Interestig, though pro Mer'cs would undertand kit more...  that's what they were paid for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ONNJ4HIIE

Nice find

Interesting - in many ways this 2nd video might be of more interest - partly because the replica medieval Xbow appears to have been much better made (e.g. the windlass is replicated properly - so that the draw-cords run up the outside of the crossbow stock, keeping it aligned and also the bow string is of significantly better quality.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoVmc12vEs
Also the use of modern tech to measure velocity and momentum is valuable.

Back in my 'serious' re-enactment phase we (the White Company and Co.St,George) ran a number of structured weapons tests paid for by the for Royal Armouries. Held at an official shooting range at Portmouth.

We put the following western medieval missile weapons through various comparison tests:
Self-bow
Longbow (using a number of different types of arrow-head types)
Hand-drawn crossbow
Stirrup crossbow
Windlass crossbow
Cranequin crossbow
and finally a C15th replica hand-gun (early type of gunpowder harquebus)

They were all shot at sheets of 2mm thick plate steel over pre-set ranges - we recorded the numbers of shot over a specific time period and the impacts were recorded on film and measurements taken. That included the momentum / kinetic energy delivered on impact.
I'm not sure where the films ultimately went (somewhere into the Royal Armouries collection I suspect) but it was interesting that the conclusions were very diverse.
The self-bow and longbow were by far the more agile and adaptable battlefield weapons - they had much higher rates of shooting and the longbow was easily comparable with the penetration power of the crossbows - but both the bows were not great at shooting from behind cover and whilst the rates of shooting were very high, the levels of exhaustion exhibited by the archers was considerable (although admittedly they were modern reenactors not professional medieval trained bowmen).

The key differentiator was the impact on plate armour - whilst the self and long bows could do damage to plate at shorter ranges, the real 'killer' was the hand-gun - a close range shot against a 1mm & 2mm thick sheets of steel from the handgun (using a cast lead shot) put a hole in the 2mm thick piece the size of a grapefruit !
Likewise - if you used a broadhead arrow from the longbow and shot it at a turnip/swede (large root vegetable) the target actually exploded on impact at a short or mid-range - not something you'd have expected at all and we used the Turnip as a good substitute for a human head!

Crossbows were very effective at transferring momentum (force) into a target - the bolt heads were designed with 5 hard points (so you had a main short point in the centre on a square bolt head - if that makes sense) so that even if the bolt hit the steel plate with a glancing blow the corners would dig-in or catch on the plate and transfer the force. The force from the bigger crossbows was such that we were having to reset the steel plates after each shot as the kinetic energy was throwing them all over the place. So even if a bolt hadn't penetrated an armoured harness (suit of armour) the trauma to the wearer would have been significant - potentially resulting in torn muscles, impact shock and concussion.
The longbow arrows - tended to just go straight through the plate (at point blank range) or they would glance off with no damage - a sort of all or nothing effect.

The other issue with the steel prod crossbow - one attested to in historical sources - was that in very cold weather (unless they were kept warm) the steel could shatter or splinter.

Cheers
Mark

This video in same series is also very good (IMHO): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE