If I was going to do 3-4 bellies and no bolsters on my whips, I'd spend a day and just cut a ton of lace and that'd keep me supplied for a while.
The real time killer in making whips is switching actions. So when I go from cutting or doing lace prep to making bolsters I have clean up and set up time in between and then mental shift it takes to get in the "groove" for the new action.
If you are just doing one action like cutting lace you'll get a lot more done that day than if you are doing multiple things. However this really only applies if you are doing a larger volume of whips. If you are making one a month it doesn't make sense to cutout two miles of lace in a day.
That's just my thoughts on the whole more bellies equals more time and cost debate.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
I don't know if more bellies necessarily equals more time and cost. At the end of the day roo isn't that much more that kip. If I was going to do 3-4 bellies and no bolsters on my whips, I'd spend a day and just cut a ton of lace and that'd keep me supplied for a while.
The real time killer in making whips is switching actions. So when I go from cutting or doing lace prep to making bolsters I have clean up and set up time in between and then mental shift it takes to get in the "groove" for the new action.
If you are just doing one action like cutting lace you'll get a lot more done that day than if you are doing multiple things. However this really only applies if you are doing a larger volume of whips. If you are making one a month it doesn't make sense to cutout two miles of lace in a day.
That's just my thoughts on the whole more bellies equals more time and cost debate.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hi Louie, I'll go 4,4,6,8 w/ 12p overlay or 4,6,8,10 w/ 12p overlay and the 4th bellies take me quite a bit longer than if I had been tying on a bolster since it is almost, if not entirely the full length of the overlay. Just my 2 cents.....thanks for the post.
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Hey Aldo,
You're exactly correct about the taper....I'm trying for lots of power in general but working for both target accuracy (hence taking the fifth belly at 20 plait well out along the thong before starting to taper off the strands) and a quick transfer of energy for cracking (accelerating the taper just after mid-thong.)
I LOVE what you said about getting comfortable with whatever seems to work for us and giving up on other methods...Franco and Louie have already made the case to try some bolsters again, but your point makes me stop and think about everything else I've "decided" was either useful or not, etc. To put it another way, you're saying it's easy to get into a rut, or set in my ways, which would be highly limiting both for my whipmaking and for opinions I might have of what other are doing....very, very good point.
You're exactly correct about the taper....I'm trying for lots of power in general but working for both target accuracy (hence taking the fifth belly at 20 plait well out along the thong before starting to taper off the strands) and a quick transfer of energy for cracking (accelerating the taper just after mid-thong.)
I LOVE what you said about getting comfortable with whatever seems to work for us and giving up on other methods...Franco and Louie have already made the case to try some bolsters again, but your point makes me stop and think about everything else I've "decided" was either useful or not, etc. To put it another way, you're saying it's easy to get into a rut, or set in my ways, which would be highly limiting both for my whipmaking and for opinions I might have of what other are doing....very, very good point.
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
Gary,
Thanks for the compliment ! The handlle is 15/16" at the butt tapering up to 1 & 1/8" just before the transition knot.
Cool that you're a newbie too...have you posted any whip pics? I'm right there with you that it takes a lot longer to plait a belly than use a bolster although I believe Louie when he says it's about the same for him...I mentioned above he's light years faster than I'll ever be. But yeah, for me, it takes as long as it takes!
Best,
Keith
Thanks for the compliment ! The handlle is 15/16" at the butt tapering up to 1 & 1/8" just before the transition knot.
Cool that you're a newbie too...have you posted any whip pics? I'm right there with you that it takes a lot longer to plait a belly than use a bolster although I believe Louie when he says it's about the same for him...I mentioned above he's light years faster than I'll ever be. But yeah, for me, it takes as long as it takes!
Best,
Keith
Re: Jumping in: My first whip, at least, that I'd show in public
What I'm trying to say is that 3-4 bellies doesn't take that much longer than two bolsters. You have a bit more time in the bellies because of the strand prep. Banging out 4 plait gets pretty fast if you do enough of them. Another thing that I would do if I was doing 3-4 bellies is do all the bellies as 4 plait. Internally having a 4-6-8-10 plait inside doesn't make much difference over a 4-4-4-4 as far as performance (in my opinion).
If you are worried about the lower plait count changing the flexibility this of a bolster as a 1 plait, so a two belly two boslter whip generally goes 4 plait - 1 plait - 4 plait - 1plait internally.
KeepaySF,
I did take apart my Morgan and I learned a lot. One important thing about taking apart whips it put them back together. You will learn a lot more about why whipmakers do things certain ways when you reassemble whips you take apart.
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
If you are worried about the lower plait count changing the flexibility this of a bolster as a 1 plait, so a two belly two boslter whip generally goes 4 plait - 1 plait - 4 plait - 1plait internally.
KeepaySF,
I did take apart my Morgan and I learned a lot. One important thing about taking apart whips it put them back together. You will learn a lot more about why whipmakers do things certain ways when you reassemble whips you take apart.
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIE, GEN. DESIGN)
KeepaySF, I haven't posted any pics yet, but maybe soon.
Louie, I think I'll give the 4-4-4-4 a go, you've piqued my interest, thank you.
Gary
Louie, I think I'll give the 4-4-4-4 a go, you've piqued my interest, thank you.
Gary
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIE, GEN. DESIGN)
Gary,
For the bellies are you bascially going 25% 50% 75% 100% of the finished length?
Also are you using a core?
I might try to bang out an 8 foot whip with 4 bellies and time myself to see how long it takes. I think I have some free time next week, and it'd be a fun experiment because I'll be making an 8 foot with two bellies and two bolsters early next week as well so I could try them out side by side.
xoxo
louie
http://bullwhips.org
For the bellies are you bascially going 25% 50% 75% 100% of the finished length?
Also are you using a core?
I might try to bang out an 8 foot whip with 4 bellies and time myself to see how long it takes. I think I have some free time next week, and it'd be a fun experiment because I'll be making an 8 foot with two bellies and two bolsters early next week as well so I could try them out side by side.
xoxo
louie
http://bullwhips.org
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
Hi Louie, Yes. I start with a core and basically my bellies do run right around those percentages, give or take a small degree. I just started a 4-4-4-4 and will give some feedback. thx
KeepsaySF, I can't wait to see your next, bro'....
Gary
KeepsaySF, I can't wait to see your next, bro'....
Gary
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
Here's my 4 plaited belly whip:
Doing the extra bellies wasn't too much extra work...but I think you can get similar results with two bellies and two bolsters is you adjust the thickness of the boslters how everything else is inside the whip.
you can see more pics of this whip at http://bullwhips.org
xoxo
Louie
Doing the extra bellies wasn't too much extra work...but I think you can get similar results with two bellies and two bolsters is you adjust the thickness of the boslters how everything else is inside the whip.
you can see more pics of this whip at http://bullwhips.org
xoxo
Louie
-
Paul_Stenhouse
- Vendor
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:53 am
- Location: Montpelier, ID
- Contact:
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
With all those 'failed' experiments laying around, try finishing them into a workable whip. If you can't get a working whip out of what you've started, start over with a different design.
For example, you tried making an 8 foot whip, but it didn't work out. Try making a 5 or 6 foot snake whip from it. Or, a shorter whip. Don't let those roo's die in vain!
Cheers, and good luck.
Paul
For example, you tried making an 8 foot whip, but it didn't work out. Try making a 5 or 6 foot snake whip from it. Or, a shorter whip. Don't let those roo's die in vain!
Cheers, and good luck.
Paul
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
Hey Louie,
So of course I'm intensely curious about your assessment of handling (etc.) characteristics of your all-braided whip v. your bolster whips. I don't mean to suggest nor do believe one is intrinsically "better", but certainly, they are "better" than one another for this or that purpose, use, or to the subjective preferences of the user. Given all your experience I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Best,
Keith
So of course I'm intensely curious about your assessment of handling (etc.) characteristics of your all-braided whip v. your bolster whips. I don't mean to suggest nor do believe one is intrinsically "better", but certainly, they are "better" than one another for this or that purpose, use, or to the subjective preferences of the user. Given all your experience I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Best,
Keith
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
Hi Paul,
I've got two 4'ers, one 6', one 7', one 9', three 10' and one 11'7" working whips I've felt good enough about not to recycle them; the pile in the pics are the irredeemables. Nevertheless the first whip I felt was good enough to get feedback on is the one above. I've got 3 new one in stages now using, as you suggested, the martyroo recycling here and there. One of the new ones uses bolsters - wanna bet I screw it up despite all the great advice I've gotten here? :0)
I've got two 4'ers, one 6', one 7', one 9', three 10' and one 11'7" working whips I've felt good enough about not to recycle them; the pile in the pics are the irredeemables. Nevertheless the first whip I felt was good enough to get feedback on is the one above. I've got 3 new one in stages now using, as you suggested, the martyroo recycling here and there. One of the new ones uses bolsters - wanna bet I screw it up despite all the great advice I've gotten here? :0)
Re: My first whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, GEN. DESIGN)
Hey Gary,
I wanna see your whip!
I wanna see your whip!
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Louie,
Interesting comments on your blog (and darn cute whip for your little girl!) but I'm still curious to hear your analysis of how 4 -plaited belly whip handles....
And I forgot to mention the taper on your 4 braided belly whip...so smooth.!
Interesting comments on your blog (and darn cute whip for your little girl!) but I'm still curious to hear your analysis of how 4 -plaited belly whip handles....
And I forgot to mention the taper on your 4 braided belly whip...so smooth.!
Last edited by KeepaySF on Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Ok Keith, here's one of my last ones. I wasn't quite happy with the taper, but each one is getting better.
Be gentle....
Be gentle....
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Louie, I tried but just couldn't do it. (4 4 4 4 bellies) I finished the first two and did care for the wider strands that the last two were going to work out as. So it went 4-4-6-8 instead of the previous 4-6-8-10+overlay.
This I call the Bumble Bee and still not happy with the taper exactly and experimented with the two tone. Learned a lot along the way, so I hope the next one will be better.
This I call the Bumble Bee and still not happy with the taper exactly and experimented with the two tone. Learned a lot along the way, so I hope the next one will be better.
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Gary,
The first (black) whip is as you describe for challenges but you failed to mention the unimpeachable hande, textbook Turk's heads, and machine-lathed strand edges....and the thong was probably challenging because it has so much meat in it....it looks like a 40's style blackjack on steriods....look out!
The bumblebee is just terrible, and if you tell me where you live and leave your door unlocked, I swear you'll never have to see it again. Dude that is wicked! It's dynamite...sells itself in 3 seconds.
Can I ask, does it have the "natural curve"? The reason I ask is actually related to some of what you discuss on your website. The no-bolsters whips I make look like they have a "natural coil" just like most whips, but in practice the orientation of the curve is dynamic...it disappears from one surface and where it re-appears just depends on its orientation. It's especially noticeable (no surprise) in the handle/thong junction area....the area is super stiff and gives great support and it always looks like it has a set curve, but the curve doesn't appear to "favor" any particular "side" of the thong, it just rolls out depending on orientation.
Please tell me that made any sense at all....
Anyway, where do you live, which plant has the spare key, and when are you not at home? But seriously, great job!
The first (black) whip is as you describe for challenges but you failed to mention the unimpeachable hande, textbook Turk's heads, and machine-lathed strand edges....and the thong was probably challenging because it has so much meat in it....it looks like a 40's style blackjack on steriods....look out!
The bumblebee is just terrible, and if you tell me where you live and leave your door unlocked, I swear you'll never have to see it again. Dude that is wicked! It's dynamite...sells itself in 3 seconds.
Can I ask, does it have the "natural curve"? The reason I ask is actually related to some of what you discuss on your website. The no-bolsters whips I make look like they have a "natural coil" just like most whips, but in practice the orientation of the curve is dynamic...it disappears from one surface and where it re-appears just depends on its orientation. It's especially noticeable (no surprise) in the handle/thong junction area....the area is super stiff and gives great support and it always looks like it has a set curve, but the curve doesn't appear to "favor" any particular "side" of the thong, it just rolls out depending on orientation.
Please tell me that made any sense at all....
Anyway, where do you live, which plant has the spare key, and when are you not at home? But seriously, great job!
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hey Keith, Thx for the compliments. They're getting better. They are a little heavy for sure and I can't wait until they get broken in to see how they finally fall.
They do have somewhat of a natural curve and that's an interesting subject. I think there is another post on here that talks about that with LemonLauren giving some insightful comments. As for the discussion on my website? I think you have me mixed up with someone else, since I don't have one. If I do, please send me the link, at 53 I may have forgotten it.
Maybe one day.
Thx again and I look forward to seeing your future work.
They do have somewhat of a natural curve and that's an interesting subject. I think there is another post on here that talks about that with LemonLauren giving some insightful comments. As for the discussion on my website? I think you have me mixed up with someone else, since I don't have one. If I do, please send me the link, at 53 I may have forgotten it.
Maybe one day.Thx again and I look forward to seeing your future work.
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Gary,
I apologize...I pasted a line of text where I should have cut!
If you would, please post what you experience as you work the whips...I think the curve issue (now it's an "issue"? I'm probably mischaracterizing it) is a lens on understanding how the "guts" of whips drive their performance. But, and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but inner-whip anatomy and construction seems curiously dogmatized, at least to a fair degree. Clearly there are amazing whips out there with very different "guts." But there have to objectively superior designs and I think much is left undiscussed and unexamined, especially with anything approaching scientific rigor. I'd love to be wrong about that, btw, and if anyone can point me at a website or a study that uses objective, replicatable criteria to compare whip construction, that would be amazing.
Making it all the more difficult, obviously, are the huge variables...the skill of the user, the objectives and skill of the whipmaker, the intended "aptitudes" of the whip (cracking v. target v. stunt v. stage performance v. working v. adult v. durability v. economy etc. etc.) the type and quality of materials, and other stuff I'm probably ignorant of. But just like everyone on this board "gets" that making a core from rope and newspaper = low-quality low performance etc., there must be an objectively-measurable hierarchy of advanced whip construction, again reflective of the big variables above. I have many ideas and several supportive data points, but I'm far from convinced of anything at this point. Frankly, I don't even have a fully-supported hypothesis yet, let alone a theory. It reminds me of something I think Louie said somewhere on here, and I'm paraphrasing so my apologies, but it was something like "that why whipmaking is great: we're all in search of the perfect whip, which doesn't exist."
Please let me know what you think and how your whips perform....and I'm always open to being told I'm totally off base, having grown accustomed to being wrong almost all the time anyway!
Thanks,
Keith
I apologize...I pasted a line of text where I should have cut!
If you would, please post what you experience as you work the whips...I think the curve issue (now it's an "issue"? I'm probably mischaracterizing it) is a lens on understanding how the "guts" of whips drive their performance. But, and please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but inner-whip anatomy and construction seems curiously dogmatized, at least to a fair degree. Clearly there are amazing whips out there with very different "guts." But there have to objectively superior designs and I think much is left undiscussed and unexamined, especially with anything approaching scientific rigor. I'd love to be wrong about that, btw, and if anyone can point me at a website or a study that uses objective, replicatable criteria to compare whip construction, that would be amazing.
Making it all the more difficult, obviously, are the huge variables...the skill of the user, the objectives and skill of the whipmaker, the intended "aptitudes" of the whip (cracking v. target v. stunt v. stage performance v. working v. adult v. durability v. economy etc. etc.) the type and quality of materials, and other stuff I'm probably ignorant of. But just like everyone on this board "gets" that making a core from rope and newspaper = low-quality low performance etc., there must be an objectively-measurable hierarchy of advanced whip construction, again reflective of the big variables above. I have many ideas and several supportive data points, but I'm far from convinced of anything at this point. Frankly, I don't even have a fully-supported hypothesis yet, let alone a theory. It reminds me of something I think Louie said somewhere on here, and I'm paraphrasing so my apologies, but it was something like "that why whipmaking is great: we're all in search of the perfect whip, which doesn't exist."
Please let me know what you think and how your whips perform....and I'm always open to being told I'm totally off base, having grown accustomed to being wrong almost all the time anyway!
Thanks,
Keith
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
The thing with whips is there is no perfect design, because everyone wants something different in a whip. For me and the whips that I like to make, I prefer two bellies and two bolsters. It's a bit lighter of a whip than 4 bellies...Is there anything wrong with four bellies? Nope. Just not for me.
Everyone get's down on the rope core whips and while they are generally low quality and low performance, they are also low cost, and many people get into sport whipcracking through a cheap-o whip (my first whip was a cheap one). So they do have their upside.
What I personally think is a superior design in a whip is a plaited belly (or bellies). Having one, two, three, four, etc plaited bellies will generally give you a better whip than a whip with no plaited bellies. Making a good whip is like making good beer, you bascially have the same ingredients, but it's how you use them. sometimes you add the hops right away (or belly), sometimes you add a lot of hops (or bellies)...sometimes you put some honey in it (or lead shot). It's all what you like.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
Everyone get's down on the rope core whips and while they are generally low quality and low performance, they are also low cost, and many people get into sport whipcracking through a cheap-o whip (my first whip was a cheap one). So they do have their upside.
What I personally think is a superior design in a whip is a plaited belly (or bellies). Having one, two, three, four, etc plaited bellies will generally give you a better whip than a whip with no plaited bellies. Making a good whip is like making good beer, you bascially have the same ingredients, but it's how you use them. sometimes you add the hops right away (or belly), sometimes you add a lot of hops (or bellies)...sometimes you put some honey in it (or lead shot). It's all what you like.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Louie,
Beautifully put. I hope you don't mind that I paraphrased you earlier...I just very much enjoyed your statement (somewhere on COW) on trying for perfection.
Take care,
Keith
Beautifully put. I hope you don't mind that I paraphrased you earlier...I just very much enjoyed your statement (somewhere on COW) on trying for perfection.
Take care,
Keith
-
midwestwhips
- Vendor
- Posts: 504
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:31 pm
- Location: Hollywood, CA
- Contact:
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Keith,
Something else that is a plus for bolsters, that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, is that when they are plaited around tightly and then rolled, the bolsters will be compressed and fill in the air gaps that occur from the braiding not being completely solid and smooth. I'm not referring to gaps in the plaiting (as you should avoid having those), but rather the pockets of air that can be between layers of plaiting. The objective with a whip and the layers of their construction is to create a tapering thong construction that in essence becomes a dense solid piece of flexible leather. Plaiting, no matter how smoothly it is done or how many times it is rolled, will still have very tiny gaps in the smoothness of the circumference (or very tiny ridges if the strands are packed and squished together) where each plaited strand meets the other, so when plaiting with bellies only, the plaited strands are firm and taught from being pulled tightly so there is no give for those strands to form, fit, and fill completely into those tiny gaps and ridges making the bellies of the thong completely and consistently solid through each layer. When you plait over a bolster, you can undo 6 inches of the plaiting and see how the bolster has become indented and patterned by the plaiting both underneath and on top of it, and how the bolster leather has been compressed to the point where it fills in those tiny spaces to make the thong completely and consistently dense and solid, and that is even before it is rolled which will compress it all even more.
Now, that isn't to say that well made whips with only plaited bellies and no bolsters are necessarily inferior at all because of this reason, but it is just something else to think about.
Regarding the "inner-whip anatomy and construction seems curiously dogmatized", and studies of superior whip construction designs being "undiscussed and unexamined", I would have to disagree. Keep in mind that quality whipmaking, specifically when it comes to Kanagaroo whips, has been around since before the late 1800's and even lesser quality whips back as far as the Egyptian Pharaohs! There have been whips made from pulverized Willow trees which were then twisted into a tapered thong, a thick strip of Elephant hide, strips of leather in the core with a leather sewn cover, and recently (as someone pointed out earlier) whips made with plastic trash bags and newspaper as a core. Once Kangaroo hide began to be used in whipmaking in Australia, they started progressing with whipmaking skills utilizing the qualities and properties of kangaroo skin, to advance the quality of whips and whipmaking to what it is today.
It isn't Whipmaking Dogma - there is a very good reason that kangaroo hide whips are constructed in the way that they are today, and also why there isn't a whole lot of variance between different whipmakers' methods when it comes to making the best quality kangaroo hide whips. It is very simply that over the past 150+ years just about every different thing you can think of was tried and tested to come up with the superior construction designs that are the most commonly used by the best whipmakers alive today. There really isn't much of anything in whipmaking techniques that is "new" or has "never been done before". It is good to keep in mind that with the advent of the internet it is now possible to share incredible amounts of information and pictures that have never been widely accessible, so even though something that might seem "new" to the internet, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has never been done before. It just means that it has never been displayed so publicly and world-wide before, in such an accessible format. So, basically the kangaroo hide "whip inside of a whip" construction was found over 150+ years ago to be both the best material available and the best construction process to produce the highest quality and best performing whip. The following 4 points I feel are proof of this:
1) It is still the widest used standard for making top quality whips today.
2) Bullwhips in the U.S., which were primarily made from Cowhide/Latigo without any plaited bellies(whip inside of a whip), suddenly changed their standard construction to the Kangaroo hide "whip inside of a whip" method once the high quality and high performing characteristics of the Australian whips were discovered and brought to the U.S. and became overwhelmingly popular thanks to David Morgan.
3) There are whips that were made over 80+ years ago using this construction still around and in usable condition with the same top notch handling characteristics. Here is a picture of one that is over 80 years old and was used on a ranch in Australia and has been passed down through 3 generations:
4) Not a lot has changed in the design which has stayed consistent in this type of whip for over 100+ years, while the poorer quality designs and constructions that have been tried throughout that time have dropped away and are not used by any of the top whipmakers in the world. Think Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
And as for studies of superior whip construction designs being "undiscussed and unexamined", while it may not have been done publicly and "online" it has very much been done. Speaking from personal experience, MOST of the whipmakers that I know personally and have spoken with are very friendly with each other, know each others work, and have discussed their differing techniques, and they all have experimented with many different ways of constructing their whips to find what methods worked best for them to create the desired finished product.
Again from personal experience, I started out learning not only from the books on whipmaking, but I also spent a great deal of time and money calling/writing whipmakers from around the world to talk shop, discuss techniques, and learn of the different methods that each of the top whipmakers use to make the same high quality roo hide whips. And with each one I spoke to, at the end of the conversation they would referred me to another whipmaker to also talk to, until I eventually had spoken to almost every top quality whipmaker in the world that I had ever heard of, and I had the largest phone bill that I have ever had (and likely will ever have! Lol. Keep in mind that this was before I had ever heard of the internet). After that, I had a huge amount of varying techniques and methods to try, and I got to work experimenting with it all. From using a lace cutter vs. thumbnail cutting, different beveling techniques vs. not beveling at all, using only plaited bellies vs. using bolsters, using pig skin, kip, roo, calf, deer, goat, etc. for bolsters... you get the idea. And through studying and trying all of those different techniques that each of those whipmakers that I talked to use, I found certain things that were constant between them all, and others that didn't make much if any difference.
From what I have found personally the "whip inside a whip" design was an undeniable constant in making the best cracking whips. A whip with no plaited bellies on the inside can crack decently if the person making it is an experienced and professional whipmaker, but really having plaited bellies on the inside is unmatched. When comparing specifically using bolsters and plaited bellies vs. only plaited bellies I have found if both methods are done well there is not really much of a difference, if any at all, in their handling characteristics. Personally I lean more toward using bolsters along with the plaited bellies, but I also make them with only plaited bellies on request. They both handle similarly, feel similar, and have no discernible advantage one way or the other in the majority of whip types. It really comes down to the whipmakers personal preference, as some find it more efficient and that they can produce the desired finished product with only plaited bellies, and others prefer using bolsters along with the plaited bellies. The same thing goes for the number of plaited bellies in a whip. A whip with 8 plaited bellies doesn't necessarily crack better than a whip with 2, it's all about the whipmaker and their skills and experience and their preferences in making the type of whip they like best.
I have discussed all of these things with other whipmakers, and I am certain that without a doubt others have experimented at one time or another with these same concepts. After all, whipmaking wouldn't have progressed to where it is today if the whipmakers of the past hadn't experimented with different methods and constructions.
When it comes to the Indy whip specifically, that is the only time that I will ONLY use the bolster and belly construction. My personal opinion is that it isn't a true Indy whip unless the construction is the same as the original Morgan whips, using the bolsters and bellies. Even though different constructions may look the same on the outside, to me it just isn't an accurate indy whip.
With the bellies and bolsters I would suggest that you continue to do your own experimenting, and find which way works best for you personally to get the desired outcome you want from the finished product. Because if you are looking for any definitive "this is exactly how to make the best and most perfect cracking whip", I'm sorry to say that you'll never find it.
So those things have definitely been discussed and examined, but again, just not necessarily on an online public forum. Although there is more and more of that going on recently, and with the APWA (Australian Plaiters and Whipmakers Association) now having a forum online some of the worlds top whipmakers now have the ability to discuss and share their techniques, tips, and whipmaking thoughts with each other without having to take a very long trip to visit, or rack up an enormous long distance phone bill.
And I'm with Louie, the striving for perfection is the best part about whipmaking. It is an unobtainable goal, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to progress with each and every whip. Experimenting with different techniques is a part of that progress, but learning from field-tested tried-and-true whipmaking practices (including learning from experience the reasons for why they exist and working to be capable of executing those practices with skill) is just as, if not more, important in the grand scheme of learning to make high quality whips.
Good luck to you, and don't stop thinking about all this stuff - it's the ability to analyze and think critically about every whip completed and every step of making each whip that is the mark of a whipmaker that is (or will be someday) truly excellent in his art. Just like with writing in the English language, you need to learn the rules before you can break them.
Regards,
Paul Nolan
www.midwestwhips.com
Something else that is a plus for bolsters, that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, is that when they are plaited around tightly and then rolled, the bolsters will be compressed and fill in the air gaps that occur from the braiding not being completely solid and smooth. I'm not referring to gaps in the plaiting (as you should avoid having those), but rather the pockets of air that can be between layers of plaiting. The objective with a whip and the layers of their construction is to create a tapering thong construction that in essence becomes a dense solid piece of flexible leather. Plaiting, no matter how smoothly it is done or how many times it is rolled, will still have very tiny gaps in the smoothness of the circumference (or very tiny ridges if the strands are packed and squished together) where each plaited strand meets the other, so when plaiting with bellies only, the plaited strands are firm and taught from being pulled tightly so there is no give for those strands to form, fit, and fill completely into those tiny gaps and ridges making the bellies of the thong completely and consistently solid through each layer. When you plait over a bolster, you can undo 6 inches of the plaiting and see how the bolster has become indented and patterned by the plaiting both underneath and on top of it, and how the bolster leather has been compressed to the point where it fills in those tiny spaces to make the thong completely and consistently dense and solid, and that is even before it is rolled which will compress it all even more.
Now, that isn't to say that well made whips with only plaited bellies and no bolsters are necessarily inferior at all because of this reason, but it is just something else to think about.
Regarding the "inner-whip anatomy and construction seems curiously dogmatized", and studies of superior whip construction designs being "undiscussed and unexamined", I would have to disagree. Keep in mind that quality whipmaking, specifically when it comes to Kanagaroo whips, has been around since before the late 1800's and even lesser quality whips back as far as the Egyptian Pharaohs! There have been whips made from pulverized Willow trees which were then twisted into a tapered thong, a thick strip of Elephant hide, strips of leather in the core with a leather sewn cover, and recently (as someone pointed out earlier) whips made with plastic trash bags and newspaper as a core. Once Kangaroo hide began to be used in whipmaking in Australia, they started progressing with whipmaking skills utilizing the qualities and properties of kangaroo skin, to advance the quality of whips and whipmaking to what it is today.
It isn't Whipmaking Dogma - there is a very good reason that kangaroo hide whips are constructed in the way that they are today, and also why there isn't a whole lot of variance between different whipmakers' methods when it comes to making the best quality kangaroo hide whips. It is very simply that over the past 150+ years just about every different thing you can think of was tried and tested to come up with the superior construction designs that are the most commonly used by the best whipmakers alive today. There really isn't much of anything in whipmaking techniques that is "new" or has "never been done before". It is good to keep in mind that with the advent of the internet it is now possible to share incredible amounts of information and pictures that have never been widely accessible, so even though something that might seem "new" to the internet, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has never been done before. It just means that it has never been displayed so publicly and world-wide before, in such an accessible format. So, basically the kangaroo hide "whip inside of a whip" construction was found over 150+ years ago to be both the best material available and the best construction process to produce the highest quality and best performing whip. The following 4 points I feel are proof of this:
1) It is still the widest used standard for making top quality whips today.
2) Bullwhips in the U.S., which were primarily made from Cowhide/Latigo without any plaited bellies(whip inside of a whip), suddenly changed their standard construction to the Kangaroo hide "whip inside of a whip" method once the high quality and high performing characteristics of the Australian whips were discovered and brought to the U.S. and became overwhelmingly popular thanks to David Morgan.
3) There are whips that were made over 80+ years ago using this construction still around and in usable condition with the same top notch handling characteristics. Here is a picture of one that is over 80 years old and was used on a ranch in Australia and has been passed down through 3 generations:
4) Not a lot has changed in the design which has stayed consistent in this type of whip for over 100+ years, while the poorer quality designs and constructions that have been tried throughout that time have dropped away and are not used by any of the top whipmakers in the world. Think Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest.
And as for studies of superior whip construction designs being "undiscussed and unexamined", while it may not have been done publicly and "online" it has very much been done. Speaking from personal experience, MOST of the whipmakers that I know personally and have spoken with are very friendly with each other, know each others work, and have discussed their differing techniques, and they all have experimented with many different ways of constructing their whips to find what methods worked best for them to create the desired finished product.
Again from personal experience, I started out learning not only from the books on whipmaking, but I also spent a great deal of time and money calling/writing whipmakers from around the world to talk shop, discuss techniques, and learn of the different methods that each of the top whipmakers use to make the same high quality roo hide whips. And with each one I spoke to, at the end of the conversation they would referred me to another whipmaker to also talk to, until I eventually had spoken to almost every top quality whipmaker in the world that I had ever heard of, and I had the largest phone bill that I have ever had (and likely will ever have! Lol. Keep in mind that this was before I had ever heard of the internet). After that, I had a huge amount of varying techniques and methods to try, and I got to work experimenting with it all. From using a lace cutter vs. thumbnail cutting, different beveling techniques vs. not beveling at all, using only plaited bellies vs. using bolsters, using pig skin, kip, roo, calf, deer, goat, etc. for bolsters... you get the idea. And through studying and trying all of those different techniques that each of those whipmakers that I talked to use, I found certain things that were constant between them all, and others that didn't make much if any difference.
From what I have found personally the "whip inside a whip" design was an undeniable constant in making the best cracking whips. A whip with no plaited bellies on the inside can crack decently if the person making it is an experienced and professional whipmaker, but really having plaited bellies on the inside is unmatched. When comparing specifically using bolsters and plaited bellies vs. only plaited bellies I have found if both methods are done well there is not really much of a difference, if any at all, in their handling characteristics. Personally I lean more toward using bolsters along with the plaited bellies, but I also make them with only plaited bellies on request. They both handle similarly, feel similar, and have no discernible advantage one way or the other in the majority of whip types. It really comes down to the whipmakers personal preference, as some find it more efficient and that they can produce the desired finished product with only plaited bellies, and others prefer using bolsters along with the plaited bellies. The same thing goes for the number of plaited bellies in a whip. A whip with 8 plaited bellies doesn't necessarily crack better than a whip with 2, it's all about the whipmaker and their skills and experience and their preferences in making the type of whip they like best.
I have discussed all of these things with other whipmakers, and I am certain that without a doubt others have experimented at one time or another with these same concepts. After all, whipmaking wouldn't have progressed to where it is today if the whipmakers of the past hadn't experimented with different methods and constructions.
When it comes to the Indy whip specifically, that is the only time that I will ONLY use the bolster and belly construction. My personal opinion is that it isn't a true Indy whip unless the construction is the same as the original Morgan whips, using the bolsters and bellies. Even though different constructions may look the same on the outside, to me it just isn't an accurate indy whip.
With the bellies and bolsters I would suggest that you continue to do your own experimenting, and find which way works best for you personally to get the desired outcome you want from the finished product. Because if you are looking for any definitive "this is exactly how to make the best and most perfect cracking whip", I'm sorry to say that you'll never find it.
So those things have definitely been discussed and examined, but again, just not necessarily on an online public forum. Although there is more and more of that going on recently, and with the APWA (Australian Plaiters and Whipmakers Association) now having a forum online some of the worlds top whipmakers now have the ability to discuss and share their techniques, tips, and whipmaking thoughts with each other without having to take a very long trip to visit, or rack up an enormous long distance phone bill.
And I'm with Louie, the striving for perfection is the best part about whipmaking. It is an unobtainable goal, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to progress with each and every whip. Experimenting with different techniques is a part of that progress, but learning from field-tested tried-and-true whipmaking practices (including learning from experience the reasons for why they exist and working to be capable of executing those practices with skill) is just as, if not more, important in the grand scheme of learning to make high quality whips.
Good luck to you, and don't stop thinking about all this stuff - it's the ability to analyze and think critically about every whip completed and every step of making each whip that is the mark of a whipmaker that is (or will be someday) truly excellent in his art. Just like with writing in the English language, you need to learn the rules before you can break them.
Regards,
Paul Nolan
www.midwestwhips.com
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Paul nailed it!
louie
louie
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Great post Paul, I'm copying that to a Word doc. Thank you!!!
Gary
Gary
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
oops, please see below
Last edited by KeepaySF on Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hey there Paul! I hope you had a great trip!
First, thanks very much for the extensive and broad response....putting everyone's thoughts together on this topic, I have to take a step back to comment on the collective wisdom and willingness to share that is on display here...it's deeply admirable, singular, and frankly, priceless.
Now, I've up to this point ladled sugar and cream on all my posts and loudly advertised my ignorance, genuine and deep respect for the whipmakers here, and personal capacity for stupidity. I've provided caveats and disparagement to my own ideas and approaches. None of that, however, seems to have ameliorated the prose in contest to my proposition, which I think indicates my attempts to question without stimulating personalization reactions failed. Add that you are Paul Nolan, the biggest, baddest dog to bark my direction, that I've dealt with you quite a bit and hold you in the highest esteem, and that you've toolshedded me () ), I'll think I'll dispense with the surgarcoating this time.
I concede your point on the value of other resources such as the AWPA, and I've read volumes from their whipmaking forum along with other material from relevant forums (turk's heads comes to mind.) Whipmaker's personal sites and blogs can similarly provide excellent information, as of course do the Morgan and Edwards "bibles" and lesser know books like Dennis Rush's Whipmaking , etc. I further concede that the "whip-inside-a-whip" design is in all likelihood an improvement over older designs (and vastly so). Finally, I concede at least the partial applicability of Darwinian evolution by natural selection to whipmaking and current design consensus.
However..
You propose (1) that the occurance of ongoing, in-depth whipmaking discussions and debate between highly skilled professionals demonstrates evidence to support the superiority of using bolsters. You also suggest (2) that the broad dissemination and acceptance of the whip-within-a-whip, bolstered design, i.e. that a large majority of whipmakers learned and embraced the approach, ADDED to the fact that it's changed little in a century, provide further evidence of it's superiority. You also state (3) that studies of whip construction have, in fact, occurred, ("...it has very much been done...") and that reason, not dogmatism, rules.
All of these beliefs are false.
Discussion and debate (point 1) has clear merit, has no doubt been an important driver of real progress, and provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Opinion, when not supported by tested evidence, is not proof, however informed and valuable, period. Asserting opinion where tested evidence is required is a non-starter. Duration (point 2) of a steady-state in whip morphology (~100 years in this case) sounds impressive, but concluding it therefore proves that an apex design has been achieved requires dependence on untested assumptions, circular reasoning, and ignores other possibilities. It may be that an apex design has been reached and so we see no further evolution. Or it may also be due to a lack of new ideas, or a dearth of competition, or a value of consistency over innovation, or raw material constraints, fashion trends, government regulation, secretive cabals, unicorns, witches casting magic spells, or (!) lack of selection pressure (i.e. competition) or a thousand other hypothetical reasons. In any case, another reasonable explanation might be that it was simply better than previous designs (thereby gaining acceptance) and went unchanged because it is good enough (enabling duration). Furthermore, applying "survival of the fittest", i.e. evolution by natural selection, is quite canny but it actually backfires. Lack of inherited modification is nearly always exclusive to extinct species, with 99% of all species in history now extinct. One-hundred years is, to put it mildly, insufficient to demonstrate ultimate resistance to selection pressure. In any case, further study would be required before any claims to evidence would be credible.
As for (3), this is probably a difference of terms. I'm sure you're right that tons of work as been devoted to these questions. But a study? I'm sorry, but there has never been a blinded, peer reviewed study on this topic anywhere. In point of fact, there is absolutely no non-subjective material, let alone actual studies, that provides a shred of supporting evidence, even at the most minimal investigatorial standards, in support of using bolsters. There isn't even metaphorical evidentiary support, something the opposing proposition can at least claim. As for dogma, when you have any idea "X" being followed without evidence and being aggressively defended in spite of the absence of objective supportive material, it is accurate to characterize it, as I did above, as dogmatic. "My" proposal is based on hunches, the experience of 18 months and 2 dozen or so whips, half of which have been gutted and autopsied, and engineering, quality control and 14 years of martial arts. I have to admit it's actually more likely than not that I'm wrong, but either way, evidence has to be the determining factor.
Finally (4) you assert that all-braided belly construction has "...no discernible advantage one way or the other in the majority of whip types." This could be true, and while again "only" an informed opinion, not evidence, it does provide a testable condition that could produce factual, rigorous and repeatable results ( i.e. evidence.) It could be the path to a meaningful comparitive study.
A bit more....
You suggest that bolsters fill "...very tiny gaps..." that result from braiding that is not completely solid and smooth and that, in so doing, the bolster makes the thong "...completely and consistently dense and solid..."; I suggest that this bold conclusion is, in fact, in logical opposition to more probable outcomes. First, only if the bolster is made from the same materials as the braiding, is split (or not) just like the strands, and is oiled and stretched identically as the strands, might it function as you suggest during use. This is because the ultimate density of the bolster, even if, say, it is made of kangaroo hide in a kangaroo whip, is highly unlikely to match the density of the rest of whip OR be itself internally consistent. So the whip has materials of at least 2 different densities (more likely a large range of densities depending on how "compressed" a given area of bolster is) making it more likely softer, not firmer, than rigorously applied braided bellies. Moreover, mushed bolster might fill those gaps but could very well act like dirty motor oil or arterial plaque that slows performance, compromise consistency, and invites long-term ambiguation of joint integrity within strand links.
I'm coming at this with a hypothesis that bolsters are an economical and expeditious means to absorb errors in construction and otherwise augment appearance, but the only improvement they provide is esthetic (i.e. visual and tactile) - they disguise problems rather then correcting them, artificially boost girth for esthetic reasons, and compromise performance and durability. Worse still, it's inactive, dead material that saps the energy transfer ability of the plaiting.
Of course, now I have to find evidence and prove it, or more likely just prove myself wrong, either outcome being equally valuable and worthwhile. Meanwhile, I'm working on an Indy right now that uses bolsters following all the specific advice I've been given here VERY closely...this is great stuff. I'll be back in another couple dozen whips or so, probably with egg on my face, but that's life.
First, thanks very much for the extensive and broad response....putting everyone's thoughts together on this topic, I have to take a step back to comment on the collective wisdom and willingness to share that is on display here...it's deeply admirable, singular, and frankly, priceless.
Now, I've up to this point ladled sugar and cream on all my posts and loudly advertised my ignorance, genuine and deep respect for the whipmakers here, and personal capacity for stupidity. I've provided caveats and disparagement to my own ideas and approaches. None of that, however, seems to have ameliorated the prose in contest to my proposition, which I think indicates my attempts to question without stimulating personalization reactions failed. Add that you are Paul Nolan, the biggest, baddest dog to bark my direction, that I've dealt with you quite a bit and hold you in the highest esteem, and that you've toolshedded me (
) ), I'll think I'll dispense with the surgarcoating this time.I concede your point on the value of other resources such as the AWPA, and I've read volumes from their whipmaking forum along with other material from relevant forums (turk's heads comes to mind.) Whipmaker's personal sites and blogs can similarly provide excellent information, as of course do the Morgan and Edwards "bibles" and lesser know books like Dennis Rush's Whipmaking , etc. I further concede that the "whip-inside-a-whip" design is in all likelihood an improvement over older designs (and vastly so). Finally, I concede at least the partial applicability of Darwinian evolution by natural selection to whipmaking and current design consensus.
However..
You propose (1) that the occurance of ongoing, in-depth whipmaking discussions and debate between highly skilled professionals demonstrates evidence to support the superiority of using bolsters. You also suggest (2) that the broad dissemination and acceptance of the whip-within-a-whip, bolstered design, i.e. that a large majority of whipmakers learned and embraced the approach, ADDED to the fact that it's changed little in a century, provide further evidence of it's superiority. You also state (3) that studies of whip construction have, in fact, occurred, ("...it has very much been done...") and that reason, not dogmatism, rules.
All of these beliefs are false.
Discussion and debate (point 1) has clear merit, has no doubt been an important driver of real progress, and provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Opinion, when not supported by tested evidence, is not proof, however informed and valuable, period. Asserting opinion where tested evidence is required is a non-starter. Duration (point 2) of a steady-state in whip morphology (~100 years in this case) sounds impressive, but concluding it therefore proves that an apex design has been achieved requires dependence on untested assumptions, circular reasoning, and ignores other possibilities. It may be that an apex design has been reached and so we see no further evolution. Or it may also be due to a lack of new ideas, or a dearth of competition, or a value of consistency over innovation, or raw material constraints, fashion trends, government regulation, secretive cabals, unicorns, witches casting magic spells, or (!) lack of selection pressure (i.e. competition) or a thousand other hypothetical reasons. In any case, another reasonable explanation might be that it was simply better than previous designs (thereby gaining acceptance) and went unchanged because it is good enough (enabling duration). Furthermore, applying "survival of the fittest", i.e. evolution by natural selection, is quite canny but it actually backfires. Lack of inherited modification is nearly always exclusive to extinct species, with 99% of all species in history now extinct. One-hundred years is, to put it mildly, insufficient to demonstrate ultimate resistance to selection pressure. In any case, further study would be required before any claims to evidence would be credible.
As for (3), this is probably a difference of terms. I'm sure you're right that tons of work as been devoted to these questions. But a study? I'm sorry, but there has never been a blinded, peer reviewed study on this topic anywhere. In point of fact, there is absolutely no non-subjective material, let alone actual studies, that provides a shred of supporting evidence, even at the most minimal investigatorial standards, in support of using bolsters. There isn't even metaphorical evidentiary support, something the opposing proposition can at least claim. As for dogma, when you have any idea "X" being followed without evidence and being aggressively defended in spite of the absence of objective supportive material, it is accurate to characterize it, as I did above, as dogmatic. "My" proposal is based on hunches, the experience of 18 months and 2 dozen or so whips, half of which have been gutted and autopsied, and engineering, quality control and 14 years of martial arts. I have to admit it's actually more likely than not that I'm wrong, but either way, evidence has to be the determining factor.
Finally (4) you assert that all-braided belly construction has "...no discernible advantage one way or the other in the majority of whip types." This could be true, and while again "only" an informed opinion, not evidence, it does provide a testable condition that could produce factual, rigorous and repeatable results ( i.e. evidence.) It could be the path to a meaningful comparitive study.
A bit more....
You suggest that bolsters fill "...very tiny gaps..." that result from braiding that is not completely solid and smooth and that, in so doing, the bolster makes the thong "...completely and consistently dense and solid..."; I suggest that this bold conclusion is, in fact, in logical opposition to more probable outcomes. First, only if the bolster is made from the same materials as the braiding, is split (or not) just like the strands, and is oiled and stretched identically as the strands, might it function as you suggest during use. This is because the ultimate density of the bolster, even if, say, it is made of kangaroo hide in a kangaroo whip, is highly unlikely to match the density of the rest of whip OR be itself internally consistent. So the whip has materials of at least 2 different densities (more likely a large range of densities depending on how "compressed" a given area of bolster is) making it more likely softer, not firmer, than rigorously applied braided bellies. Moreover, mushed bolster might fill those gaps but could very well act like dirty motor oil or arterial plaque that slows performance, compromise consistency, and invites long-term ambiguation of joint integrity within strand links.
I'm coming at this with a hypothesis that bolsters are an economical and expeditious means to absorb errors in construction and otherwise augment appearance, but the only improvement they provide is esthetic (i.e. visual and tactile) - they disguise problems rather then correcting them, artificially boost girth for esthetic reasons, and compromise performance and durability. Worse still, it's inactive, dead material that saps the energy transfer ability of the plaiting.
Of course, now I have to find evidence and prove it, or more likely just prove myself wrong, either outcome being equally valuable and worthwhile. Meanwhile, I'm working on an Indy right now that uses bolsters following all the specific advice I've been given here VERY closely...this is great stuff. I'll be back in another couple dozen whips or so, probably with egg on my face, but that's life.
Last edited by KeepaySF on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
The problem with any scientific testing of a bullwhip is that because a no two hides are exactly the same, and they are made by a human. You could have three whips, two with only plaited bellies and one with bolsters and over time you might find that one of the plaited bellies is the worst and one is the best.
There are things other than the method of construction at play here.
Personally with a whip I think that informed opinion is as close to provable evidence you can get with a whip.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
There are things other than the method of construction at play here.
Personally with a whip I think that informed opinion is as close to provable evidence you can get with a whip.
xoxo
Louie
http://bullwhips.org
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Louie,
That couldn't be more important, I agree. You'd also need a mechanism that performs the chosen throw or throws in exactly the same way every time, a set of performance criteria that provide data relevant to the question, and a means of capturing that data.
On your point, I agree it's a serious challenge but I think it can be managed, based on this: https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/downloads/02-105.pdf
Thanks for pointing to that!
That couldn't be more important, I agree. You'd also need a mechanism that performs the chosen throw or throws in exactly the same way every time, a set of performance criteria that provide data relevant to the question, and a means of capturing that data.
On your point, I agree it's a serious challenge but I think it can be managed, based on this: https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/downloads/02-105.pdf
Thanks for pointing to that!
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
WOW!!! You guys are way above my head on this.....
Keith, This isn't related to the subject, but I think you'll like the read (are you a sceintist or something?) I'm sure you've seen it though.
http://math.arizona.edu/~goriely/Papers ... (whip).pdf
Gary![8-[]](./images/smilies/Magnoli.gif "Magnoli")
Keith, This isn't related to the subject, but I think you'll like the read (are you a sceintist or something?) I'm sure you've seen it though.
http://math.arizona.edu/~goriely/Papers ... (whip).pdf
Gary
-
midwestwhips
- Vendor
- Posts: 504
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 2:31 pm
- Location: Hollywood, CA
- Contact:
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Keith,
I first have to apologize for not being as clear about what I was saying as I was hoping I would be. It seems that driving for 15 hours, getting no sleep, and hardly eating the whole time didn't help with the tone of my post either. I was in no way "tool shedding" you (never heard that term before, lol). And my response wasn't intended as a personalized reaction. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussion on this topic, and I am very pleased to see more in depth discussions and thoughts on these finer points of whipmaking theory out in the public. After all, if we don't constantly analyze, think, and brainstorm then there will never be any more progress with whipmaking in the future.
I also mistakenly used the word proof, when I should have used evidence or support. Proof implies that a 100% indisputable answer where the outcome can be repeated 100% over and over again. In reality that just isn't the case. And also, that section of my post was referring not specifically to "bolsters", but to the evolution of the "whip inside of a whip" design (plaited bellies both with or without bolsters). And I am actually almost certain that the 80 year old whip pictured does NOT have any bolsters in it. I actually have in hand a collection of 12 whips made by that same whipmaker, who I have been extensively researching for over 8 years now, which range from 50-70+ years old and I have been studying them for the past 6 months. From what I have found so far, it looks to be that they are a mix of both having bolsters as well as no bolsters in their plaited belly constructions. So, using plaited bellies only is by far not a new thing.
To sum up the point of my post and what I was trying to get across:
The "whip inside of a whip" construction (using kangaroo and plaited bellies with or without using bolsters), has been the result of progress from using all of the different methods which have been tried and discarded over the past few centuries up to this point to come to the basic construction design that is being used today.
What I wrote specifically regarding using bolsters in the "whip inside a whip" design was just some of my personal thoughts from my personal experience only, and is in no way "Dogmatic". And the reason I disagree with the term "Dogmatic" being used in relation to modern day whipmaking, is if you talk all of the professional whipmakers out there or read what they have written in regards to whipmaking advice, they almost always say something along the lines of, "This is the way I do it, there are other ways to do it as well, this way works best for me, but you should experiment yourself and find what works best for you." There is no ABSOLUTE right and wrong way to make a whip.
So, I don't see how that can be construed as "Dogmatic", or that anyone is telling you that you can only do it one way, or that there is only one "right" way to make a whip.
In fact your inquisition, analyzing, and discussion is something I applaud, which is what I was trying to say at the end of my previous post:
As far as any new progressions in whip design, nylon seems to be the next thing, although it is still in it's infancy. When I first saw nylon whips pop up on scene they were pretty poor performing. My personal theory on that is that many of the nylon whipmakers started out with nylon because it was cheaper than starting with leather or kangaroo, so they were coming from absolutely no experience of how a well made whip should be crafted, feel, and should handle and perform. But over the years there have been a handful of nylon whipmakers who have gained quite a bit of experience over those years and they now make very good cracking nylon whips.
The experience thing really plays a MAJOR part in whipmaking. One of my favorite examples to use is Adam Winrich's IOAB. There are plenty of 4 plait cowhide whips with no plaited bellies available out there, and they almost all have extremely poor handling and performing characteristics. But Adam's IOAB is THE BEST cracking 4 plait cowhide whip featuring zero plaited bellies that I have ever cracked. And the reason for this is no special secret in design construction - it is instead completely due to the fact that Adam is an accomplished high quality whipmaker who has both the knowledge, experience, and capability to make a whip that cracks well. On top of that he is an extremely accomplished whipcracker who knows what is needed to make a whip crack well. And from that incredible base of experience that he has, he was able to design and build a simple cheap 4 plait whip that not only looks good, but is well and tightly plaited, and has an excellent balance and taper! If you were to get someone who has never made a whip, or has only made a handful of whips to make that exact same whip that exact same way, it just wouldn't be as good of a whip.
So experimentation is great, but as evidenced by such a simple construction as Adam's IOAB whip, in the end what really matters is experience over almost anything else (including bolsters, bellies, materials, etc...). I believe it was David Morgan that told me once, years ago, something along the lines of, "After you've made 1,000 whips, you start to get the idea of what it takes to make a good whip," and it wasn't until after I made over 1,000 whips that I understood EXACTLY what he meant.
When I first started there were parts of construction that I would dwell on, trying to change a dozen little things, wondering if something different might work a little better, etc. But after many years of making whips, building my experience, and continuing to research the history of whips and whipmaking, I now know that many of those things I worried myself to sleep over are much less significant than I first thought. And I am still learning, still finding answers to questions I've had, and still finding questions I had that weren't even necessarily relevant. It's all a process, and like I said - I applaud your motivation and critical thinking.
And again, I apologize if my post came across in any way other than it was intended: my personal thoughts and opinions being shared in the context of a calm and friendly discussion.
Regards,
Paul Nolan
www.midwestwhips.com
I first have to apologize for not being as clear about what I was saying as I was hoping I would be. It seems that driving for 15 hours, getting no sleep, and hardly eating the whole time didn't help with the tone of my post either. I was in no way "tool shedding" you (never heard that term before, lol). And my response wasn't intended as a personalized reaction. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the discussion on this topic, and I am very pleased to see more in depth discussions and thoughts on these finer points of whipmaking theory out in the public. After all, if we don't constantly analyze, think, and brainstorm then there will never be any more progress with whipmaking in the future.
I also mistakenly used the word proof, when I should have used evidence or support. Proof implies that a 100% indisputable answer where the outcome can be repeated 100% over and over again. In reality that just isn't the case. And also, that section of my post was referring not specifically to "bolsters", but to the evolution of the "whip inside of a whip" design (plaited bellies both with or without bolsters). And I am actually almost certain that the 80 year old whip pictured does NOT have any bolsters in it. I actually have in hand a collection of 12 whips made by that same whipmaker, who I have been extensively researching for over 8 years now, which range from 50-70+ years old and I have been studying them for the past 6 months. From what I have found so far, it looks to be that they are a mix of both having bolsters as well as no bolsters in their plaited belly constructions. So, using plaited bellies only is by far not a new thing.
To sum up the point of my post and what I was trying to get across:
The "whip inside of a whip" construction (using kangaroo and plaited bellies with or without using bolsters), has been the result of progress from using all of the different methods which have been tried and discarded over the past few centuries up to this point to come to the basic construction design that is being used today.
What I wrote specifically regarding using bolsters in the "whip inside a whip" design was just some of my personal thoughts from my personal experience only, and is in no way "Dogmatic". And the reason I disagree with the term "Dogmatic" being used in relation to modern day whipmaking, is if you talk all of the professional whipmakers out there or read what they have written in regards to whipmaking advice, they almost always say something along the lines of, "This is the way I do it, there are other ways to do it as well, this way works best for me, but you should experiment yourself and find what works best for you." There is no ABSOLUTE right and wrong way to make a whip.
So, I don't see how that can be construed as "Dogmatic", or that anyone is telling you that you can only do it one way, or that there is only one "right" way to make a whip.
In fact your inquisition, analyzing, and discussion is something I applaud, which is what I was trying to say at the end of my previous post:
Basically, it is important to not just take and learn how things are done today at face value as the only way to do it. We must not only learn from our past of how they make whips, but also the reasons why they are made the way they are, and why a multitude of other methods that were tried have been discarded, and experiencing it yourself (learning the rules), and then once you have that understanding and experience you can then try to come up with new ideas that might not have been tried before in an attempt to progress whipmaking to the next level (breaking the rules). Which sounds like that is exactly what you working toward doing, which again is great! That is one important part of what makes the difference between a good whipmaker and a GREAT whipmaker. And it sounds like you are on the right track."Good luck to you, and don't stop thinking about all this stuff - it's the ability to analyze and think critically about every whip completed and every step of making each whip that is the mark of a whipmaker that is (or will be someday) truly excellent in his art. Just like with writing in the English language, you need to learn the rules before you can break them."
As far as any new progressions in whip design, nylon seems to be the next thing, although it is still in it's infancy. When I first saw nylon whips pop up on scene they were pretty poor performing. My personal theory on that is that many of the nylon whipmakers started out with nylon because it was cheaper than starting with leather or kangaroo, so they were coming from absolutely no experience of how a well made whip should be crafted, feel, and should handle and perform. But over the years there have been a handful of nylon whipmakers who have gained quite a bit of experience over those years and they now make very good cracking nylon whips.
The experience thing really plays a MAJOR part in whipmaking. One of my favorite examples to use is Adam Winrich's IOAB. There are plenty of 4 plait cowhide whips with no plaited bellies available out there, and they almost all have extremely poor handling and performing characteristics. But Adam's IOAB is THE BEST cracking 4 plait cowhide whip featuring zero plaited bellies that I have ever cracked. And the reason for this is no special secret in design construction - it is instead completely due to the fact that Adam is an accomplished high quality whipmaker who has both the knowledge, experience, and capability to make a whip that cracks well. On top of that he is an extremely accomplished whipcracker who knows what is needed to make a whip crack well. And from that incredible base of experience that he has, he was able to design and build a simple cheap 4 plait whip that not only looks good, but is well and tightly plaited, and has an excellent balance and taper! If you were to get someone who has never made a whip, or has only made a handful of whips to make that exact same whip that exact same way, it just wouldn't be as good of a whip.
So experimentation is great, but as evidenced by such a simple construction as Adam's IOAB whip, in the end what really matters is experience over almost anything else (including bolsters, bellies, materials, etc...). I believe it was David Morgan that told me once, years ago, something along the lines of, "After you've made 1,000 whips, you start to get the idea of what it takes to make a good whip," and it wasn't until after I made over 1,000 whips that I understood EXACTLY what he meant.
When I first started there were parts of construction that I would dwell on, trying to change a dozen little things, wondering if something different might work a little better, etc. But after many years of making whips, building my experience, and continuing to research the history of whips and whipmaking, I now know that many of those things I worried myself to sleep over are much less significant than I first thought. And I am still learning, still finding answers to questions I've had, and still finding questions I had that weren't even necessarily relevant. It's all a process, and like I said - I applaud your motivation and critical thinking.
And again, I apologize if my post came across in any way other than it was intended: my personal thoughts and opinions being shared in the context of a calm and friendly discussion.
Regards,
Paul Nolan
www.midwestwhips.com
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Gary,
I'd not seen that....excellent resource! THANKS!
I'd not seen that....excellent resource! THANKS!
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Hi Paul,
There can be no question that you're correct....experience above all. Current research across multiple disciplines (from chess to basketball to diamond cutting) states that expertise requires in the ballpark of (with surprising, but not total, similarity) 10,000 hours of experience to reach "expert" level proficiency....that's 1,250 8-hour (not that you work only 8 hours day obviously) days or about 3-4 solid, focused years of work (plus necessary feedback, revision, etc.). Obviously, you surpassed that level a long time ago.
Great feedback as always!
There can be no question that you're correct....experience above all. Current research across multiple disciplines (from chess to basketball to diamond cutting) states that expertise requires in the ballpark of (with surprising, but not total, similarity) 10,000 hours of experience to reach "expert" level proficiency....that's 1,250 8-hour (not that you work only 8 hours day obviously) days or about 3-4 solid, focused years of work (plus necessary feedback, revision, etc.). Obviously, you surpassed that level a long time ago.
Great feedback as always!
-
Gary Williams
- Dig Worker
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: My first (presentable) whip (BOLSTERS V. PLAITED BELLIES, +)
Keith, You're very welcome and I couldn't help but notice in the picture above that you have all that cut lace hanging about, cluttering up your area. You can ship that to me and I'll even kick in a little postage.....heheheheeee 