I see that the thread 'Limb Design' in Archery Forum Australia which precipitated this has degenerated into puerile inanity. Not sure how this reflects on the "Science" of the opinions expressed, but suppose it means their influence will be negligible.
the thinking behind leverage vs efficent use of materials comes down to limb mass.
if the leverage provides more stored energy, but the stored energy is so incumberd by the mass of the limb, then there is NO point in increasing the leverage. (klopsteg)
this would be Parks point, i beleave, with the likes of even distribution of stress along the limb.
where as Adock, with his ACS design, argued that with light mass outer limbs the
Longbow could keep up with recurves.
the ACS concept stiffens the outer limb without adding mass. (by shape)
So my point is that use of materials impacts on the bias of the maths.
if you have materials that allow you to stiffen the limb without adding extra mass, then the bias changes.
if you have materials that reduce the limb mass by a WHOPPING amount, then the bias changes.
for example if the stored energy increases faster than the mass increases then its worth doing.
Carbon is ALOT stronger than glass, and glass is alot stronger than wood.
this strength can equal limb mass reduction.
so look at the changes in limb design when moving to a glass limb from a wood limb.
so why is carbon stuck to the same old designs as glass limb.
either that or its a different issue, such as mass production not wanting to change its production line... and with market dominance, why bother...