Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Flight Bows => Topic started by: Badger on January 30, 2015, 10:16:08 pm
-
I thought keeping a sheet like this up dated could make for a quick overview of results.
-
I guess it won't print the file. I will try and photograph it tomorrow and post it as a photo. Just a simple spreadsheet that we populate each time results are turned in.
-
I managed to view it, although it did say there was some unreadable content.
Looked fine to me.
Attached is my 2nd draft of ELB spec' for perusal and comment.
Del
-
Del, I would ageee with the rules as you have written them.
-
I was finally able to open the files.
Steve,
It looks like you are showing a distribution of measured distances instead of a score sheet. It would get pretty big if you threw in the weight class divisions.
Del,
I think that looks pretty good. I like how you have defined the drawn shape. Is the 5/8 ratio the only cross section geometry requirement? A round belly is not required? What about the arrow requirements? Would you propose any string requirements?
Alan
-
Yes Allen, not a score sheet, just a distribution of distances turned in. I would be nice for referencing.
I believe Del acepted 40% of bow length for arrow length on an elb.
Mark had a good suggestion on strings, where if somebody chose to reshoot a bow under official flight rules he could do so.
-
Del,
I think that looks pretty good. I like how you have defined the drawn shape. Is the 5/8 ratio the only cross section geometry requirement? A round belly is not required? What about the arrow requirements? Would you propose any string requirements?
Alan
IMO A D shape or round belly is a somewhat Victorian concept. Some of the Mary Rose bows are nearer round or square in section.
We could prohibit a dead flat belly by saying:-
A straight edge placed across the belly shall not sit flat but must rock to demonstrate some curvature.
But I feel it's hardly worth the effort.
Trying to define round or D shaped is an argument waiting to happen.
Marc's story of how he had to withdraw a bow because the belly was "too flat" filled me with despair, so I thought, just keep it simple.
At what point is a square with rounded corners become round? ::)
I think the spirit of 'longbow' is established with these rules. My only reservation is length and I've been willing to compromise on that.
Arrow and string requirements are covered elsewhere I believe.
Del
BTW
I think these rules would actually translate to Warbow too, with a simple lower weight limit. Doubtless the Warbow fraternity will want to stipulate their own rules, but what I've seen of the EWBS society definition it doesn't make sense!
E.G. They should be based on MR bows but can't have reflex.... D'uh... quite a few MR bows have reflex. (OK we don't know if it was there before the ship went down)
-
Del - the EWBS do allow reflexed bows and I wish you would stop saying they didn't, what isn't allowed is artificially induced reflex.
The proposed warbow definition isn't perfect, let the WarbowWales guys give some input if they want to, they are probably the best to make those comments. As far as length goes it really needs to be a set figure, it certainly can't be down to arrow length or the archer. I would propose 72" it's the lowest complete length for MR (I think) and is short enough to allow shorter arrows to be shot efficiently.
-
Good comments Ian. What do you guys know about the "European Taditional Archery Society"?
I am wondering if it might be a good avenue to make tradtional flight shooting more well known.
-
I would be incredibly careful in conversation with ETAS. Their UK shoot was/are run by none other that Steve Stratton and where he is bad things always follow. ETAS members on the continent are a great bunch of people but are, and always will be, allies of Steve first.
Your idea for a world flight organisation is a great one but the organisation you propose should be separate and not equal to other societies currently run, then when things are official entertain proposals for other societies to join you, not the other way round. Be the UN of flight archery if you will, but less buying of power.
-
Your idea for a world flight organisation is a great one but the organisation you propose should be separate and not equal to other societies currently run, then when things are official entertain proposals for other societies to join you, not the other way round. Be the UN of flight archery if you will, but less buying of power.
I would second that - do what you want, make it great and other societies will queue up to join you. Try to please them and you'll make no one happy or really offer them an incentive to come to you.
-
I am not familair with the organization but I appreciate the heads up. I am just looking for ways to get this organization off the ground and running. I would suspect that different cultures around the globe would have an empahsis on different types of bows.
-
Del - the EWBS do allow reflexed bows and I wish you would stop saying they didn't, what isn't allowed is artificially induced reflex.
The proposed warbow definition isn't perfect, let the WarbowWales guys give some input if they want to, they are probably the best to make those comments. As far as length goes it really needs to be a set figure, it certainly can't be down to arrow length or the archer. I would propose 72" it's the lowest complete length for MR (I think) and is short enough to allow shorter arrows to be shot efficiently.
Pardon me, I wasn't actually trying to write a Warbow spec'. I was contributing a longbow spec' for discussion. But it would be nice to have a sound warbow spec. Although If I make a longbow that happens to draw 90# I can call it a longbow rather than a warbow.
This rather begs the question.
Is a "Warbow" spec' necessary at all unless there is an upper draw weight cut off for longbow?
Heat bending and inducing bend while seasoning has been part of the bowyers armoury for millennia.
So... artificially induced reflex isn't allowed?
And how pray do you tell the difference????
And what about an asymmetric bow with one limb having natural reflex, One isn't allowed to bend the other to match... but one is allowed to heat bend the reflex out to match the straight limb?
That doesn't appear to be consistent or logical.
Del
-
I expect that we will have some negotiating to do with one another on some of the rules. I would be difficult to determing if reflex was induced or not. What abut heat treating? I would imaging the existing war bow rules just might fall right into place, possibly they have a few things they feel need adjustment. I will suggest over in the war bow forum that they start their own thread on the rules they would like to see in place. The final decision they can hopefully agree on.
-
It doesn't have to be done yet but we should start a new thread for the 'warbow' spec I think: it's going to cause more problems than ever single other category combined and it has to be done well initially. My personal opinion is that both heat treating and reflexing are vital tools in the bowyers armoury and should never be banned, why they ever were is a mystery to me.
You're completely right about how ridiculous the EWBS spec is Del but they never followed their own rules anyway. I feel like it can be sorted but forcing the thickness taper to be very close to a real MR taper. Reflexing a thin bow is difficult but can be done, and the skill of tillering a reflexed bow should be rewarded. Given the MR taper (which is thin) you simply wont be able to tiller extremes of reflex, and if you can well done. Recurving the tip is something which can be stopped by defining over by what length the deflection should take. Basically the unbraced bow can have bends in all directions but if you were to put a straight edge along any part of the bow, (I think about 30cm/12") the middle of that straight edge cannot be more then x away from the back of the bow, so the entire bow can have a reflex which might be considered high but no part can seriously reflexed at any single point.
You can do a similar thing with the belly profile: uploading a curved template PDF with some kind of scale guide that maps have so it can be printed out consistently by everyone around the world. The bowyer should cut out and place the profile on the belly of the bow, the bow must be one evenly worked surface and profile template must touch the very middle of the template, if it only touches the edges then it's obviously too flat, that way a certain level of flatness would be avoided. Giving us a consistent world wide profile.
Del - do those two points make sense, you're the other person here who makes these bows?
-
Ian and Del, between the two of you I would feel confident that you guys could come up with a good definition if you run into an area where the two of you just cannot agree maybe we could moderate until we have a compromise.
What do you guys feel would be a fair arrow weight to test english long bows under. I am thinking about 8 grains per pound, certainly no less than 7 grains or heavier than 9 grains. This should give decent distances while still shooting in a tradtional ELB style.
-
Some good suggestions Ian :).
You are offering ways of checking against the rules, which is the vital step that some definitions miss out.
I think a major point about a long self bow like a warbow is that the limit is the performance of the wood.
If anyone tries extreme reflex, they are likely to run out of draw length.
That's what I like about the ILAA spec (not a warbow spec' as such), it is well documented with a rationale explained for each definition.
I really like your rule applied to the back of the bow and no more reflex than so many inches (or mm) gap.
I'm currently working towards making a couple of warbows to ILAA spec with some deflex in the middle and right reflex in the outers. Overall the tips will pretty much be in line with the grip and hopefully they will have a smoother acceleration (this may just be bowyers optimism :laugh:).
I think the flatness/roundness is the big stumbling block if rigorous examination is undertaken. Many staves have concave features or grooves in the back which go from rounded to flat and even concave.
It need sto be worded very precisely, like:-
The back of the bow shall have some curvature across it checked against a reference profile for at least 80% of it's length.
A straight edge could also be used (as it is more readilly available), if the straight edge rocks rather than sitting flat across the back then it is curved.
The devil is in the detail and if it's not precise we can fall prey to pedants.
Regarding arrow weight, there should IMO, be one of the standard heavy warbow arrows and an "as light as you dare" >:D class to allow for absolute maximum distance.
The lighter warbows would be better shot as longbow class as anything under about 90# will struggle with a "standard" arrow.
Del
-
Just to argue from a position of ignorance, it seems from reading the arguments on the warbow forums about various minutiae that just having an arrow weight specified, and possibly that the shaft must be made of wood, would help to reduce the chance of a protracted discussion as to whether a distance record should be recognised because the fletchings were bound on with white silk rather than red.
I think that what is trying to be achieved here is to make a flight shooting federation that allows people to use bows that they find interesting for whatever reason to record distances. What the warbow societies are trying to do is experimental archaeology. For example, if I make a heavy longbow that is profoundly influenced by the design of the English military longbow, but that also uses features that I find interesting or pleasing (or just cheaper to make) which haven't been found in the bottom of the Solent, then I would expect it to not necessarily be accepted at a formal event of an archaeological society but I would be disappointed if an organisation whose stated aim is to be as broad a church as possible to encourage flight shooting didn't tolerate it. That of course comes with the rider that those features aren't totally out of context, but as has already been said the nature of the materials will be self limiting.
-
Exactly...
If we need a warbow definition, (after all, can't they just shoot as U/L longbow?) It should be as inclusive as possible and not overly pedantic. I think arrow weight may be better than "standard arrows" (which are expensive to buy or make).
After all, we have no wish to compete with or against the various Warbow societies who are welcomed to do their own thing.
... and just to fan the flames... I'd assume any loose which carries the archer over the shoot line wouldn't be allowed >:D
Del
-
Exactly...
If we need a warbow definition, (after all, can't they just shoot as U/L longbow?)
This is what i was thinking. Sure Mary Rose bows have specific dimensions but aren't they all variations of the English Longbows in the end?
-
Another thing about results. Will the records coming out of this new federation be recorded 'from blank' (so a new start if you will) or will the current records be used to serve as a base 'to beat'.
-
Jules they will start from scratch, slightly different rules will make them not so comparable.
-
So if I go first I can have a world record if only for a minute :laugh: :laugh:
Sign me up
-
Buckeye, I imagine the first couple of years would be fun seeing records fall so fast.
-
The fun of seeing it all happen is what I am after Steve !
Passing it on to those that come later !
I most likely will not even compete
Are you going to make the Tennessee Classic this year ?
Maybe you can train us folks east of the big river then