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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.