The Stored Energy/Poundage curve tells more of the story. Both bows start out toward the bottom of the pack, and just never claw it back. In a field of bows with levers on the ends resulting in fat mid-range power bands, I'm just impressed neither were at the bottom. The Warbow managed to beat out the lowest performer in this category we've ever tested, the Elong Yuan, by just a whisker. The longbow actually managed to finish in the middle of the pack, beating out quite a few other bows. In both cases though, this is attributable to the other bows beginning to stack rather than the longbows gaining efficiency toward the end of the draw. Had we run these tests at only 29", the Warbow would have been stone dead last and the Longbow only would have beaten the Elong Yuan and Grozer. Fair is fair though, and more than a few of us were both surprised and impressed. As long standing "Asiatic elitists" confident in the superiority of our advanced bow designs, the fact that these much simpler bows are contenders came as a real surprise.
There is one final hurdle: the chrono. Surprisingly though, the JZW Manchu actually has the highest mass, so we may be in for a surprise there as well. There is also a question of safe minimum GPP. In the world of Asiatic bows, GPP is a real focus for reasons of bow durability/longevity. Surprisingly, speaking to the bowyer who supplied these two bows however, it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. He must have sold hundreds of bows by now, but in our conversations revealed a very low failure rate and little concern for GPP. Perhaps I've simply not found the right source, but technical data on English longbows seems to be pretty scarce. 10GPP doesn't seem uncommon, and 3-4GPP in flight shooting is often mentioned as well, without the expected disclaimers of short bow life. Given historical arrow and draw weights, 10GPP even starts to sound conservative. Is the wood or the bow design itself better able to reabsorb excess energy than modern laminates? Are the bows just extremely efficient for their physical mass? What is a safe efficiency level? And lets remember something else important: efficiency doesn't scale. If your bow is 70% efficient and stores 20 foot pounds, it'll have to reabsorb 6 foot pounds. If your bow stores 200 foot pounds and is 70% efficient, it'll have to reabsorb 60 foot pounds. Modern glass and carbon composite Asiatic bows use the same glass and carbon laminates and vary core thickness to adjust poundage (for the most part). They also often fail at the glue joints. This means, despite identical efficiency, essentially the same working material and weak points have to absorb an order of magnitude more energy. This might have something to do with why very few Asiatic bowyers will make modern composite bows at any serious poundage. A notable exception is YMG, whose bows' performance and durability are legend, and they are far and away my favorite brand of bow. If you'll pardon the mild digression, the point is that EWBs are much more cost effective to manufacture, so are available at much more accessible prices in authentic materials and likewise should be expected to perform on par with their historical counterparts. So if a warbow is 180 pounds and shoots a 1750 grain arrow, that is 10GPP on the nose at the upper limits of poundage.