Main Discussion Area > Flight Bows
Bow riser question
DC:
--- Quote from: Selfbowman on August 28, 2020, 03:51:29 pm ---DC what I meant was simple composite to complex composite. A fade is a fade is it not??? Just asking? Arvin
--- End quote ---
I'm confused, what are we talking about?
Selfbowman:
DC I guess I’m confused too never mind. Arvin
avcase:
I would like to dig into this issue some more. As of now, there isn’t any maximum length specified for additional pieces that can be used to build up the handle in a self bow or simple composite bow.
The rules only says the following:
“Wooden handle built up blocks may be added, providing the built up portion of the handle does not bend or additional blocks act as an additional laminate in the working/bending areas of the bow limbs.”
This leaves it up to an official to make the decision on the spot, and this risks inconsistent enforcement. Any added block of material or insert in the handle does affect how the bow bends to some degree. So I feel that this statement in the rules is ambiguous and needs revision. I think specifying a maximum length with an illustration is the best way to fix this.
I wouldn’t want to specify a maximum length that is any more than it needs to be. 12” seems plenty long for building up the handle area. I figured 10” could even work. I know I would take maximum advantage of this feature if I were building this kind of bow. What do the rest of you think?
Alan
DC:
The only reason I made this style of handle was to maximise the use of the yew I had left. If my belly lams were 1/2 or 9/16" thick instead of the 3/8" shown in the picture. The feathering out part could have been easily pushed toward the middle by up to 2 1/2" on each side. That would make it 7-8" rather than the 12" shown. The thing is, I don't think it would affect the performance at all. It's a nice way to make a bow as it uses up small pieces. I would prefer the 12". It looks nice and the thinner lams are easier to steam bend.
What other reasons would someone have to push this rule?
All that said I'm sure their are other designs that might take advantage of a new rule and that may change the whole face of the class.
Is there another way of defining the working/bending area of the limb? If not then I think you just have to pick an arbitrary length. Somewhere between 8 and 10"
avcase:
I know I would take advantage of this for the same basic reasons. It allows use of thinner wood, and it works better with my process for building a bow. In fact, I had a hickory and ipe set of lams several years ago that my daughter were going to use for a simple composite flight bow, but a mistake left the ipe board a bit too thin. A 12” double wedge in the handle would have made it viable again. We didn’t do it at the time because I feared the ambiguous wording in the rules could have been interpreted in a way to disqualify the bow. It seemed like my daughter and I were always in trouble for one thing or another. I took took the rules literally, so I would often have some feature on our equipment that wouldn’t always match the what those officiating expecting. It was never due to an effort to cheat, it was just a matter of coming from different backgrounds. This is why I feel it is important to take on these questions, and take the time to add clarity to the rules.
I think 12” is pretty reasonable proposal. It is easy to check, and solves a number of potential problems.
Alan
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version