Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Flight Bows => Topic started by: redhawk55 on January 02, 2015, 09:06:47 am
-
Reading the topic flight warbow I found it again very delicious to see all the rules and regulations clearly. When, where and why is a record a record? Many of the regulations seem not to be up to date.
Steve Gardner and me have discussed the foundation of the " INTERNATIONAL PRIMITIVE FLIGHT BOW CLUB". This term was Steve's idea, I like it, even it sounds a bit old fashioned.
I would propose the rules to be very clear and simple as follows:
Selfbow up to 50lbs ( made of one piece of wood or limbs made of wood only and handle added)
Selfbow 50lbs plus ( made of one piece of wood or limbs made of wood only and handle added))
Composite up to 50lbs (limbs made of natural materials as wood, bamboo, horn, sinew or other natural materials and handle added)
Composite 50lbs plus ( limbs made of natural materials as wood, bamboo, horn, sinew or other natural materials and handle added)
I would propose to regulate the handles for the classes above too, cause handles of flightbows are often a controversial subject.?
Experimental class (natural materials, no limits)
Strings (natural fibres only)
Arrows (wood, bamboo, natural fletches, tips of wood, bone, antler, metal).
I would like to set up the club's internet- performance. The site would tell about the history of flight- archery, the backgrounds, tournaments.
The site would include an area for to post new flightbows and flightarrows and to discuss them.
This post is thought to be a crude framework for the site.
Any ideas are very welcome!!!! Rules regulating the tournaments??
Michael
-
michael-
flight shooting seems interesting, but the travel involved to attend shoots probably dissuades a lot of guys from building the bows / arrows or work on the shooting skills.
Is there a plan for "postal" participation?
perhaps it is time to use the internet to replace the post office somehow
willie
-
Willie, I would love to do that. Have a group of shooters go out and shoot the bows and arrows sent in. Credit would go to Builders of bows, arrows and archers respectively.
-
Michael, lets get on it. Why don't you and I and maybe a couple of others get together and start writing some official rules. Include the english long bows of course. Maybe even have a limit on elevation and wind speed. Lets recruit a few guys from the different classes involved and hash it out before the end of the month.
-
For me flightbow federation sounds better. It must be done, go ahead !
-
Badger-
I was thinking more of posting on the internet, the results of local shooting, rather than shipping bows around the world for others to shoot.
Does modern technology and connectivity offer new possibilities to document local shooting?
video? gps?
willie
-
For weight classes I would like to see a 35#, 50#, 65#, 80# and unlimited #.
For classes I would like to see a simple self or laminated with the only limitation on handles in the shelf area at about 2".
Styles contact recurves, r/d longbows, straight style long bows. and an open class where anything goes. Limit the reflex on straight style bows to 1".
English longbows ( have the elb guys write the rules here)
War bows, ( war bow guys write the rules)
Broadhead shooting, no weight classes just shoot at 9 or 10 grains per pound. Or maybe up to 60#, 90# and unlimited but still shooting 10 grains per pound.
Write a strict easy to understand protocal for measuring and weighing bows, measuring distances, controlling the flight line etc.
Write a protocal to qualify and establish officials that could put on flight shoots anywhere in the world.
Just suggestions on my part, everything is open to discussion.
-
For weight classes I would like to see a 35#, 50#, 65#, 80# and unlimited #.
For classes I would like to see a simple self or laminated with the only limitation on handles in the shelf area at about 2".
Styles contact recurves, r/d longbows, straight style long bows. and an open class where anything goes. Limit the reflex on straight style bows to 1".
English longbows ( have the elb guys write the rules here)
War bows, ( war bow guys write the rules)
Broadhead shooting, no weight classes just shoot at 9 or 10 grains per pound. Or maybe up to 60#, 90# and unlimited but still shooting 10 grains per pound.
Write a strict easy to understand protocal for measuring and weighing bows, measuring distances, controlling the flight line etc.
Write a protocal to qualify and establish officials that could put on flight shoots anywhere in the world.
Just suggestions on my part, everything is open to discussion.
Willie, if we set up some basic standards to adhere to shoots could be held anywhere and greatly reduce the need to ship. We would have to have at least 2 officials at every shoot to give the organization some integrity, and it would be best if they weren't buddies.
-
Id love to participate. Perhaps a membership fee that would cover the travel of judges to location if none are close by?
Oh, and you must shoot 90 degrees to the wind.
-
Sleek, anything you do has some costs involved. If a club wanted to sponsor some officials to fly to where they are that would be up to them. Putting together a uniform filight station would not be real expensive but a small entry fee would proably need to be charged to cover that. Maybe the same kind of fees you see at a 3-d shoot would work ok.
-
sounds like fun
if the two local officials had a fairly simple job about how to measure and document the shots, I could imagine smaller clubs having shoots, and more folks getting interested
sometimes target shooting get boring
-
Sounds like a great idea to me.
There isn't any primitive flight shooting in the UK but I'd love to be able to post internet results. I expect I could probably find a witness to verify my results (but I'm sure you'd all trust me anyway O:) ! )
I'm not interested in trying to claim records, but I's love to see how I fare against other similar bows and to see the bows.
BTW. I'd suggest man made strings are allowed for reliability.... but I can use linen if necessary.
Del
(First rule of Flight Club... there is no Flight Club ;) :laugh:)
-
Del, I feel as you do about the strings but I would go with the majority of whatever committee we form. ELB presently use modern strings. Too skinny of a string can cut into a bow so maybe we could come up with a modern string is ok but must be a certain weight per inch or diameter. We could still keep them on the small side but not like banjo strings. Mark Hill, lives in England and if the two of you or some other ELB builder just took the time to study up on the rules you could both become officials.
-
I would be that in a very few years maybe 3 all existing primitive records would be taken if we had guys all over the world shooting for them. Once the record setting trend leveled off I would imagine a little less open sharing of methods would start to play in.
-
I would be that in a very few years maybe 3 all existing primitive records would be taken if we had guys all over the world shooting for them. Once the record setting trend leveled off I would imagine a little less open sharing of methods would start to play in.
That could be so, but I'd view it more as a community, where we could see what others were ahieving. At the moment, there are people dotted around the globe doing their own thing.
Maybe "records" would need to be ratified. After all there would be a lot of variables and inaccuracy. Wind, slope, measuring direct arrow to the shoot position (much simpler) rather than parallel to the shoot line, measurement method etc.
Hopefully the spirit of primitive archery would remain.
I'm keen to even see some basic info. Wood, poundage, draw length, bow style distance.
It would be a good way to help identify like minded individuals in the same area and then maybe get a meet organised.
Full disclosure of what one does and how is always down to the individual. I don't have many qualms about showing what I do as the 'messers' and flybynights won't have the understanding or patience any way. The real enthusiasts will want to experiment and try their own twist on things, they'll take what works for them and try to push it further.
Del
-
Thanks for your replies.
There are some things to do now. I would like to set up the site as soon as possible, tomorrow a first layout could be ready.
I would appreciate your ideas for a header image, I thought about this one: http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o248/Iliana_T/PaleoPlanet/Davids-Bow-All-smaller.jpg?
I would prefer to set up the site as a blog, forums are somehow out of fashion. I' ve very good experiences with wordpress.com- blogs. I guess wordpress to be the best blog- system, searching- engines love wordpress- blogs.
Blogs have the advantage of sites and articles. Sites could only be edited by an admin, so I would suggest sites as follows: ABOUT, RULES, HISTORY, GALLERY, LINKS and CONTACT
A wordpress.com blog is free, but a video-upgrade would be about 99$ a year. Maybe a connected youtube- flightbow- channel could be an alternative?
Articles could be posted by the members of the club: this would be the space for to post your flightbows and flight-arrows, your reports on a flightshot- tournaments................etc. This would be the space for discussions too.
If the club turns out to be a real burner with a lot of daily traffic, a wordpress.com- blog could be easily transferred into a selfhosted wordpress.org- blog. This will cost about 115$ a year.
I would like to set up the site and could do the ABOUT- site too, but I need help!
Who will fix the RULES, I guess the most delicous task.?
I would appreciate some articles and a lot of pics about the HISTORY of flightarchery. We need pics for the GALLERY, useful LINKS.....................etc.
We need some more admins, anyone out here? A little bit of blog- experience would be great.
Send articles and pics for the start to my pm.
About the classes:
I would prefer a very small number of classes(as I've posted it yet above) for to enforce the exchange and the competition between the designs and for to get by with few basic rules.
Michael
-
Michael, I think you are on the right track! Lets give ourselves time schedules for completing various tasks with a target date of completion say by March 1st. I think you and I are in agreement on most issues but a few I would like to present to the organizing body for input and negotiation.
I do prefer more classes to better represent the international community and the demogaphics of various age and social groups.
For example you may have some areas that are really only interested in the broadhead division, while others prefer the turkish style or English for instance. I like the existing rules governing flight for the most part with some notable exceptions.
No later than tomorrow I will submit to the present organization a set of classes, rules and protocals that I would favor, others can do the same or start with my basic and modify from there.
An important consideration will be, how do we go about establishing a governing body to get this thing off the ground? I would suggest we send out invites. Those interested in becomming part of the process can nominate themselves and then we take a quick vote and get down to business.
I would like to see the Primitive Archer community here remain a place to go for primitive flight shooters and we could submit some articles to PA magazine to help with out publicity. " Birth of an International Primitive Flight Organizattion" We have some great writers on the sight here we could hopefully recruit to write some articles for our public relations.
-
Something like this maybe to get the ball rolling, these are just suggestions.
World Archery Flight Federation
Divisions:
Male
Adult (16 and older)
Youth
Female
Adult (16 and older)
Youth
Flight Classes 35# 50# 70# unlimited
Self bows
Laminated wood bows
Complex composite natural material bows
English Long bows
War bows 100# 120# 140# 160# unlimited
Turkish and asiatic styles ( increments of 20# weight)
Broadhead classes 35# 50# 65# 80# 100#.
Straight bows (1” max reflex), reflexed long bows, contact recurves
Self bows
laminated wood bows
Flight Stations:
An apporoved flight station should have a minimum of the following equipment
A registration table, registration forms, A complete book of rules, current records and classes. pencils, pens, paper, paint pens, marking pencils, metal money box,
Weight station, a sturdy bow rack for weighing, removable tape for marking bows, marking pencils, tape measure, yard stick, book of rules and classes, approved digital scales or calibrated free weights. Arrow capturing cage with tubes for arrow storage, A storage rack for weighed bows.
Flight Line
A wind sock for the flight line, several flags to mark off flight field, a 50' rope to establish shooting line, Metal stakes to secure shooting line rope, A work table, approved measuring equipment, two way radios,
Rules to qualify bows for classes
Rules for measuring
Rules for weighing
Rules for arrows
Rules for registering
Rules for shooting
-
If we have anyone here who is knowledgeable about surveying they may want to give is a hand on establishing a measuring method that would be quick and accurate. I am thinking that a series of 100 yard tapes could be stetched out on a centerline of the flight field and then use a scope at a right angle to the center line to gather distances might be an inexpensive low tec method.
-
Couldn't do to much for the site, stuck into a real tough fight with a twisted rowan- stave.
For to registrate the blog we need to agree on the name of the club/ federation. That means I can't begin with the setup if there's still no name.
The name can never be changed, we have definitely to agree as soon as possible!
i would prefer "INTERNATIONAL PRIMITIVE FLIGHTBOW CLUB".
Another suggestion is: "PRIMITIVE FLIGHTBOW FEDERATION"
Make your choice right now!
Michael
-
I like he sound of federation but not 100% sure I fully understand the meaning. As far as I know it would fit nicely.
-
There has been recent interest to expand the reach of the U.S. Primitive flight events so that they are also sanctioned under the World Archery umbrella. I feel it would be very positive for the future of flight archery if we can get it done. Such a change would make it possible to shoot Primitive Flight for official world records at our US National AND any one of the three annual flight shoots currently held in the UK.
Alan
-
That would be great Allen. I think a world federation with a lot more local clubs in states and smaller countries would make the sport a lot more accessable to those who have some interest but have not totally committed.
Something else I would like to see in the federation is when we publish the results of shoots and records, instead of just posting records have one sheet for each class and show the top 25 or so shots that have been made in that class. Just getting on the sheet and then moving up on the sheet could be motivational.
-
If we have anyone here who is knowledgeable about surveying they may want to give is a hand on establishing a measuring method that would be quick and accurate. I am thinking that a series of 100 yard tapes could be stetched out on a centerline of the flight field and then use a scope at a right angle to the center line to gather distances might be an inexpensive low tec method.
I know it's against the current flight rules... but I'd favour direct measurement from arrow to shoot position. It avoids trying to work out if you are perpendicular to the centre line and allows quick direct reading with a laser range finder.
There is an argument that says it is actually a better measure of how far the arrow is going.
It would certainly be how I would do it if I was shooting on my own. It saves marking a centre line.
Del
-
I do like the existing primitive flight rules because they are pretty simple with few restrictions except materials used. There is very little to restrict anyone from shooting their favorite design. The best designs to achieve maximum cast will naturally float to the top.
One common suggestion to the current rules is that there are only 50-lb and Unlimited weight categories. I imagine we will add an intermediate 65-lb or 70-lb weight if enough interest persists. Last year, we started recording the actual draw weights of some of the bows used. This year, I'd like to record actual draw weight of all bows that are weighed. If actual draw weight is recorded, then we would have the option to consider future record status for bows that may have fallen outside the 50-lb cut-off.
Steve,
I have been accumulating prior records on one database so we can see the full history for any given type of equipment. I feel it makes the sport more interesting. It is a good suggestion. It certainly takes time to research the past records, but moving forward (starting in 2009), every measured shot has been permanently recorded in one database. Therefore, instead of comin away disappointed at not breaking THE record, a flight shooter can have the satisfaction of knowing that they may have just shot one of the top five distances ever recorded for a 50-lb self bow, for example. Other possibilities could be recognition of top distance over the last 10 years, or 50 years, etc.
Del,
Besides tradition, a reason we measure distances perpendicular to a shooting line is that it allows more than one archer to shoot at a time, and helps limit the spread of arrows in the field. I kind of like this incentive for some level of accuracy. We use a Total Station theodolite for measuring the distances. It measures perpendicular distance from the shoot line without chance of error. The Total Station also reports how far off perpendicular the arrow landed (relative to the center of the shooting line).
Alan
-
For communication- reasons I would like to connect a twitter- account to the site.
Instead of embedding videos into the site I would prefer to set up a youtube- primitive flightbow- channel. I hope we'll end up with a lot of interesting videos.
Both, the twitter- account and the youtube- channel will help to spread the site heavily.
At the ABOUT- page I would like to post some personal statements why someone does flight- shooting or is making flightbows.
Still looking for a header- image, any idea? Be aware of copyright- issues.
Michael
-
Del,
Besides tradition, a reason we measure distances perpendicular to a shooting line is that it allows more than one archer to shoot at a time, and helps limit the spread of arrows in the field. I kind of like this incentive for some level of accuracy. We use a Total Station theodolite for measuring the distances. It measures perpendicular distance from the shoot line without chance of error. The Total Station also reports how far off perpendicular the arrow landed (relative to the center of the shooting line).
Alan
Yeah, but that's sort of my point my point...
I was hoping this web based federation was a solution for those of us who don't have access to formal flight shoots or total station theodolites and are having to resort to shooting on our own or with a few mates in a field.
I feel maybe two grades of recording is appropriate.
1. The formal conventional record status shoot with the total station a measured out centreline etc.
2. The informal recording for those of us without access to wide open spaces and the full measuring equipment etc.
Of course with a bit of pacing out and geometry we can make a rough correction for off line shots if we have some sort of sight line marker.
The danger as I see it is that the federation becomes just another set organised fight shoots that I don't have access to :'(
Del
-
Del, I think we have a similar vision. By using a pre measured centerline we could simply sight off the centerline to the arrows and get the same reading as the total station with not quite the same level of accuracy. I think using a sight mounted at a right angle to the center line could get us to within one yard. We only measure the longest arrow shot by each archer in each round. If an archer was not at a respectable distance he would likely choose not to bother with a measure beyond just eyeballing it and not recording anything. This could save considerable time also.
Allen, I think that small active flight clubs could play an important roll in helping to build the current world championship flight organization. Just like any sport. They need to be able to particapate frequently to maintain interest.
-
Del,
I agree. Flight shooting doesn't need a theodolite in order to be enjoyable or successful. If it is just a few people having fun, then a tape and open field is more than enough.
Some of the most fun I have had flight shooting was at a primitive gathering that had a large field within walking distance of our camp. The rules for bows were simple. There was a category for simple natural materials bows, and a category for everything else (including those shooting carbon bows and arrows). There were no divisions for draw weights, or men Vs. women. Kids were informally recognized as well as those who were shooting their first self made bow. It was pure fun without any of the hassle. Flags marked the farthest shots and these were roughly measured later with a tape. There were 50 or more participating. Funny thing is that the overall farthest arrow was not shot by the strongest man using a heavy draw weight modern synthetic bow. The farthest distance was shot by a teen age girl with a 30-ish pound Ipe self bow, using linen string and primitive arrows.
On the other hand, if we want to record official distances for record status, then there is no way around having a uniform set of rules and adherence to consistent methods of measurement.
Alan
-
Allen, thats how we did it when we were kids. We never measured anything, just who shot the furthest. I have had a resentment to glass bows ever since, all the rich kids showed up with the modern recurves and beat the pants off my little lemonwood bow.
Redhawk, I think a basic flight station could be put together for about $200.00. We could do a video showing the procedure by actually filming a flight shoot. I would like to think of our organization as fertile ground for developing the sport and making it user friendy enough for anyone to jump right in. The more serious players may want to graduate up to the existing organizations. I am in favor of giving the organization enough credibiity and integrity that posted results were respected.
-
Steve,
I agree, lack of access to flight events is the biggest issue. There is currently only ONE event per year that offers record status for primitive flight. If the primitive rules are adopted by World Archery (formally FITA), then there would still only be potential for 3-4 events per year worldwide.
I would consider it a personal success if I helped organize one local event per year through our local archery club. I'd keep it as simple as possible: eliminate draw weight divisions, and perhaps have primitive self and primitive composite categories with no design limits. The details of the bow, string, and arrows could just be noted, but the primary focus of a local shoot would be on fun and generating interest in the sport.
Alan
-
I do like the idea of self and composite with no design limitations for our current flight organization. I would just like to see something that went slightly beyond the fun zone into the serious hobbyist zone. Perosnally I would like to compete about 4 times a year. Not sure how many years I have left.
I do like the idea of fun shoots to generate interest and possibly using that as a springboard for those who took to it to take it to another level. I just don't see primitive flight shooting ever taking off without a dedicated organixation behind it. All the rules and regulations would be subject to a vote I would assume based on all of our inputs.
I think I see it as more of a major step, until we put it out there we will have no way of knowing if the world primitive archery community is even ready for it. I would love to see a section in PA magazine covering the flight shooting aspect.
-
...
On the other hand, if we want to record official distances for record status, then there is no way around having a uniform set of rules and adherence to consistent methods of measurement.
Alan
Yes there is!
As I have repeatedly suggested (but with no real response)... A two tier system, one being for fun, interest etc but with no official standing. And the formal, official status tier.
If no one else sees the value in this then fine, but it would be nice to have the suggestion acknowledged.
Del
-
Del, the two tiered system would work. A total station would be too much to ask for a few guys getting together and shooting obviously but I would still like to see the lower tier conducted under basic protocal using basic equipment that would produce respectable listings. I would refer to the results as listings instead of records. It would also establish a training ground for officials capable of holding an event.
I like Allens idea of open style just seperating self bows from laminated but at least 4 weight classes. 35, 50, 70, unlimited. I wish we had more input here. Be nice if we could lay out some guidelines to vote on at least within a month or so.
-
A Total Station measurement device is not required under the current flight rules. It just makes the measurement process much faster and accurate compared to using a certified steel tape and prism. I believe all the UK flight shoots use the certified steel tape method.
Del,
I see value in having a less rigorous tier of unofficial events. If the measurement procedure or weigh-in requirements are a major impediment, then I feel it is better to compromise and have an event with unnoficial results rather than not have one at all. If the event grows to the point that the archers want official record status, then I believe it is worth considering the existing set of rules and procedures rather than start from scratch.
Alan
-
Allen, how did they do it 50 or 60- years ago before computers when it was very popular. That might be a model we could look at.
-
A Total Station measurement device is not required under the current flight rules. It just makes the measurement process much faster and accurate compared to using a certified steel tape and prism. I believe all the UK flight shoots use the certified steel tape method.
Del,
I see value in having a less rigorous tier of unofficial events. If the measurement procedure or weigh-in requirements are a major impediment, then I feel it is better to compromise and have an event with unnoficial results rather than not have one at all. If the event grows to the point that the archers want official record status, then I believe it is worth considering the existing set of rules and procedures rather than start from scratch.
Alan
Cheers :)
That's very encouraging. If there is enough interest created in the UK then maybe we can organise an official primitive flight shoot.
Del
-
Steve,
50-60 years ago, precise measurements were done with steel tapes and a prism. For large events, the officials would take a couple of days and lay out 1-2 flight lines beforehand using a transit. For each flight line, pairs of stakes with lines stretched between them would be precisely positioned every 100 or 200 yards, establishing reference lines that were parallel to the flight line. A 100 yard steel tape was used to measure the position of the arrow relative to the nearest reference line. If there was doubt that the tape wasn't being held square, then a prism would be used to ensure that the measurement was made perpendicular to the reference line. It took more upfront work back then, but it seemed to have work pretty well. The only downside is that once established, the flight lines are not easily moved. I believe this is how the measurements are still done at the UK flight shoots.
Alan
-
At the 1944 US Flight Nationals, the equipment divisions were as follows:
Division 1 Flight Tackle: 50-lb, 65-lb, 80-lb, and Unlimited. There were no materials or bow design restrictions. The bows were a mix of self, sinew backed, and multi-lam composites.
Division 2 Hunting Tackle: No weight divisions.
Division 3 Roving Tackle: No draw weight divisions
Division 4 Target Tackle: No draw weight divisions
Alan
-
In our first competition we used steel tape and tablets with distance in every 25 meters, it work quite well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TszrwCgV1tE&feature=youtu.be
-
That was a great video, it really captured the spirit of flight shooting. I liked everything about it.
Allen a format similar to the 1944 format has some appeal to me. I am hoping we get more feedback on what potential flight archers might be looking for, I only know what i like but am happy to go with the majority. As expected it will take some hashing out.
I like the idea of using a video along with written instructions to help standardize all the groups as they form.
-
I hope to have a time and place for a flight shoot in Oregon. It will be sometime prior to our US Nationals. If I can secure the venue, and enough people show interest, then it may even be possible to shoot for official record status under USA/World Archery.
California used to have a state championship that had more archers than the U.S. Nationals. It would be great to see local flight shoots make a come back.
Alan
-
Allen, I would try and make that. California has a lot of people, it would be good to secure a sight withing 3 or 4 hours of Los Angeles. I would think the big cnetral valley here would have suitable spots if we could time it right with the farmers.
-
just chipping in my 2€ct:
I'm in favour of having multiple weight categories (<35, <50, etc and unlimited), including self bows (one piece of wood), composite bows, "broad head" (i.e., at 9-10 gpp), ...
I can't see a good reason for different categories for male and female participants, especially when you include also a variety of draw weights.
joachim
(from Belgium)
-
Sorry for being that late with the site, have had a hard time with the heaviest storms here in the heights of the Black Forest. The roofs of our shelters and barns are fixed.
The framework of the site is done.
I still need a header-image and pics for the history- site. I would also like some videos for the club' s youtube- channel and some posts on " Why do you like flight-archery.................." Any other ideas are very, very welcome! Be aware of the copy- right.
What about a membership fee?
Useful links?
Admins wanted! Everybody who wants to help to administrate the site will get the login details as soon as the site is published. Maybe at most 4 admins? Send me your email- adress,
The most urgent part is the rules site. Steve is aiming at the 1st of March!
Michael
-
Michael, good to see you back in action! I am not very good on computers so may not be useful as an administrator. But I plan to help in every way I can. I would suggest the first step would be to recrcruit a small group that could put some rules together, maybe we can vote on the various issues or vote to accept sets of rules as written. If we can get 10 or 12 guys together we should able to hash something out in a couple of weeks and then maybe spend a month refining it.
-
I am looking forward to getting this thing going, how good of a job we do in setting it up will have a large impact on how successful it is down the line. I plan to write a "pitch" promoting my own philosophy on where we should take this but will also look forward to hearing others opinions and recognizing that compromise and a lot of feed back will get us into the right place.
-
Just building the HISTORY-site.
Need to know when the first primitive flightbow competions in the US and the UK took place?
Michael
-
Michael, do you mean when it was first recognised as primitive and specific rules were applied to primitive vs modern material bows. In the early days of flight I believe it was all primitive. Those were the glory days for the primitive bowyers in my eyes. They might not be a bad model to look at. As far as I know Ike our retired chairman and Allen Case might be the best sources on history. If Allen doesn't have the info I will call Ike.
-
Yes, I mean all aspects.
The first flight-championship of the NAA, the first championship with a declared Primitive- class.
Are there any recordings about those "glory days" for the primitive bowyers, about tournaments and records shot with primitive gear.
I personally would like to know much more about those times, I think we could learn a lot of these guys.
Michael
-
I am seeing the need here for a historian position. It would add a very important aspect to this group. We would need a good writer and someone who could conduct a good interview. He would need all of our help in finding contacts to interview. Time is running out here. Most of the old timers have passed on but I thiknk a few remain that could give us some valuable insights into the past.
-
The modern day primitive Flight rules were drafted in the 1980's by Dan Perry and have undergone a several clarifications since. I feel that Dan did an excellent job keeping the rules as simple and consistent as possible and I would suggest using these rules rather than invent something new from scratch. Of course, the organizer of the flight shoot has a lot of discretion. For example, the organizer may choose not to require natural string material, or may not have access to calibrated scales or measuring devices. I wouldn't let those details stand in the way of organizing a flight shoot as long as it is reported when the results are published. The organizers would also have to accept the fact that distances will have an unofficial status if all the standards are not met, but that wouldn't have to stand in the way of having a successful and fun shoot. We are working on a proposal to incorporate these rules into The World Archery organization as well, so the event organizers would have the option to hold record status primitive events world wide.
The basic categories are as follows:
Self bow
35 lb or under (currently youth only), 50 lb or under, Unlimited
Simple Composite (Bows backed with a single lamination)
50-lb or under, Unlimited
Complex Composite - Bows made with any combination of natural materials
50-lb or under, Unlimited
Turkish - Horn, wood, sinew composite shot with a sipur overdraw
No weight class limits
For all the detail, see: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Events/Rules (http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Events/Rules)
-
Allen, those are good suggestions, I would like to see a 70# class added to that as well as the 35# class available to the other classes. I would hope to see that the rules are tight enough to have credability even though they would not be recognized as the official world body.
In place of broadhead I would also like to see a taget bow division maybe based on about 7 or 8 grains per pound. I think this could become a popular class.
Because we are only dealing with primitive I believe we could be more liberal with classes.
-
As Allen suggested I would be in favor of using the same classes as the existing flight shooting organization but with the addition of a 35 and 70# weight class in all divisions.
The only variance to the rules I would suggest are allowing modern strings, feather rests, Glued or tied on string bridges, 21" minimum arrow and 3" arrow shelf.
-
What is a feather rest?
Thanks
-
Feathers that are glued side by side with the slant of the quills going in the direction of the arrow, makes for a nice release. Also easy to make and natural.
-
Do you just use short lengths of feather? Kind of like a fur arrow rest. Trimmed short?
-
I cut them down to about 1/4" maybe a tad higher.
-
Hey there,
So far I'd think Avcase's (allen?) classes would be most the most basic, and therefore the most simple, to get (new) people interested in flight shooting.
You'd might even consider putting 'Asian bows' under complex composite somehow by allowing certain models in 'complex composite' that aren't allowed in 'simple composite' or allowing the more uncommon materials as horn and sinew in complex only. This way you can expand the simple composite class by allowing multiple layers. Thus only leaving three classes.
These classes being:
- Self bow
- Simple composite - Bows with multiple layers of wood or bamboo (aka the more European models). No overdraw allowed.
- Complex composite - Bows with multiple layers of wood, bamboo, sinew or horn (aka the more Asian bows). Overdraw allowed.
-
I think one of the reasons I tend to favor more classes is that 10 years from now I wouldn't want to look back and see the need for an additional class, changing it would then affect existing records and become kind of a mess potentialy. I would favor making the simple composite to include any amount of laminations as long as it is all wood and making the complex composite to include any natural materials other than wood.
At present we also have broadhead classes which to me represents traditional classes. In other words bows shooting in a manner that they were intended to shoot. I would divide it up into regular flight classes and traditional classes. Traditional classes might include english longbows, yumi bows, american long bows, war bows etc. The traditional classes might become very popular as no special arrows, arrow rests or design features would be neccessary. I believe if we go too simple and crunch too much together it will suffer in the long run. I also believe that creating opportunities to showcase various styles will encourage the proper development of each style.
-
I used to feel more equipment and weight divisions would be useful, but feel less that way over time. After awhile, we end up with more equipment divisions than competitors to shoot in them and the competition aspect of the sport gets watered down.
I feel there should be some sound logic that drives the creation of new bow divisions. The easiest rules to enforce are those where the form of the bow is determined by the intended job it is required to do. In other words form follows function. Where we tend to run into problems is when we try to create a category for a bow type that falls outside the original intended purpose for a group of bows.
For example, the purpose of a flight bow is to see how far one can throw an arrow. The purpose of a hunting bow is to be durable, easy to carry, reliable, quiet, and capable of throwing a heavy arrow through an animal at close range. The purpose for a target bow is to be extremely repeatable, and easy to draw and aim for shot after shot.
What usually happens when a competition is created for bows that do not match the original intended purpose of the bow? What happens is that we eventually end up with odd hybrid bows that are created in order to meet the minimum rules requirements and set a record, but probably wouldn't necessarily be very useful for the bow's original purpose. This is why we end up with English Long Bows with stiff inner and outer limbs or "target bows" with one-off flight bow style limbs, shooting very light under spined arrows.
Go to a 3D target shoot sometime. The 3D shoot was created to simulate hunting situations using hunting equipment, but people have learned that they have a better chance of winning the event if they shoot light weight bows with light 5ggp arrows. They wouldn't use that equipment for a real hunt.
I feel the broadhead flights are fun, but kind of goofy too. No one creates a set of Broadheads to see how far they can be launched. On the other hand, the war bow events do make a lot of sense. The purpose of a war bow is to deliver an arrow of substantial weight a long distance. :-\
Just some thoughts.
Alan
-
Allen, that is my feeling exactly, thats why I suggested something like traditional classes. Regular flight and traditional using a bow as intended. This would not create too many classes I believe. I don't think at first at least most events would not have enough contenders to shoot in all classes anyway.
-
It's nice to see this discussion taking place, and about time there was some body to bring flight shooters the world over together.
I can really only speak from the warbow side of things and all I wanted to say was something cautionary; all the sources exist online to create a very accurate warbow spec, ignore as someone put it, 'the tight around the collar societies' they aren't going for historical accuracy nor should their spec even be referenced for accuracy.
-
I was a bit put off with some of the rules years ago especially when my HHB warbow was disqualified by Dan simply because it wasn't quite round enough yet I had read at the time that bows like this were being used for competition overseas. I wasn't a happy camper
-
Marc,
What happened with your war bow was unfortunate. This kind of problem occurs any time that a set of rules is written up for a traditional division such as the "English Long Bow". If I would have been preparing a bow for that same event, then I would have made my bow with a flat-ish belly also. The problem is that no two people have the same idea of what represents a historical or traditional style of bow. The same kind of issue happens with traditional target bow competitions.
Alan
-
Mark, you are correct. I have always felt that was a bad call. String bridges either glued or tied on are something else I would like to see allowed on self bows.
-
Steve,
If glued on string bridges are allowed, then you have to get very specific. Otherwise, someone like me would glue on an entire belly lamination and call it string bridge. :)
That reminds me of some issues that came up with the Self Bow division in the past. The rules stated that nock overlays were allowed, but didn't state anything else to prevent someone from making them so large as to create the equivalent of a backed bow. Eventually, a two inch long maximum was written into the rules.
Another issue with the self bow rules was that there wasn't anything blocking someone from kerfing the limb down to the handle and rejoining the kerfs to create the equivalent of a backed bow. This loophole might still need attention.
Alan
-
Good points Allen. Anything affecting the strutural integrity would have to be ruled out. What about combining multi lam bows and simple backed bows into one class? As long as they are all wood or bamboo. I have seen advantages in building multilam bows as they are easier but not really any advantage that I can see in performance beyond the ability to stretch design features a bit further.
-
There really is something to be said for just having one class. If you want to compete with your longbow be prepared to go up against a static recurve. Ultimately you're still going to compare your shot against everyone else anyway.
-
The discussion is speeding up!
I guess we' ve to ban Alan for posting instructions how to break the rules?!
Records are shot for to be broken, rules are set for to be broken!
I guess we have to know what we want.
Form follows function! The function is flight!
Above all that's a primitive flightbow club.
My opinion about rules:
Natural materials only!!!!
4 weight classes: 35lbs, 50lbs, 65 or 75lbs, unlimited, each divided into youth, female and male.
Bow classes
selfbow: one piece of wood, not composed in length, width and thickness, overlays clearly defined in length, width and thickness, no glued on adds at the handle, handle 8" in length max., 11/4" in width and thickness, reflex or recurve 4" max.
This class should include warbows and longbows too, I really want to see compete shorties vs. longies, flats vs. warbows...................................................
composite bow: could be composed in length, width and thickness, handle see above, reflex and recurve unlimited( they are limiting themselves?), should include yumis and hornbows too, since decades hornbowyers are claiming to be the " creme de la creme", they could prove it now!
Unlimited: everything allowed, string- bridges as a belly- lam..............etc., no handle- limitations, it should include footbows, excited to see how this will turn out. No weight classes, no age, no gender.
This sounds less but will be a total of 25 classes, that' s enough?
Sorry, but I don't see a broadhead- class in a flight- tournament, maybe as a mix of flight and penetration- measurement?
Natural strings only! I hope this will end up in better strings. The English warbowyers, the Osmanian bowyers and other bowyers got it, we still have our problems not overcome, time to get it.
Arrows: I guess we've to limit a min. weight for safety- reasons, what about the length? Wouldn`t it be much clearer to limit the min. draw to 19", measured from the bow`s belly ? Fletchings and tips are limiting themselves.
I think for to make primitive flightshooting more popular it is inevitable to reduce classes, organizing a tournament will be easier, competition between the different designs and classes will be heated up.
I really would like to see my beloved "inuitish- styled shorties" compete with an American flat or a warbow, even I' ve to end up with the insight that an other design performed better. It will make me rethinking the design, improving or leaving it for another design.
Primarily I see the club as a possibility to improve the performance of wooden bows and arrows, to change ideas, to compete and to have some great fun with other flightbow- addicts.
Michael
-
Not sure why you need classes for gender or age?
Surely the draw weight will limit participation anyway.
Else you get the situation where a particularly strong youth or female can become the only competitor in their class.
Why should a youth or woman shooting a 35# bow get an special consideration over a balding old git like me shooting one?
And if they are strong enough to shoot a 75# bow, again do they need patronizing by giving them their own category?
Maybe a category for us baldies ::)
Del
-
I actually think a selfbow should be allowed a glued on handle piece. It's not contributing to the power of the stave in a working sense.
Still don't see the reason to have multiple bow type classes.
-
On the subject of natural strings, although we have the internet and E-bay, it's possibly harder to source good quality long fibre natural materials as the producer is probably going for quantity rather than quality.
In days gone by there would have been specialists growing the good stuff I expect...
Anyone who has tried to find decent long fibre hemp cord will have noticed, it's pretty poor stuff >:(
Del
-
From a true 'traditional flight shoot' point of view I'd say yes to natural strings only. From a 'do you want a low threshold for people to join these events' point of view I'd say this is wishful thinking. I would favour a more accessible event to a specialist one.
If you want to include a truly traditional class that's fine but don't force it on all classes.
-
Good to see a conversation taking place. My first priority in promoting primitive flight archery is to keep it from going extinct. If we were an animal species we would have been captured and put into captive breeding programs decades ago. Thats how rare we have become, the purpose of flight archery is to simply see how far you can cast an arrow. Taken one step further flight archery is also a method of seeing how well a bow can perform as it was intended.
The great majority of bow builders are building traditional varieties of bows, hunting and target shooting bows. These bows are not designed specificaly to shoot ultra light arrows abd should be tested as they are meant to be shot. For this reason I would like to see two distinct categories.
Regular flight categories with rules very similar to the current flight rules allready written, any bow could compete here or the archer could choose to compete in what we would call traditional classes where bows were tested using draw lengths and arrow weights more in line with how the bows were intended.
There could be a lot of advantages to traditional classes and I suspect they would become the most popular. If they shot grains per pound it would level the playing field and allow archers to bring their favorite bow the the flight shoot without dropping the weight to meet a weight class.
All trad classes could be set up with the same basic rules. no less than 8 grains per pound arow weight, no arrows shorter than 24". I can't see where we have all that many different types of trad bows. American long bows, recurves, english long bows, war bows, yumi bows and asiatic. I would enjoy seeing a class for the short native style bows also, say under 56" long.
The value of traditional classes is hard to overstate. Its a great way for a single bowyer to have something to compare his work to. It gives us a good honest look at how various styles actualy perform and gives an opportunity for good bowyers to get some validation for the good work they do.
In conclusion, I will be pushing for regular flight classes as currently written and an entirely new category of tradtional flight which we will have to write from scratch.
-
Some comments on the broadhead flight class. I wasn't there when I drafted the rules but I suspect that the reason they decided to shoot this class with broadheads is because it was the only way to control how far back the archer drew his bow. The broadhead stops at the back of the bow. If we shot this round using field points we would have to measure to where the arrow fell off the back of the shelf.
In the 50# broadhead class which is my favorite class we are shooting 500 grain arrows which comes out to 10 grains per pound. If you happen to have a guy shooting a 120# bow in the unlimited broadhead class he is still shooting a 500 grain arrow which works out to be about 4.2 grains per pound. It doesn't make much sense if the bow is being judged on it s ability as a hunting bow. This is why I favor a traditional class shooting somewhere between 8 and 10 grains per pound or whatever we agree on.
The challenge would be to have a way of controlling draw length without using a broadhead. There are some safety concerns in overdrawing an arrow and I would not like to encourage this.
-
"Not sure why you need classes for gender or age?
Surely the draw weight will limit participation anyway."
Del, it is very true what you saw, I´ve just spoken theoretically. Very fast there´ll be a lots of classes.
PatM, o.k., but I think we´ve to limit the handles measurements very exactly.
Jules, Del, I don´t think it to be to difficult to find the good fibre stuff. Like selfbowery weaving has its renaissance, go for a supplier and you´ll get what you want, at the best biologically grown.
So who wants to elaborate our basic rules?
Michael
-
Steve, we posted at the same time.
For to be honest I´ve not thought to much about broadheads.
Thanks for clearing up me. It looks different to me now.
But anyway it sounds delicious to handle overdrawing. There are safety concerns. Personal responsibility?
Michael
-
Here is my proposal
Flight classes
All Classes 35# 50# 70# UNL#
Two divisions Regular flight classes and traditional classes.
Regular flight
All classes would have a minimum arrow length of 21” with no weight restrictions
Fletches could be made of any natural material and be no less than 1” long and Ľ” high
Natural material strings or synthetic strings subject to being voted on. I would be ok with synthetic strings
Any bow could compete in regular flight and would fall into one of 3 categories. Self, composite, and complex composite,
A self bow would be determined as using one piece of wood for the working part of the bow, nock overlays not to exceed 2” in length could be used. Built up handle and fade area would be allowed but not to exceed 12” in length. curfing would not be allowed and would be considered a lamination. In the case of recurves string bridges would be allowed but not to exceed 1” in length. Arrow rests could not exceed 2” in length and any natural material could be used on the arrow rest as long as it was not considered an elevated or breakaway arrow rest.
A composite bow could consist of any number of laminations as long as they are made of the same basic material such as wood or bamboo. The maximum arrow rest length would be limited to 2”and could be of any natural material with no breakaway or elevated rests.
Complex composite could be made using any combination of natural materials in any configuration, arrow rests or overdraws not to exceed 4” from the back of the bow would be allowed.
Traditional flight classes
The intent here is to test bows as they were traditionally designed to be used in either hunting, roving or target situations. I see this as a stepping stone into regular flight and a very important class
Arrow weights would be a minimum of 8 grains of arrow weight per pound of draw weight.
Arrows would be a minimum of 24” long
Minimum fletch size would be 3”long and 3/8” inches high ( metric equivalent)
Standard field tips would be used if dull rounded broadheads are not allowed.
Weight would be measured where the tip of the arrow was level with the back of the bow. ( I would prefer a nonsharp broadhead here as it limits the draw length)
Arrow rests could be shot off the hand or any natural material to be used.
Made made string material would be allowed
The classes would include but not limited to , American longbows, English longbows, recurves, yumi bows, Asiatic bows, war bows, tribal type bows ( under 56”) Each class would have a description written. War bows would shoot the traditional arrows they have already established rules on.
The weight class a traditional bow fell into would simply be the class it fell closest to in weight, the grains per pound would equal the playing field.
-
Bow descriptions
American longbow, any straight limbed bow over 56" long that when at rest the tips were not more than 2" behind the back of the bow.
English longbow, description to be written by ELB experts
Recurves, any bow that when braced the string makes contact with the bow limbs more than 1/2" beyond the nock. Any bow that when at rest the tips of the bow are more than 2" behind the back of the bow.
Yumi and asiatic bows to be written by experts in the respective fields
War bows, war bow society existing rules will prevail
Tribal bows, any bow under 56".
I prefer the use of dull rounded broadheads in all traditional classes as a limiter to draw length and a safety device. We could easily have some manufactued for those who did not have the ability to make their own.
I also would like to allow plastic arrow nocks in the trad classes only but would not be opposed to allowing them in regular flight classes.
-
Steve you are really getting my interest up now
one Question for now define break away rest , would a feather rest be considered breakaway? as it does move with the arrow
-
Some good sound stuff there.
I'd like to query weather the tradition classes should also allow flight arrows?
There is a precedent. At ILAA roving marks shoots they have a flight shot at the end where any wooden arrow may be used.
It's where I got 302 yards with an Elm Warbow.
Don't s'pose it matters too much as I s'pose I could simply have shot the Elm warbow in the unlimited flight class rather than tradition?
But it presumably wouldn't have been very competitive. It would also have saved me the expense of getting/making a "standard" Warbow arrow.
I'm sure I can write a simple proposal for a ELB definition for discussion. I'll set to on it.
Del
PS. There is some argument from some quarters about weather the "standard" warbow arrows are in fact realistic.
-
Here's a first draft of an ELB spec'
Draft ELB Definition iss1. DH 27/01/15
The bow shall:-
1. be no less than 5” shorter than the archer (tip to tip).
2. have a thickness/width ratio not exceeding 5/8 at any point.
3. be a single curve along the back (excepting any build up at the grip) at brace and full draw. E.G Reflex less than 2” beyond the back of the unbraced bow is acceptable.
A single curve means all curve must be in the same direction, it may get more or less but must not reverse direction. EG. No flipped tips or reflex/recurve visible at brace.
A straight line is not considered to be a curve.
4. Not have the string contacting limb at any point further than 2” from the end of the string.
5. Nocks may be of any natural material and any style unless it is visibly acting as a Siyah, lever or flipped tip. (Note the 2” limit in clause 3)
Flight Class:- The bow may be of self, backed or laminate construction using any timber including bamboo.
Traditional class :- The bow may be of any single timber not including Bamboo (not laminated or backed).
Heat treating, bending and splicing of billets is acceptable in both classes.
-
Buckeye, the feather rest is natural and was used in the past. It is very similar to a break away but I still am in favor of it. Not hard for anyone to make either.
Del, we presently have an english longbow class under the present regular flightbow rules. We could simply use that and review the definition of the english longbow. We have had some issues over rounded bellies and horn nocks on the bows that could be addressed by those of you who are more familiar with the bow and what makes it english.
-
Del, I posted the same time as you. I really like the rules you laid out, very much so! The only thing I would take exception to would be basing the bow length on the height of the archer. I would consider setting minimum bow lengths in relation to arrow length.
-
Del, if you used a 40% rule where arrow had to be no less than 40% bow length I think you would be good. Accurate to the lowest inch. It would encourage the tiller shape to remain more elb like.
-
I like the arrow length no less than 40% of bow length :)
I think maybe there does need to be a minimum bow length of some sort. I don't think a 6 foot bloke shooting a 4 foot "Longbow" would be right.
Say 5 or 6" less than the archer isn't too restrictive and it wouldn't stop people given bows to kids and ladies to shoot.
Having said that, I'm pretty easy, as a miniature ELB would sort of be cool :laugh:
I tried to avoid any rigid cross section definition, but maybe, just to tease Marc we could say all faces must be slightly rounded such that a straight edge will not sit flat across any face without rocking :o ::) ;).
Del
-
Del, could you simply state a minimum length bow? The 21" arrow rule would limit the shortest bow to 52"? I would think that is a bit short for a longbow. I have a feeling mark and many others will like your description.
-
I am working on putting together a copper rounded broadhead for traditional shooting that should have a head weight of about 70 grains. I am also working on the feasability of putting together a flight station using sliding channel for the weight station and a manual bow press for bracing. I will build my own flight station and keep track of the costs. Once we agree on rules and protocal I plan to do a video actually walking myself through the entire process for training purposes.
I feel like we are on target to have the rules settled by mid march and then we can go onto the actual organization set up.
-
Del, could you simply state a minimum length bow? The 21" arrow rule would limit the shortest bow to 52"? I would think that is a bit short for a longbow. I have a feeling mark and many others will like your description.
I just measured a bow I made for a 12 yr old girl, which was tillered to 28" it was about 65" ntn.
63" maybe 62"? Would be a reasonable minimum. Much shorter than that and it starts to feel like a shortie.
Del
-
I would agree to 62", I hope the feed back keeps comming in. Any feed back welcome even if you are not presently involved in flight.
-
Steve,
From the history files: The broadhead event was created to catch the interest of folks who's primary interest in archery is building hunting gear. It was used to attract bow manufacturers and give them a forum to fight for bragging rights. It attracted some interest for the modern materials bow people until Harry Drake entered into the fray for Browning Archery. Harry started creating one-off "broadhead flight" super bows that blew the competition off the charts and it dwindled into just another regular flight competition, except with heavy arrows. More recently, Broadhead flight seemed to have regained some interest with the addition of longbow and primitive events. I think it is kind of fun because the arrows are heavy and move slow enough that you can watch the flight, but I feel it failed it's originally intended purpose.
I don't think regulating the grains per pound would make much difference and it adds complexity to the equipment qualification process. It was busy enough at our last flight shoot making sure everyone's arrows were above a set number of grains. If we regulate grains per pound, then it still gives the advantage to the people with the longest draw length.
Alan
-
Steve,
Why would you propose minimal fletching dimensions for a regular flight arrow?
-
I would agree to 62", I hope the feed back keeps comming in. Any feed back welcome even if you are not presently involved in flight.
Just realized I need to add another clause.
No part of the limb shall be wider than the arrow pass. There shall be no arrow shelf or support, any grip shall not be thick enough to act as an arrow shelf.
I'll edit the document and publish an issue 2. Off to bed now... it's 11pm over here, and it's work tomorrow for me :(
Del
-
Good question Allen, I was going by our present rules. I would be more than happy to scrub that.
-
When it comes to establishing official primitive world records, I feel like the event really loses it's soul without natural strings. Primitive Flight shooting has helped keep the art of making high performance natural fiber bow strings from completely dying out. It is a pain if your only focus is bows. Making a great flight arrow from natural materials is a pain too. On the other hand, I wouldn't prevent anyone from shooting a primitive bow with a synthetic string. I would simply note it and the distance would be grouped with the modern longbows or recurves. Steve Gardner shot his primitive simple composite with the modern longbows because he didn't have a natural fiber string ready, and he was very competitive. The next day, he shot the same bow with a linen string and smashed the 50-lb Primitive simple composite record.
Our current English Longbow rules are really an oddball because it does allow synthetic strings and synthetic arrow nocks.
I sympathize with those who disagree because I originally disliked the natural fiber string requirement. It made it just a little harder than it would have been otherwise. I have accumulated a pretty ridiculous stockpile of premium natural fiber string materials and am more than willing to help out anyone who wants to try shooting flight this way.
Alan
-
Allen, on the broadhead event I simply cannot think of any other way to level the playing field and maintain any kind of safe limit to how far a bow is drawn. A 56# bow could compete in the 50# class simply by handicapping hs arrow weight. A properly run flight station should not miss a beat with this. The main goal is to make it more inclusive to anyone who might want to compete. The broadhead would strictly be ceremonious and be a big help in standardizing and limiting draw in a safe manner. An archer could go as heavy as he pleased with his arow so precison would not be neccessary at all. He would simply have a minimum arrow weight allowed.
-
I would go along with natural string requirement in the regular flight division. I am more open in the traditional classes whose primary purpose I see is to get more involved in the sport.
-
This is what we have done in the past. If someone has a 56# bow and wanted to shoot it with the 50# bows but don't want to shorten their arrows, then they would tape a small block of wood to the front of the bow to act as a draw limiter. It takes a minute, doesn't require modifications to the bow or arrows, and works pretty well.
-Alan
-
Allen, the idea is to level the playing field, sometimes it will not mean the simplest solution. I don't want something that is a no brainer. We have plenty enough brains in primitive archery to deal with a simple formula. This traditional class I am proposing will have no connection or resemblance to our present organization. It is targeted more toward showcasing and comparing bows as opposed to regular flight where all aspects of the set up are of great importance.
-
Keeping the rules true to the Primitive nature is nice but finding top quality natural fiber string is no easy task and I would be inclined towards leniency in this case and allow modern fibers just to attract more participants. The difference in the distance you are going to get if using a FF string versus a high quality linen string is going to be virtually non-existent anyway and your not going to have to worry about the string parting ways with the bow.
-
Marc,
I also wouldn't get hung up on the string material for local shoots where official world record status isn't at stake. However, I would encourage and highlight on the results those who do use a natural string.
I agree that it is possible to come close to matching the performance of a very low grade fast flight string with the best linen, but that is only because we have events that push us to figure out how to accomplish this. I hope we can keep this in place for a long time to come.
Alan
-
Marc,
I also wouldn't get hung up on the string material for local shoots where official world record status isn't at stake. However, I would encourage and highlight on the results those who do use a natural string.
I agree that it is possible to come close to matching the performance of a very low grade fast flight string with the best linen, but that is only because we have events that push us to figure out how to accomplish this. I hope we can keep this in place for a long time to come.
Alan
I've just ordered some single ply hemp yarn :), so I'll do some stuff with natural fibres where I'm willing to risk the bow.
Del
-
One of the main things I would take into consideration is that writng the rules in such a way where we don't change them later. Strings could become a big enough issue with archers as to limit paticipation even more than it is allready limited. It could become an issue where 2 or 3 years later we were wishing we would have given more slack here.
I also like to idea of discouraging the temptation to compare the two flight shooting organizations. Because we will be training officials over the internet without much screening we will never attain official status. Well respected is about the best we can hope for. Allowing synthetic strings will be a clear indicator of a difference between the two of us.
All my practice strings are now made with fast flite blended with linen. I uses 4 strands fast flite and 6 strands linen 7 strand. The weight of the string is where it should be but it doesn't break. I have no performance advantage when testing but I do have a depedable string.
-
Maybe a good compromise is to always report the string material used with the results. I think it will shine a spotlight on those who do use natural materials, but it won't shut out those who haven't mastered them. It isn't as big a deal where world records are not in the mix.
Natural fiber strings would be a good topic on its own. A premium durable linen string for a 50# 62" bow is around 85 grains (fully served with heavily reinforced loops). However, 200+ grains seem more typical for those making heavily waxed Flemish twist strings. A premium modern material string for flight is maybe a little over 30 grains, with most of the weight in the loops.
I haven't found good quality hemp yet. Reeled silk is available, and is the safest and most forgiving. Linen is the stiffest, but has zero tolerance for uneven tension on the strands and doesn't handle low humidity very well.
Alan
-
I like that Allen, You have started making notations on shots at the flats and I always enjoy seeing them. I would go for that rule that notations be made when shot natural.
Lately I have done better with the silk because of it ability to even out tension I am able to go considerably weaker than I do with the linen. I use flemish which is much harder to get 100% even. My typical string weighs about 175 grains with linen and about 125 grains with silk. If fast flight was about 100 grains ligher on the average it would boost speed about 6 or 7 fps. In broadhead this might amount to 15 yards. I always like to compare modern longbows to the primitive longbows in the broadhead division because we have similar rules. They use a 550 grain arrow. We use a 500 grain arrow with a natural string. It works out to put us almost on an even playing field.
-
In sailboat racing the rules are incredibly strict but for some races(smaller meets) the race director is allowed to ignore some rules. So in the notice of race it gives the pertinent info and says rule so and so will not be in effect. This gets all the rules in the book but still allows a little flexibility.
-
DC, thats not a bad idea. Something like sanctioned and unsanctioned shoots. I was thinking about something like this anyway. If a group was just froming it would be nice that they held a couple of practice events anyway to get themselves up to speed as archers and officials. It could make introduction to the sport a bit easier as well as making it easier to organize an event.
-
I planned to take the approach DC suggested for our next shoot in Oregon. My plan was to reference the existing rules but note which restrictions won't be strictly enforced. This way, it provides an easy entry point to those interested in Flight without the need for a totally new set of rules. It also gives the option to have record status shots if we do have the qualified officials on hand and entries that meet meet the strict equipment requirements.
Alan
-
You folks keep up the good work !
This is sounding good to me !
-
"Natural fiber strings would be a good topic on its own"
Alan, that's very right. I'll not see it happen that we allow synthetic strings and plastic nocks in our rules.
"I feel like the event really loses it's soul without natural strings", So it would be with plastic nocks too.
I can`t believe that it should be such a heavy task to get longfibre linen for to make great strings even biologically grown.I admit my wife is a weaver, so I've an easy access to the string material. But use your search engine and you'll find this super- linen, real best quality: http://shop.flachs.de/produkt/leinengarn-nm-2651-kba-blauschwarz/#!prettyPhoto[product-gallery]/1/, they offer 19 different linen- yarns for bowyers!. I guess there is a similiar supplier in the US or Canada too. Go for their whole offer and you'll be done: http://shop.flachs.de/?filter_anwendung=41&query_type_anwendung=or.
This is a network of growers of different natural fibres, they even offer the seeds.
The problem with linen- strings is that linen likes wet climate. I' ve posted in several forums to store your linen- fibres, yarns and strings in a wet salty atmosphere, that's all.
I use a very thin linen for my strings and count about 1strand/lbs, that makes a 40 strands- string for my flight- shorties( 40-48lbs). I can' t remember a break of one of these strings.
Steve, I thought about your proposals for the rules and classes.
As I understand it you're going for the regular flight- classes as before and we'll adding pure flight classes too?
So what will be the class for my "inuitish" styled short mollies in practice? 30degree recurved long skinny tips, 44"- 48" in length, 40- 49lbs/ 21"- 23".
Michael
-
Maybe this has already been said but natural strings are great on normal bows but are far more difficult on heavy ones. I know some have done it but only with Eastern fibers (yumi strings) not natural European stuff. For safety and numbers I don't think it would hurt to allow synthetic strings on heavy bows.
-
Michael, that would be regular flight and traditional flight. The little innuit bow would have to fall into the tribal category with a notation for the type. Tribal bows would be shot in the traditonal classes so maybe we could just lower the minimum arrow length for all the shorties.
Regular flight we have no need to classify bows beyond self or laminated as we are simply going for longest flight shot. Natural strings I have no problem with in this class.
Traditional flight is more for the bowyers to evaluate their bows. Taking arrows and strings out of the equation by standardizing arrows and allowing for synthetic strings gives a more pure look at the bow.
Ian, I am in favor of the war bow community writing their own rules as they have allready and our community accepting them as written. Same with english long bows and turkish bows.
Just something of interest to note. The most successful bows even in regular flight have not been the super stream lined fast flight bows but the more traditional looking bows. The skeletip bow would be an exception to this. I feel we have not mastered getting the arrows out of the bow cleanly and it is cutting our distances. Last year I set a record with a bow shooting under 230 fps with a light arrow. My 270 fps flight bow shot about 10 yards less on its best shot. Dan Perry shot a 50# laminated elb just about the same distance as the other record bows in the simple composite class.
-
I would like to go back to the goals we are trying to reach and extrapolate the needed divisions and rules from there. Taking into account what already has been said my suggestion would be this:
Regular flight division - The purest of the three divisions. What will be the furthest distance with any design made out of natural materials (including the string and arrows).
Goal: Distance & full natural
Bow classes: Defined by material - Selfbow, simple composite (wood & bamboo layers), complex composite (any natural layer)
Arrow specs: Minimum length specified. Weight not specified (anything goes). All natural materials. Any design.
String specs: Natural only
Record status: Global
Traditional flight division - A test of history. How do (historical) bow designs compare to one another. To compare this the arrow specifications will be standarized (similar to but replacing the previously used Broadhead arrow).
Goal: Comparing the prominent designs of the past.
Bow classes: Defined per design (Badger gave an nice example of possible classes, I personally would like to see a small list rather then a long one).
Arrows spec: Minimum length defined. Weight standarized (grains per pound). Design standarized (with allowed material, to be defined).
String spec: Synthetic
Record status: Global
Introductory flight division - A stepping stone to flight archery. Easiest to enter.
Goal: Getting people interested and enthousiastic about flight archery.
Bow classes: To keep it simple I'd say the same as regular flight division but either is possible.
Arrow spec: Minimum length defined. Weight not specified (anything goes). Plastic nocks allowed. Any design.
String spec: Anything goes.
Record status: Local (national)
All divisions have a common ruleset (currently weight seperation being the only one, could be more):
Weight: up to 35# 36-50# 51-70# UNL# (70#>)
This would cover the three main goals, distance, comparing bow designs and rejuvenating (or starting) flight archery. Of course more details need to be filled in here (such as arrow rest specifications, release method, allowed drawlength compared to arrow length (overdraw), measuring of the bow weight etc). Oddbal would be the 'warbow' class as this would be, in my opinion, any regular design over a certain poundage (and thus falling under it's respective bow class rather then being a seperate class).
-
A simple composite should read 2 natural layers, this would include sinew, rawhide and horn and allow sinew backed bows and sinew backed horn bows into the category.
If you keep the rules pretty well much the same as what FITA has already then what would be the point of creating another flight shooting organization?
-
Thats my thinking Mark. Mike Bitts has started another dedicated forum to run this orgainzation from. Once we get some basic rules layed out I think we are going to vote on the items of contention. I don't think we have a voting committee firmly established yet.
-
One thing we haven't discussed yet is that if we go ahead with the traditional classes as planned I suggested 8grains per pound arrow weight.
This could go anywhere from say 7 grains to 11 grains. 11 grains would allow for a shorter flight field, 7 grains would give more impressive distances which might be more motivating. A 7 grain per pound field might have to go out to 300 yards while an 11 grain per pound field could be maybe 230 yards long.
-
Getting people interested and participating should be the primary goal and you won't get that if you place too many restriction. The option of shooting another round with the proper equipment should be allowed. That way if someone happens to have a phenomenal shoot with say the wrong string type then they can switch their string to conform with accepted rules and try again for an acknowledged distance that can be submitted for a world record.
-
Thats a good sugestion Mark.
-
I found Jules post very thinkable, easy to understand. The rules defined by our starting point.
"f you keep the rules pretty well much the same as what FITA has already then what would be the point of creating another flight shooting organization?"
Marc, the main problem seems to be the question: when and why is a record a record?
"Getting people interested and participating should be the primary goal and you won't get that if you place too many restriction. The option of shooting another round with the proper equipment should be allowed. That way if someone happens to have a phenomenal shoot with say the wrong string type then they can switch their string to conform with accepted rules and try again for an acknowledged distance that can be submitted for a world record."
And what could we do for to incite more people to primitive flightarchery.
I still need more pics and videos for the site!!!!
I would like to add well known flight- archers and flight- bowyers to the history part of the site: whom should I dedinitely mention?
Michael
-
Micheal
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the problem of getting more people involved. Most people with a passing interest in flight shooting will not bother to go to the trouble of locating high quality linen and these are the people you want to try and captivate. Making the rules user friendly is a big step in acquiring more interest.
Quite frankly, having such rules as no overdraws, no handle deeper then 2", no overlays more than 2" is absurd. Primitive man would have done whatever it takes to do the job. I can see how splitting a limb and then gluing it back together would be a no no as you are basically making a lam bow which would just move it to the next category.
Rules... I remember when I belonged to a gun club. The club had a volume of rules, you can't do this, you can't do that. Then they would turn around and complain about Government regulations. Oddly most of the rules the gun club had were identical to the Government's rules. Hypocrisy does not sit well with me
-
I see no reason why any records in this organization under this organizations rules would have to be comparable to any other organizations rules. Giving shooters easy access to an entry point in flight shooting I see as a major objective with this organization. Switching over to the fita flight shoots would be only a minor adjustment. I expect I will continue to shoot fita and I am hoping this new organization will improve attendance at fita matches. If this works out as planned we will have established a whole new generation of flight shooters. I strongly favor drafting rules allowing for easier access to the sport as long as we are all playing by the same rules.
-
I'm all for keeping the entry level as simple as possible, this is the same in pretty much every sport (thus the introductery division). But as you progress in a sport and you want to compete on a higher level this usually means abiding to certain rules. I found that these are mostly in place to promote fairplay instead of restricting the athlete. I'm not saying we should go overboard and pin-down every detail but have enough of them so people don't 'break the game'.
-
Jules, I think we are on the same page. Things like string material and modern adhesives are about the only real compromises I can see we would be making. Modern adhesives do not add to the performance and likewise minimum string weights could be imposed to keep the advantage of modern strings to a minimum. Afterall we would only be competing within our own organization based on our own rules.
-
The poll- posts will speed up things a lot, great idea!
Marc and Jules, we're on the same page too, keeping the entry level as simple as possible.
Just for to think about: what about a "one class fits all"? Only weight classes and a footbow- class.
I guess we should think about being an organizer or do we just set the rules so that records could be claimed/recognized and posted?What will be the verifications?
Again, I need pics and videos.
Alan, I guess you've done a lot of pics and videos at the Salt Flats, would you be so kind to leave some of them for the site?
Anybody wants to post his favourite flightbow or flightarrow and tell us notes about it, pics very welcome!!!!
Michael
-
You are welcomed to take any pics from my blog. A search for flight arrows will produce some results.
This post may be of interest too.
BTW... I don't claim to be at all experienced at flight shooting, or matching arrows to bows.
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/curved-profile-feather-shaper.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/curved-profile-feather-shaper.html)
Del
-
Here's 3 pictures that someone sent me, don't remember who, of Steve shooting one of my bows. This is from early 2000, don't quite remember the date but I'm sure Steve does
-
Michael, I have a video but it is long and unedited. I have no clue how to edit.
-
It would be great if the primitive set of rules was adopted by Fita as well. (then I would not have to travel to the other side of the planet to compete) In general I think that building on the existing rules is the best idea. - or even just putting our energy into the events that already exist.
As to the strings, perhaps it could be allowed to compete with a synthetic string if it had a certain number of strands or was of a certain diameter - say at least so that it would weigh 50% more than a good linnen string. Then there would be nothing to gain, but also no bows to be lost due to string breakage. I'm one of those who fear the natural strings. On the other hand, I could just make a very thick and strong linnen string for my bows...
-
It would be great if the primitive set of rules was adopted by Fita as well. (then I would not have to travel to the other side of the planet to compete) In general I think that building on the existing rules is the best idea. - or even just putting our energy into the events that already exist.
As to the strings, perhaps it could be allowed to compete with a synthetic string if it had a certain number of strands or was of a certain diameter - say at least so that it would weigh 50% more than a good linnen string. Then there would be nothing to gain, but also no bows to be lost due to string breakage. I'm one of those who fear the natural strings. On the other hand, I could just make a very thick and strong linnen string for my bows...
Now that's the best thing I've heard on strings so far! Allow any string material, but have some sort of bonus (lower string weight, or less strands)) if you use a natural fiber string. I also fear natural fiber strings, and would likely be uninterested if I had to use them.
If I couldn't shoot my warbows without FF strings, I wouldn't do it. If the warbow society shoots required natural fiber strings, I wouldn't be involved.
The flip side of that coin would be to standardize all strings for all classes of bows. All bows must use FF, and then specify either minimum string weight or number of strands.
-
Kvillo, one of the biggest issues is having more events. You could have your own event if you could get two other guys. It wouldn't matter if fita changed rules they don't hold enough events in enough places. I feel this organization would serve to support the fita organization and help it to grow. Our regular fligth rules are almost the same as the fita rules with only a couple of minor proposed changes. The traditional aspect of this group would take the place of the broadhead event we hold in the US and make it a bit more inclusive.
I think the only proposed changes o the rules in regular flite is to lump together simple comp and some of the complex comp bows and possibly allow modern string material if it met a minimum weight requirement or diameter which could be eyeballed.
-
Michael,
Yes, I have lots of pictures and video that I am willing to share. It would take some time to go through it all.
Kviljo,
We are working on a proposal to incorporate our U.S. flight rules with FITA/World Archery, so that could open up the possibility of shooting the same primitive flight events in Europe that we currently shoot each year at the Bonneville Salt Flats. I'm sure the discussion over natural material strings will come up again.
Alan
-
Thanx Marc, Derek and Alan for sharing pics.
I'm glad to see Kviljo joining in.
I think we should fix the rules first, as we want them, whether they will match FITA- rules or not. Huge organisations are often acting very slow.
Michael
-
Soon as you folks get this ready let me know as I feel sure we could put an event together near me
What size of an area do I need to start looking for to hold an event ?
I am not super busy the month of July and the wheat crop should be off leaving some large areas open for a bit
Ready set go !!!
-
Buckeye, I think the last major hurdle is deciding on how to measure. We will start that maybe today and by the end up febuary should have everything drawn up.
-
On the matter of strings. I know the EWBS encourages the usage of natural strings in it's 'Welsh class' by simply adding a distance bonus (20 yards if i'm not mistaken) for people who use these strings. Not ideal I think, but just trowing it out there :)
-
Jules in the present broadhead class we have the modern longbows use modern strings and the primitive longbows use natural strings. The primtitive bows shoot 500 grain arrows and the modern bows shoot 550 grain arrows. It does tend to make them a bit more even.
-
I found you guys! Sorry I don't have time to read through the thread tonight, but something to think about:
A real problem with flight archery is weighing in all of the classes. If I were to give some advice, it would be..... Don't have too many weight classes. It can kill the sport.
Find a simple, safe way of weighing in bows. A simple way of measuring distance. Simple is good.
Sorry again for the hit and run.
I'll be back.
Dan Perry
-
Dan, glad yu showed up. I think throwing in two additional weight classes wont be a big deal considering we are dropping all the modern classes and going primitive all the way here. I really like the 35# class, working with wood it opens up a lot of opportunities for design.
-
Good to see ya join in Dan !
-
Steve,
I likewise am partial to the 35# class, 35#, 50# and Unlimited were good choices I believe. Three weights, if there are going to be very manny bow classes may help.
I have been thinking of moving closer to work, to an area about an hour drive from the salt flats. The idea is like a magnet that tugs on the flight shooting iron in my blood.
-
Dan, one thing I like about a 70# class is that say a 60# bow could shoot 4 grains per pound at 240 grains. 240 grains is right in the area where the arrow mass is starting to resist the fletches better and also where stiffness becomes easier to obtain.
The only changes I would like to see are the addition of both 35# and somewhere around 70#, and also feather rests to be made legal. The feather rest would give us some advantage over the old records but it is natural and I feel should be fair. I don't have strong opinions on arrow length but would prefer to see them lowered. I wouldn't object to another 1 inch added to arrow rests either.
We will always be compared to the flight records of the 1940's, I would like to see us have a better shot at matching those.
-
Steve
I think the 35 , 50, and unlimited are enough weight divisions.
That would take care of everything as I see it
-
Buckeye, I will obviously go with the majority but I see that 70# class as the real glamour glass of flight shooting. Once you start building arrows you will see what I mean. The fletches and arrow lengths are the same size for all classes so proportionately the lighter classes have a lot more drag on their arrows. At 70# you are just crossing into that area where you can get some nice stiffness on your arrows and still be light enough to pick up some good yardage. Right now I am shooting 56# bow in the unlimited classes against 100# plus bows, shooting against 70# would be a lot more competitive. Once you go above 70# I don't think the heavier bows have a huge advantage. I am not going to worry about it too much for our current orgaization but I plan to argue for it in the new organization.
-
Steve
I think I get what you are saying , remember when fiberglass arrows were going to be the big answer to all our problems with arrows HA HA
I don't see how the higher poundage will really make a big difference due to the arrow holding them back so why worry about classifying them
Its kinda like the wind issue thing wind can carry things along but arrows that are being blown don't fair so well so why stress over it ?
You folks know better than I so you choose
-
Look at it another way, all the other classes besides primitive use a 70# class, why not primitive?
-
Steve, you make a good point.
Weighing in bows is my least favorite part of flight shooting. To me it is scary. if there was a good way to do it without an arrow, maybe I wouldn't be so leery of so manny weight classes.
-
I'm with you Steve. Not a lot of people can shoot a 100# bow but many can shoot 70#. Having everything over 50# as unlimited doesn't make much sense. I would say a class around 70 or 80 lbs and then above that unlimited.
-
Well at least I sparked some input !
I am good with what ever you come up with,
Lets just getit rolling!!
-
Input is good, I think we are ready to start putting it all together and putting it on the web site. Trtying to figure if I am missing anything.
1. Rules,
2. Registration forms,
3. Protocal and instructions on how to run the shoot
4. How to qualify to become an official
5. Forming groups or clubs
6. Record keeping and posting results
7. Entry fees
8. Minimum recomeneded equipment a club should have.
I should have all this together within about 2 weeks and then we will need to go over it all one more time and make final changes, At this point we will open up the web site and be ready to start holding shoots. All forms and rules will be downloadbale but will need to be translated depending on what language will apply. I think the U.S. is about the only country that doesn't use metric so we might should switch to metric or use both equivalents.
-
I vote against metric.
Bows have always been measured in pounds.
I personally despair at the way other European countries (read French) always seem to appropriate our sports and then create bureaucratic dictatorial governing bodies that ignore the country that invented the sport (OK I'm thinking soccer here... so it prob' doesn't interest you guys in the slightest ::))...
I mean...even FITA stands for some bonkers French name... >:(
Del (click... Xenophobia mode OFF)
-
Glad to hear that Dell, if everyone is used to that we might as well stick with pounds.
-
Steve, that is Charley Johnson's arena. Charley Speaks that language.
If you can get in touch with him, Don Burge, in Price Utah, could help as well.
-
Thanks Dan
-
We make in april in Poland flight tournament. In this year we have participants limit 40. In this moment list is full. There is flight boom in Europe. I want make big flight festival in next year with yours oficial rules. I worry measurmed methods. Steel tape is fast and simple. I dont know how looks yours method, it will be good with for example 100 archers 5 rounds ?. I worry about organisation problems.
-
Steel tape is what we have agreed on here as well. Will your venue be primitive only? 100 archers shooting 5 rounds each would be challenging. Making good use of volunteers and training enough officials to officiate such a match could make it very doable.
-
Not only primitive, modern asiatic and modern flatbows too but no recurve, modern flightbows etc, only traditional bows
-
Do you have any specific rules for classes or does everyone just shoot against one another?
-
I think it is really important to do our best to get this traditional aspect right. In the current organization most all recurve and longbow classes shoot the very light flight arrows. In my view this makes little sense as a successful world record holder would have an incentive to modify his design to more closely resemble a regular flight bow. It is like taking a 747 passenger jet and having contests to see how it could operate as a fighter jet.
I think it was poorly thought out at the start but still makes for good sport inspite of this.
Regular flight bows have it right, they are doing as they are intended. Using every trick in the book to get more yardage. Tradtional flight might do well to operate on the fringes of how they were intended to operate for the sake of more impressive distances. I was really hoping for more input here as I am struggling a bit with the traditional aspect. Also it occured to me that sister clubs shooting modern bows also might invite us or we invite them to increase participation. Very important for us to get this right. If we do get it right it will be around for many years to come and serve as an important and well recieved aspect of archery.
-
Steve
I think that I hear your pain of getting this right , but not sure how you can gather enough folks together that understand all that is going on to get you the answers
there just are not many of us Primitives that have experienced flight archery enough to have decent questions let alone answers
I know I have not
I do however see what you are wanting to accomplish and have confidence you will get this going in a just the right way so that the rest of us can join in and have fun doing it!!
so all my responses are aimed at trying to spark thought for you not as thinking that I know much just as trying to help you
Can you set a minimum arrow weight for each draw weight to simplify things rather than a grains per pound?
Can we shoot against each other for the friendly competition aspect and only measure the few truly long shots to check for records ?
Keep up the good work
-
Buckeye, your thinking is very similar to mine. Measuring only pertinent arrows would be a huge help in cutting time. Because of the huge difference in distance attained by changing arrow weights We would have to assure somehow they were playing on a level playing field. One way to do this is as you suggested use a minimum arrow weight per weight class. This would leave the burden on the archer to make sure his bow came very close to the weight class he would like to enter. This is how we do it now. On the other hand if you wanted to encourage archers to bring thier favorite bows and not have to alter the weight we would be forced to use a grains per pound method.
The regular flight will be no problem, very few restrictions. Any of the trad bows could also shoot regular flight if they chose just as we presently do. We can use complicated methods for comming up with rules as long as they are simple by the time they reach the actual flight shoots.
Something I thought about for the trad flight is to eliminate weight classes alltogether. Only measure arrows that met a minimum distance goal and then after the fact weigh the arrow and the bow. If the arrow weight did not conform to the minimum required weight the shot would be disregarded. This would leave the burden on the archer to prepare for the flight shoot ahead of time matching his arrows to his bow. Not too much to ask.
Example might be that trad would be shot at 8 grains per pound, no arrows under 200 yards would be measured. After the arrows are picked up we verify that the arrow weight of his furthest did not go below 8 grains per pound and list his distance.
-
We have in this year only weight classes: 35 50 70 and unlimited, synthetic string is allowed in primitive bows.
-
sounds good , but i don't know how much time or effort we may burn up to measure grains and lbs and depends on more accurate set up rather than a go no go system
with today's tech available to us we can do most anything my mind is just stuck in the 60's
in the end I will be having fun what ever we come up with
We have in this year only weight classes: 35 50 70 and unlimited, synthetic string is allowed in primitive bows.
sounds like what Steve is thinking also
-
We have in this year only weight classes: 35 50 70 and unlimited, synthetic string is allowed in primitive bows.
You will be doing regular flite classes? No limts on arrow weigth etc?
-
sounds good , but i don't know how much time or effort we may burn up to measure grains and lbs and depends on more accurate set up rather than a go no go system
with today's tech available to us we can do most anything my mind is just stuck in the 60's
in the end I will be having fun what ever we come up with
We have in this year only weight classes: 35 50 70 and unlimited, synthetic string is allowed in primitive bows.
sounds like what Steve is thinking also
I think grains per pound is simple but it may not be, longest arrow bow weighs in at 61#X8=488 grains minimum arrow weight. You could eliminate weight classes alltogether doing this if you wanted to or 50 and under 51 and over. Try to set a standard for measure that required at least a decent shot.
-
No limit arrows mass. I see logistic problems. We want make flight more popular, so im sure that in future I will make tournaments for 100 and more archers. When I must check 500 arrows before tournament it sounds like problem for me. Turkish traditional flight recommend 2Gpp arrows mass, why we should go other way ? In this year and maybe in next we dont make regular flight classes. In Europe historical aspect of archery is very popular and this is the way for us make flight popular sport. But in future, why not
-
Just doing regular flight is much easier and faster. We will aslo be doing the regular flight in the primitive clases. The tradtional part will be optional for whatever club is holding the shoot.
-
If there is no limit to arrow mass then why would you need to check the arrows? Competitors would just use what they bring
-
Anyway arrows lenght must be check when archers use bows with draw weight limit. But there is organisations problems , more archers = more people to help. In this year it is still big improvisation, i wait on new federation and want in future use yours rules
-
We could manage heavily time consuming measurements as it is done in other sports like that: checking bows and arrows of the best (top 5 or top10) shooters only? Everyone breaking the rules is disqualified!
If we stand firm, competitors will strictly observe the rules.
Michael
-
The perspective of
will we have 20 shooters or 100 shooters is huge in the way we want to look at rules
I am a bit of a dreamer so I tend toward thinking big
-
We record all distances (for personal records sake) but only measure the bow when it has shot a record. EWBS arrows are checked prior to the shoot (in bulk), but I guess you could do the same for arrows (check record setting arrows). Flight arrows are currently 'anything goes' with no minimum.
-
Red hawk it is very good idea! We can check top 3 from each weight category and for example 10 random archers
-
Think about this:
Why not eliminate length or weight restrictions on the arrows, and limit overdraws on the bows to the classes that use them?
Put the restrictions on the bows, and not the arrows. Bows have to meet requirements for the class they are to be used in anyway.
-
Dan for the regular flight I believe this is what we planned. I think we agreed on a 14" minimum arrow which would effectively eliminate a length requirement. No weight requirements on regular flight arrows. Regular flite bows would only be 3 classes. Self, composite and simple composite with 4 weight classes, 35, 50, 70 and unlimited.
No real way to simplify the traditional and have it accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.
Dan, I am going to write a procedure here for starting a flight club and hosting a first flight event. I will be able to modify my post as feed back comes in instead of rewriting everything at once. I might have it up tonight, take a look at it and make any suggestions.
-
Thanks again for all you are doing Steve !!!
-
The conversations here have gone pretty well, thanks to all for the input. I think we have reached a point where Michael and I can open up the web sight with a complete breakdown of objectives, rules, procedures etc. This looks like it may end being 30 pages long or so and may take me about 2 weeks.
Once the format has been published on our web sight it will be subject to changes and editing on a line per line basis. I would suggest we keep it open for at least 60 days before we finalize anything. My spelling and grammar is not that stong so help in rewriting segments would be much appreciated.
I am feeling good about the process so far. Please keep the conversation going, I will be monitoring but responding a little less until I get the body published. I tend to get sidetracked and stall out when I get involved in too many topics at once.
-
Just let us know when you have it and the address to find it .
-
Sorry, for being such late, but have had a hard time with still to much snow and lambing mother- sheep.
The site is up so far, go here: https://ipfbc.wordpress.com/
I would appreciate your comments, pics and videos for the Primitive Flightbow- Channel I want to add to the site on youtube.
Upcoming events?
Michael
-
Michael,
Thanks. Regarding upcoming events, we have our US Flight Nationals that hosts Primitive and Modern bow flight Friday, September 4 through Sunday, September 6. The location is on the Bonneville Salt Flats near Wendover, NV.
A few of us may meet for some extreme distance shooting at Smith Creek dry lake bed in a very remote part of central Nevada on the Tuesday before the U.S. Nationals. It sits at 6100 feet elevation and was the site where many of the longest shots of all time were shot.
I also am working to finalize a flight shoot near Portland, Oregon. I don't have a date set yet, but it will be no later than the first week of August. It will be open to primitive and modern materials bows. The types of bows shot will be limited to a 500 yard field size, so we won't be able to accommodate some of the more extreme categories.
Since these events include primitive and modern equipment, rules and event categories will follow USAA flight.
See: http://m.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Events/Rules (http://m.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Events/Rules)
Alan
-
In new federation/club will be not such class like modern asiatic, modern longbow etc, only primitive ? I dont like rule USA flight carbon arrows for modern asiatic. Modern asiatic is still maybe not primitive but traditional form of bow. Modern material in bows and bowstring dont give big advantage but carbon arrow ruin all. It looks for me - who can spend more money on better arrows make better shoot. X10 olimpic shafts cost a lot and 5,5 mm diameter with huge stiffnes its more what we can do from wood
-
There will be a 'true' flight division and a traditional division (with different set bow types). Both will only be allowed to use natural materials.
-
The shoots I listed cater to both primitive and modern material events. The primitive specific divisions have enjoyed relatively high participation, but there's always room for more! I hope this new primitive forum and any new organizations that promote primitive flight helps raise the level of interest and competition in this sport.
The Modern Asiatic division is a new addition and caters to those who shoot "horse bows" and thumb-draw target type equipment using modern materials. The decision to allow carbon arrows was put in because many people who shoot those events shoot carbon arrows and wanted them included.
All natural material horn bows and wood bows are shot in the primitive divisions and I'd love to see more people give it a try.
Alan
-
Why not doing it as easy as in Poland?
Go here: http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,52178.0.html
One class fits all!
Michael
-
It does look easy, if a need ever arose to rewrite the official rules I am sure they would respond in time. Just skip the traditional classes altogether and go straight flight shooting. The trad classes seem to confuse a lot of people anyway. I actually prefer what I had hoped to become a trad class over regular flight but not enough nterest to really bother with it.
-
I want make popular flight shooting in traditional form in Europe and in my opinion rules must be easy. I dont have enough knowledge about modern flight - modern fligtbows, recurve, compound etc. I make primitive bows many years and traditional form of archery is my
passion. In Poland most popular are bows in traditional ,historical form made of synthetic materials. I try to show people that primitive, natural bows can shoot so good like fieberglass or carbon bows. Therefore I dont make divide on synthetic and natural bows, only draw weight classes. Im still novice in flight shooting but Im sure that is true, when all use wooden arrows. Not all can make bow, but all can make some arrow. I saw in this year many intresting solutions and arrow making was realy fun for all this people. Longbow funs have ofcourse small chances to win, but longbowman it is a state of mind, I know becouse im longbowman too :) And all have great fun.
-
Lukasz, when first starting off in flight shooting I feel much different about it today. I see primitive flight shooting and what is known as conventional modern flight archery as very pure sports. The object being to cast an arrow as far as you can. Primitive being all natural materials and conventional being modern modern materials. beatiful sport where the equipment has one purpose in the design.
After a few years of competing I began to realize that the traditional classes don't really make a lot of sense as they are shot. A traditioanl bow is designed with a purpose in mind that is not flight shooting. It is either hunting, target or warfare. Once the competition to break world records starts the motivation to alter the bows design favoring flight qualities starts comming into play. My belief is that these classes should be either eliminated all together or shot as they were intended with limits on arrow length and arrow weight in place to keep the designs honest.
The only true flight shooting is conventional flight shooting as far as I am concerned but shooting traditional bows for best cast is a great sport initself if kept tradtional.
-
Im sure you have right. Traditional archery flight be never pure sport, to many differences in equipment. English longbows, turkish. manchu, kyudo,recurve selfbows and many others. Each have different flight potential. So for me great distance is only nice bonus not priority. Most important is that we can meet together, shoot and talk about our passion.
-
I agree, the social aspect is what keeps me comming back. I actually prefer the traditional bows to the conventional flight but would like to see them shot closer to what they were designed for.
-
Steve,
I really appreciate what you are trying to do for flight archery. I see you trying to keep it as relevant as possible for the average hunter or target shooter as possible. But it is kind of like riding lawnmower racing. It starts with a few old guys in the neighborhood racing their clunkers in a nearby vacant lot, and before long, they start tweaking the machines to the point that they are worthless for mowing a lawn, but can zip around a track at 100mph!
I keep trying to think of an easy way to set up a flight shoot with normal working-type bows and I really struggle with it. 40-50+ years ago, the flight round had to be shot with the same bows and arrows that were used for earlier target rounds. Even then, some folks, like Harry Drake or the Pierson's, may have been willing to lose at the target rounds but make up for it on the flight round.
The easiest flight format I've seen is to let people shoot what they want and lump the results all together. What makes it interesting is the added info that describe the draw weight, bow type, arrow, string, and shooting style. I think this format can really shine a light on someone who may not come in first, but happened to shoot a primitive bow, natural string and primitive arrows nearly as far as the modern bows. The Polish shoot results are really interesting to read because of the variety of bows that were shot together. It didn't seem to hurt the competition given the large number of shooters who participate.
Alan
-
Allen, I am starting to agree with you. If the particapants maintain interest it will naturally evolve into flight bows. There really is not enough interest to do anything else. I Happily concede to enjoy it as is. Primitive I see no need for any changes in anyway aside from a couple of additonal weight classes.