Author Topic: Bow riser question  (Read 21238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,195
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2020, 05:48:03 pm »
...providing the built up portion of the handle does not bend...
this statement is not only ambigous, it is technically false.

providing the built up portion.... does not...... act as an additional laminate in the working/bending areas of the bow limbs.

any length specified will be changing the intent if it can bend

if the rule gets put on the table for amending, should the intent be clarified first?

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2020, 06:53:22 pm »

any length specified will be changing the intent if it can bend


And everything bends :D

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2020, 05:44:49 am »
It does seem like people could be reasonable about judging whether the added on bits are purely to build the thickness back up versus trying to cheat a lam into the harder working portions of the limb.

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2020, 11:08:21 am »
It does seem like people could be reasonable about judging whether the added on bits are purely to build the thickness back up versus trying to cheat a lam into the harder working portions of the limb.

The problem with that is that people aren't reasonable :D especially if you put them in a position of authority ::). If you leave it up to judging you will have different rulings fron one meet to the next.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,195
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2020, 11:53:34 am »
and if the bow in question were a bendy handle design, would it be a working trilam?

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2020, 12:08:55 pm »
That crossed my mind too.

Offline avcase

  • Member
  • Posts: 485
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2020, 04:38:54 pm »
The problem with that is that people aren't reasonable :D especially if you put them in a position of authority ::). If you leave it up to judging you will have different rulings fron one meet to the next.

Don,
This is very true!  This is why I like to make it as clear as possible in the rules.  I find it important to avoid very open ended statements.  The event officials who will be checking your equipment may also be a competitor. Clarity helps eliminate real or perceived bias when that official needs to make a judgement.

I know that added pieces bonded to the handle area for the self bow and simple composite has been allowed since the beginning.  I think in every case, the added on material fades into the main limb, and this does technically make the bow into a limited multi-laminate. Specifying a maximum length for this does provide a clear limit. So I feel this could be a good approach. Is 12” too much?

An alternate solution is to disallow added in pieces at the handle for all future self bows and simple composites.  Would this be better?  It may mean bows used in prior years can no longer be shot in the same category in the future.

Overall, I feel our primitive rules are pretty good. The rules managed to avoid the pitfalls of trying to conform to a traditional standard. Instead, the rules attempt to focus on the materials and how they are used, and leave it up to the archer to figure out how to come up with the most effective design to get the job done.

Alan

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2020, 05:21:20 pm »
I remember when I was racing RC sailboats. If you wanted the boats to be simple the rules got complex. If you wanted the rules to be simple the boats got complex. 12 " sounds great to me. Maybe write it in like " a third lam is permissible in the center 12" " to cover Willie's bendy.

Offline mmattockx

  • Member
  • Posts: 946
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2020, 11:28:32 pm »
Specifying a maximum length for this does provide a clear limit. So I feel this could be a good approach. Is 12” too much?

Too much for what? If it is a hard number it doesn't really matter much what the number is. You have an objective standard that is not subject to (much) opinion/bias and it is consistently the same for everyone, which is about all you can hope for when setting out rules for a competition like this. Specifying how many decimals the measurement will be made to and what the allowable measurement error is would help to further define the allowable limits.


Mark

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2020, 07:02:42 am »
Adding wood to a riser is generally just done  to re-gain thickness or overlap a splice.    It could maybe be shortened a bit from 12 inches to eliminate the extra belly lam grey area.

  Sounds like the rules guys at an event need to be  non-competitors.   With no friends competing either. lol

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,195
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2020, 10:56:17 am »
specifying any length would be an addition or change to the rule.
 
If any measurement is to be incorporated into the rule, it should be to clarify what was originally intended. Define and measure the bend.

Offline Selfbowman

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,955
Re: Bow riser question
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2020, 07:38:26 pm »
My handles are 9-10”fade to fade. For a fifty pound bow . I have built 100# bows with 10” handles. Just make the add on’s  add after 1 “thickness in the riser or handle. Sorry DC  you might need more yew. Not trying to be smart or hard ass. Most all selfbow rules state one continuous piece of wood or two billets joined in handle. They make no mention of any other laminates at all. But I’m ok with what ever is decided. At that point Its just the rule. Arvin
Well I'll say!!  Osage is king!!