Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Greetings, and a question

Expand Messages
  • atruemark@aol.com
    Greetings. Without getting bogged down in definitions of compound bow vs compound bow, I would like to address the statement that the Penobscot bow
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings. Without getting bogged down in definitions of "compound" bow vs
      "compound bow," I would like to address the statement that the Penobscot bow
      would be inappropriate for the SCA shooting line as the system acts like a
      compound bow by significantly altering the force-draw curve. As compared to
      what? Has there been a study done to see what its design produces compared to
      a Persian, Korean or Chinese bow? Any of the multi-laminate, eared bows can
      be said to have mechanics that significantly alter the force-draw curve...if
      compared to an ELB.

      I'm not trying to be argumentative or nit-picky...this is an honest question
      designed to stimulate discussion.

      Regards,

      Andras Truemark


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Koch
      ... I agree with Andras on this one. The author of this original statement was obviously not aware of the fact that numerous methods of gaining a mechanical
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        At 02:40 PM 1/4/2007, atruemark@... wrote:

        >Greetings. Without getting bogged down in definitions of "compound" bow vs
        >"compound bow," I would like to address the statement that the Penobscot bow
        >would be inappropriate for the SCA shooting line as the system acts like a
        >compound bow by significantly altering the force-draw curve. As compared to
        >what? Has there been a study done to see what its design produces compared to
        >a Persian, Korean or Chinese bow? Any of the multi-laminate, eared bows can
        >be said to have mechanics that significantly alter the force-draw curve...if
        >compared to an ELB.
        >
        >I'm not trying to be argumentative or nit-picky...this is an honest question
        >designed to stimulate discussion.
        >
        >Regards,
        >
        >Andras Truemark
        I agree with Andras on this one. The author of this original statement was
        obviously not aware of the fact that numerous methods of gaining a
        mechanical advantage in archery have been in use way before the modern
        compound bow was introduced. Even the recurves introduced in the 1920s
        were a step in that direction. In any case, the Penobscot bow is not a
        compound according to the intent of the SCA archery rules. A modern
        compound bow has pulleys. Of course people familiar with traditional
        crossbows are aware that examples of compound crossbow prods with pulleys
        survive from at least a couple centuries ago. I haven't yet been able to
        document them from before the early 19th century, but am still looking. As
        I understand it, the Penobscot type bow was also used in Northern Europe by
        the Lapps and some Scandinavian peoples well within the SCA period. I
        actually shot a crossbow with such a wooden prod at Pennsic about 6 or 7
        years ago. At the time it was considered a medieval European technology.
        >
        Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
      • Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
        ... did ... Thanks to all you for the responses. I figured that the 1600 AD timeframe would be a major hurdle, if not an unachievable obstacle, for this bow.
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, John edgerton <sirjon1@...> wrote:
          >
          > I was the society deputy marshal for target archery at the time of
          > the last rewrite of the rules. I knew of the Penobscot bow and
          did
          > not consider it to be a compound bow. But, I believe that it was
          > developed after 1600. Our current society target archery marshal
          > would be the one to make a final judgement on that,
          >
          > Jon


          Thanks to all you for the responses.

          I figured that the "1600 AD" timeframe would be a major hurdle, if
          not an unachievable obstacle, for this bow. According to Wikipedia,
          for what it is worth, it states that the first European settlement in
          Maine was a French settlement in 1604, and suggests that Samuel de
          Champlain was at that settlement. Here is the link for that...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine#History

          However, Maine's own website states that the first settlement was at
          Popham in 1607. This same page also states that Leif Ericsson "may
          have tried to establish a settlement (in Maine)". Here is the link to
          that part of Maine's history section...

          http://www.maine.gov/legis/senate/statehouse/history/hstry2.htm

          I am really more interested in knowing whether the Penobscot bow
          would qualify under the SCA standards vis-a-vis the compound bow ban.

          I'm not quite sure how the "draw weight issue" would matter with this
          bow since one can order it at various draw weights, unless there is
          an issue about having a bow draw at "x" weight while the force
          required to pull it is equivalent to "x-y" weight. Basically, I'm not
          sure why a 100# draw Penobscot bow is an issue if a 100# draw Longbow
          is not an issue, unless it is the "x-y" differential I just mentioned.

          Once again, I thank you for your responses.

          In Service,
          -Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
          "Sursum ad Summum"

          "Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
        • jameswolfden
          A while back I was researching some information about different types of bows and penobscot bow came up. One of the things that I came across put forth the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            A while back I was researching some information about different
            types of bows and penobscot bow came up. One of the things that I
            came across put forth the idea that this bow is actually a
            relatively modern bow designed as a gimmick for a travelling wild
            west show.

            The picture of Indian shown on Penobscot museum page is Chief Big
            Thunder, aka Frank Loring. Loring (1821? - 1905) worked for the
            circus and with travelling wild west shows. The Chief was a self-
            imposed title probably to give him provenance during his shows. He
            opened a museum latter on in life. Loring was a great storyteller
            and very popular with news reporters looking for stories involving
            scalping. However, there is some indication that most of what he was
            doing was showmanship and that the Penobscot bow (and a history of
            its use among the Penobscot Nation) was invented by him as part of
            his show. The earliest photograph I have seen of a Penobscot bow is
            from around 1840 which still puts it during Big Thunder's life. I am
            not aware of any earlier date (that can be proven) but, of course,
            it is still possible that the bow was actually part of the Penobscot
            culture and Loring was just using it as part of his show because of
            it was unusual.

            One issue I always had with this bow was why it would be developed.
            It might be a useful design where there was not good bow wood but
            the Penobscot lived in an area of good bow wood and we don't find
            any evidence of it among their enemies and neighbours.

            I haven't tried to make one but have discussed it with those that
            have. While it works, it does not appear to be as efficient as one
            would like and you could just build a heavier bow. i.e. You could
            combine a 20 pound bow and 30 pound bow and get a 50 pound bow but
            it would not cast an arrow as efficiently as just making a 50 pound
            bow in the first place. Nor does it have the letoff that we
            associate with modern compounds. It will still feel like you are
            pulling a 50 pound bow. So while it may fail the pre-17th century
            requirement, I don't think this bow really gives an advantage except
            to get heavier drawweights with inferior bow wood.

            James Wolfden
          • jameswolfden
            My research was just looking at the penobscot. Do you have any documentation about the Lapps and Scandinavian bows? I am aware of the cable backed bows but I
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              My research was just looking at the penobscot. Do you have any
              documentation about the Lapps and Scandinavian bows? I am aware of
              the cable backed bows but I haven't seen anything like the penobscot
              bow.

              James


              --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, James Koch <alchem@...> wrote:
              >


              > As
              > I understand it, the Penobscot type bow was also used in Northern
              Europe by
              > the Lapps and some Scandinavian peoples well within the SCA
              period. I
              > actually shot a crossbow with such a wooden prod at Pennsic about
              6 or 7
              > years ago. At the time it was considered a medieval European
              technology.
              > >
              > Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
              >
            • Carolus
              Rhisiart, There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most definitely not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the Penobscot
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Rhisiart,
                There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most definitely
                not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
                Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
                European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
                definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
                rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
                question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
                photo used as evidence for this design has several major
                differences. I also note that there were several designs from period
                in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
                hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.

                As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
                Carolus

                At 07:31 AM 1/4/2007, you wrote:

                >Hail and well met,
                >
                >I recently joined this group. I have a question about a bow that a
                >friend and fellow archer pointed out that intrigued me. I apologize
                >in advance for including links in this message.
                >
                >The link to the bow in question is here...
                >
                ><http://rudderbows.com/penobscot.html>http://rudderbows.com/penobscot.html
                >
                >snip
                ><http://www.penobscotnation.org/museum/pana>http://www.penobscotnation.org/museum/pana'wahb'skk'eighistory.htm
                >
                >So, how does this bow fit in with Section 1.2.1 C(1) of the SCA's
                >Target Archery Handbook, which states the following, "No compound
                >bows are allowed in competition. There will be no exceptions to this
                >prohibition." Does this bow qualify under the SCA rules?
                >
                >I know that this bow skirts with the SCA's timeframe of no later than
                >1600 AD, but I am more interested in whether this is would qualify
                >under the Target Archery rules.
                >
                >I thank you in advance for your responses.
                >
                >In Service,
                >-Rhisiart ap Llywelyn
                >"Sursum ad Summum"


                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM
              • James W. Pratt, Jr.
                At worst it would shoot against the $400 used Hoyt s in the open class. If it fits into a period class is the real question. James Cunningham Playing Devils
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  At worst it would shoot against the $400 used Hoyt's in the open class. If it fits into a period class is the real question.

                  James Cunningham
                  Playing Devils Advocate



                  I was the society deputy marshal for target archery at the time of
                  the last rewrite of the rules. I knew of the Penobscot bow and did
                  not consider it to be a compound bow. But, I believe that it was
                  developed after 1600. Our current society target archery marshal
                  would be the one to make a final judgement on that,

                  Jon
                  On Jan 4, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd wrote:

                  > Hail and well met,
                  >
                  > I recently joined this group. I have a question about a bow that a
                  > friend and fellow archer pointed out that intrigued me. I apologize
                  > in advance for including links in this message.
                  >
                  > The link to the bow in question is here...
                  >
                  > http://rudderbows.com/penobscot.html
                  >
                  > Here is the text that is on this webpage...
                  >
                  > "The Penobscot Indian bow named after the ingenious Penobscot Indians
                  > of the eastern woodlands. This Marvelous bow was one of the most
                  > versatile bows ever made and may have very well been one of the first
                  > compound designs ever built.. . The bow is stable and and can be
                  > adjusted to a higher draw weight by tightening the back strings. The
                  > back bow and strings help reduce string follow adding speed. This bow
                  > also sports lower handshock as well as accuracy. One other feature is
                  > that being able to adjust the draw weight helps match the spine of
                  > your arrows to the bow.. Just simply twisting the back strings will
                  > increase and decrease the draw weight. 68"-72" tip to tip depending
                  > on draw length.Pyramid main bow which also adds to speed . This is an
                  > excellent bow with a super sweet draw !"
                  >
                  > Here is a "deep link" into the Penobscot Nation webpage, which is
                  > about their history. There is a photo on this page of a Penobscot
                  > with a version of the bow in question...
                  >
                  > http://www.penobscotnation.org/museum/pana'wahb'skk'eighistory.htm
                  >
                  > So, how does this bow fit in with Section 1.2.1 C(1) of the SCA's
                  > Target Archery Handbook, which states the following, "No compound
                  > bows are allowed in competition. There will be no exceptions to this
                  > prohibition." Does this bow qualify under the SCA rules?
                  >
                  > I know that this bow skirts with the SCA's timeframe of no later than
                  > 1600 AD, but I am more interested in whether this is would qualify
                  > under the Target Archery rules.
                  >
                  > I thank you in advance for your responses.
                  >
                  > In Service,
                  > -Rhisiart ap Llywelyn
                  > "Sursum ad Summum"
                  >
                  > "Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • logantheboweyder
                  ... My understanding is that the Penobscott has an complex force-draw curve, caused by 2 different bows being put under stress. The belly bow acts as a
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "jameswolfden" <jameswolfden@...>
                    wrote:
                    >

                    > I haven't tried to make one but have discussed it with those that
                    > have. While it works, it does not appear to be as efficient as one
                    > would like and you could just build a heavier bow. i.e. You could
                    > combine a 20 pound bow and 30 pound bow and get a 50 pound bow but
                    > it would not cast an arrow as efficiently as just making a 50 pound
                    > bow in the first place. Nor does it have the letoff that we
                    > associate with modern compounds. It will still feel like you are
                    > pulling a 50 pound bow. So while it may fail the pre-17th century
                    > requirement, I don't think this bow really gives an advantage except
                    > to get heavier drawweights with inferior bow wood.
                    >
                    > James Wolfden
                    >
                    My understanding is that the Penobscott has an complex force-draw
                    curve, caused by 2 different bows being put under stress.

                    The belly bow acts as a traditional bow, with it's force-draw curve
                    working as an ideal spring at short draws, and starts to get steeper
                    as it starts to stack.

                    The back-bow is shorter, and acts in a fundamentally different manner.
                    When the entire bow is at brace-height, and first starts to be drawn,
                    the back strings pull on the back-bow, and much force goes into
                    attempting to stretch the bow, while only a little goes into trying to
                    bend it. Thus, the back bow is "stacked" at initial draw, and the
                    force required to bend it is high. As the bow is drawn further, the
                    angle between the back-strings and the back-bow increases, and the
                    back-bow becomes less stacked, and is bent easier. Thus, the back-bow
                    acts like a heavy bow at short draw lengths, and a light one at longer
                    lengths.

                    The sum of these two curves is what we feel when a penobscot is drawn,
                    and if properly set up the force-draw curve can be altered
                    significantly, getting the early draw of what might be on a 60 lb bow,
                    but the curve tapers off so that the final weight might only be 45
                    lbs. Much like what is seen in a recurve F/D curve.

                    Yay physics!

                    Logan
                  • Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
                    ... definitely ... period ... Carolus, Thanks for the response. As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the Sami (Laplanders). I do
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Rhisiart,
                      > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
                      definitely
                      > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
                      > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
                      > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
                      > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
                      > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
                      > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
                      > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
                      > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
                      period
                      > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
                      > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
                      >
                      > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
                      > Carolus
                      >

                      Carolus,

                      Thanks for the response.

                      As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
                      Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
                      1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.

                      As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
                      Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
                      require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
                      undergo.

                      Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
                      bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
                      SCA rules". Hence the initial question.

                      Once again, my thanks.

                      In Service,
                      -Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
                      "Sursum ad Summum"

                      "Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
                    • James Koch
                      I don t actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi limbed bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod didn t have enough
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I don't actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi limbed
                        bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod didn't
                        have enough cast. It didn't work, so I scrapped it. I believe I got the
                        design from an article about an arctic hand bow in an issue of Primitive
                        Traditional Bowhunter Archer. If memory serves, I once read about Roman
                        Empire bows made of two or more stacked limbs like a leaf spring. I also
                        made one of those based entirely on my own design. Again, I have no
                        documentation.
                        >
                        Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
                        >
                        >
                        > At 10:35 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:

                        >--- In <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com,
                        >Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Rhisiart,
                        > > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
                        >definitely
                        > > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
                        > > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
                        > > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
                        > > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
                        > > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
                        > > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
                        > > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
                        > > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
                        >period
                        > > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
                        > > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
                        > >
                        > > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
                        > > Carolus
                        > >
                        >
                        >Carolus,
                        >
                        >Thanks for the response.
                        >
                        >As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
                        >Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
                        >1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.
                        >
                        >As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
                        >Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
                        >require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
                        >undergo.
                        >
                        >Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
                        >bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
                        >SCA rules". Hence the initial question.
                        >
                        >Once again, my thanks.
                        >
                        >In Service,
                        >-Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
                        >"Sursum ad Summum"
                        >
                        >"Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • ICE TIGER
                        Just for the record Primitive Archer and Traditional Bowhunter are two different publications so don t go looking for Primitive Traditional Bowhunter
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Just for the record "Primitive Archer" and "Traditional Bowhunter" are two different publications so don't go looking for Primitive Traditional Bowhunter Archer magazine at a newsstand near you.
                          Dalton

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: James Koch <alchem@...>
                          Date: Friday, January 5, 2007 9:50 am
                          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Greetings, and a question

                          > I don't actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi
                          > limbed
                          > bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod
                          > didn't
                          > have enough cast. It didn't work, so I scrapped it. I believe I
                          > got the
                          > design from an article about an arctic hand bow in an issue of
                          > Primitive
                          > Traditional Bowhunter Archer. If memory serves, I once read about
                          > Roman
                          > Empire bows made of two or more stacked limbs like a leaf spring.
                          > I also
                          > made one of those based entirely on my own design. Again, I have
                          > no
                          > documentation.
                          > >
                          > Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > At 10:35 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:
                          >
                          > >--- In <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>SCA-
                          > Archery@yahoogroups.com,
                          > >Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Rhisiart,
                          > > > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
                          > >definitely
                          > > > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
                          > > > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
                          > > > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
                          > > > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
                          > > > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
                          > > > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
                          > > > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
                          > > > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
                          > >period
                          > > > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
                          > > > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
                          > > >
                          > > > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
                          > > > Carolus
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >Carolus,
                          > >
                          > >Thanks for the response.
                          > >
                          > >As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
                          > >Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
                          > >1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.
                          > >
                          > >As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
                          > >Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
                          > >require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
                          > >undergo.
                          > >
                          > >Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
                          > >bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
                          > >SCA rules". Hence the initial question.
                          > >
                          > >Once again, my thanks.
                          > >
                          > >In Service,
                          > >-Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
                          > >"Sursum ad Summum"
                          > >
                          > >"Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.