Ozbow

morning.

toby wrote:... What is the main problem people have with the ILF limb attachment bows ?

Define what makes something Trad, does it comply, do others you want to shoot with agree? if you have people who will shoot with you, you have some viability. If no one agrees you are in effect a shooting body of one - shoot what ever you want.

Thanks Grahame, but that doesn't answer the question?
I chose the Ilf limb attachment as an example only. There are others such as Das, Hoyt, Predator & possibly others I don't know about.
As to what makes something Traditional in an archery sense, well that seems to be a matter of opinion. Some things are obvious & others not so.

Morning.

toby wrote:... but that doesn't answer the question?..

Alright look at it this way. What makes ILF Trad?

Grahame that's still not answering the question.
That aside I guess it's the same thing that allows a bow bolt or a carbon fibre sleeve system on a two piece long bow.
I'm pretty sure both systems weren't around pre compound, if that really is the cut off date for being traditional.

toby wrote:.........And to think years ago I made the decision to swap all my modern compound bows & related gear for the simplicity of Traditional Archery. Simplicity! Who was I kidding........

It still is Simplicity.

What complicates the issue is that people want rule changes to suit their own whims or desires and are reluctant to change.

toby wrote:.....That aside I guess it's the same thing............or a carbon fibre sleeve system on a two piece long bow.
I'm pretty sure both systems weren't around pre compound..........

The carriage bow which was in use in England in the mid 1800's was a two piece metal sleeve take down longbow. Metal sleeves are still available and in use today.

Daryl.

Afternoon.

toby wrote:Grahame that's still not answering the question.

I am not trying to convince anyone that ILF is Traditional. If I was I would have presented a case for it.

You, I gather/perceive, would like ILF accepted as Traditional. So make a case for it. (The onus is on you.)
...

toby wrote:...I'm pretty sure both systems weren't around pre compound, if that really is the cut off date for being traditional.

To add to Daryl' note.
Bob Lee, 1963, hardlock bolt-on limbs. Pre Allen Patent.
Apollo Steel Longbow Circa around 1950 Two Piece sleeved Takedown
Image from Archery History http://www.archeryhistory.com

http://www.archeryhistory.com/longbows/ ... hoyt56.jpg

Daryl I am fully aware of the carriage bow & I have seen others using steel sleeve systems. Which is why i chose my words carefully. Both systems I mentioned are modern improvements on older systems as are the improvements of the other limb attachment methods I mentioned, the difference is some are allowed & some aren't under the guide lines. Daryl it's not a matter of people trying to change the rules because they don't like them. There are no set rules only guidelines. Each club make up there own rules for their shoots. These guidelines like any will be debated from time to time & changes may or may not happen that will be up to the people involved.

Grahame I don't have to prove Ilf or any other limb attachment system is trad. I simply asked what was the main problem some people have with these systems.
But just so you know in my opinion they are all trad to me. With the exception of the Penobscot bows, one string & no cams or wheels is good enough for me. Now what catergory they should or should not be in that's another matter.Also I only shoot at trad shoots two or three times a year so I couldn't care less if they are classified as trad or not as I don't think I have ever handed a score card in regardless of what bow I was shooting at the time so it won't effect me either way.
If you have an answer to the question I would like to hear it.

yeAH we have semi productive conversation again!!,!!,!

Toby I don't think anybody has a "problem with the modern limb fitment systems such as formula, ILF, DAS etc.

I think it's more that they are a modern system derived from Olympic target shooting primarily and as such not "traditional"

The 2 pce take down system weather it by steel, brass, carbon or wood, doesn't offer any performance benefit by comparison to the modern take down systems with poundage adjustment, limb alignment adjustment and tiller adjustment.

By the way thank again for the little D/R semi recurve/ longbow for my daughter she loves it (she keeps threatening to shoot the chickens)

graham thanks for posting all the links to the rules, I have some serious reading to do.

Toby thanks for your opinions on the junior devision. Can I ask what your reasoning is behind having 3 age groups? Just curious to see what your thinking is for the benefits of having 3 v 1 age group.

Morning.

toby wrote:...I don't think I have ever handed a score card in regardless of what bow I was shooting at the time so it won't effect me either way. ....

Thus it does not matter.

Morning.

BowmanBjorn wrote:graham thanks for posting all the links to the rules, I have some serious reading to do.

It makes things a little easier to understand if you have a look at wide range of views. There are more beyond those.

Even FITA/World Archery shoots Trad and provides Training/Coaching resources for it, they just don't overtly promote it as such. The USA Archery reg's have gone through several iterations in last few years. Every iteration has been one that has restricted more recent equipment. I expect they will stabilise somewhere near where they are now. The NFAA regs are worthwhile wading through. To that sample it is interesting to look at many of the clips on YouTube where Trad is featured and observe what is being used.

The World Traditional Festival seems to have found a home in Korea. It has grown over the years and there is always something new (as in groups) at each event.

toby wrote:.... Which is why i chose my words carefully. Both systems I mentioned are modern improvements on older systems......

Can you explain why the carbon sleeve is an improvement on the steel sleeve system that has been installed correctly.

Is the carbon sleeve adjustable?

Daryl.

Here is a revision idea to the original Trad guide lines that Grahame posted:

Sorry - I have changed this download in favour of another, due to more modifications being done.

Please check post further down.

Just a little side track for a moment, I don’t remember reading in these treads the mentioned the IFAA rule for differentiating between the style’s of modern longbow. This rule seems simple, sensible to me. What are people’s thoughts about this?

Referenced from “International Field Archery Association Archer’s Handbook : 2015-2016 edition”
Longbow division

When the strung bow is placed with the bowstring in a vertical position, the angle as measured between the tangent of any point on the limb and an imaginary horizontal line must always decrease as this point is moved further away from the bow grip.

Where there is any doubt as to the continuing curve of the limb then a string-line laid from the end of the riser fade out to the commencement of the tip overlays (or if there are no overlays then the point at which the bow string is held in the nock groove) on the back of the strung bow shall show no gaps between the string line and the bow limb.

From what I’ve seen this rule allows for some slight (reflex/deflex, deflex/reflex), whatever the case maybe, but eliminates extremes from either.

DavidM wrote: Where there is any doubt as to the continuing curve of the limb then a string-line laid from the end of the riser fade out to the commencement of the tip overlays (or if there are no overlays then the point at which the bow string is held in the nock groove) on the back of the strung bow shall show no gaps between the string line and the bow limb.

From what I’ve seen this rule allows for some slight (reflex/deflex, deflex/reflex), whatever the case maybe, but eliminates extremes from either.

This is not unlike the ABA definition of a traditional longbow. The description I used was borrowed, and I thought, was a neat very simple way to explain the same thing.

Any reflex in the limb when strung, would show a gap using a string line over the limbs. A slight variation to this might be if the limb has a flat spot at some point, but even so, it may still be considered to be moving towards the archer perhaps.

It still allows a longbow to show a slight deflex/reflex when unstrung - which can still show the classic longbow shape when strung.

Either way, I am happy to use the description you mentioned.

It should be noted too, that there may be a few slight errors in continuity, that may need to be addressed, but I had already posted it.

Sorry, but here is an updated version of the revised trad rules for consideration and/or ridicule:
I forgot to add in again:

1.5 Release Method

Anchoring point to be such that the nock of the arrow is below the cheek bone. This is an added safety measure.

Evening Bjorn,
I'm glad your daughter is enjoying her little bow.
In regards to Ilf,Das Etc recurve limb attachment systems wether they be trad or not is a matter of opinion. As to what makes something trad or not I really don't think there's an easy answer to that question.The fact that they have been developed from a target shooting back ground shouldn't matter as trad shoots are just a different form of target shooting.
What I do know though is there is only one advantage to Illf, Das etc limb attachment systems & that is the ability to change limbs on a riser more easily, once this is done the adjustment are simply there to allow you to tune your bow. When you have tuned your bow to your setup that's it, you don't tune it again unless you change your setup. It will shoot NO better than any other well made & tuned bow.

The reason I liked the three categories was because in my experience children like competing more if they are competitive in their group, nobody enjoys getting flogged. Putting a 5 or 6 year old with a 12 year old in the same category shooting off the same peg would be unfair as would putting a 13 year old up against a forty year old adult with 30 years shooting in experience.

Daryl wether the carbon fibre sleeve system is any better or not like most things is a matter of opinion.
I believe it is lighter and is meant to be a more reliable system to use. But going by the opinions of bow builders such as Black Widow & Big Jims bow company that rate them better than the steel type sleeve I would assume there must be something in it.

Grahame you are right about one thing, wether Ilf or other similar connection systems is considered Trad or not doesn't matter to me. But it may matter to others & needs to be part of the discussion if people want to discuss catergories.
Can you tell me which of the main organisations world wide don't allow these type of systems in their trad divisions as I don't seem to be able to find them. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Kendaric you may want to look at the Centre shot on the recurve bows.

Morning.

toby wrote:... Can you tell me which of the main organisations world wide don't allow these type of systems in their trad divisions as I don't seem to be able to find them. ...

I am not a Research assistant.

toby wrote:When you have tuned your bow to your setup that's it, you don't tune it again unless you change your setup. It will shoot NO better than any other well made & tuned bow.

Hi Toby
Yes the old “they will adjust their bows (ILF) during competition” cherry! Let me play the devil’s advocate for a moment.

I have never, in my experience, seen anyone adjusting an ILF bow during competition weather ABA, IFAA, AA, 3DAAA or Trad comps allowing ILF). What I have seen reasonably often though, is a longbower of recurver (non ILF bow) stop during a comp, unstring their bow, adjust their string length, restring and carry on.

toby wrote:Kendaric you may want to look at the Centre shot on the recurve bows.

That is very possible, I mostly just went with what was currently accepted in the recurve division, as I figured that it must have been express that way for a reason.

I think centre shot bows are catered for by section 1.3 that says "In the case of a bow being cut past 1/8th from centreshot a pad of leather of similar shall be used to bring the bow back to 1/8th from centreshot."

It is a poor practice on a recurve to set the arrow dead centreshot. Centershot is for compounds with release aids, and some top compounders still suggest slightly outside centreshot (Darryl Reeks from memory was one). Even Olympic target recurvers set their arrow just outside centreshot, and is also recommended by the Easton tuning chart.

Looking at the original Trad Rules that Grahame posted (that most trad events go by), seem somewhat lacking in describing the difference between Longbow and Recurve. What stands out the most is the metal riser distinction. It is no wonder that semi-recurve modern longbows could be lumped into longbow category.

The Trad rules don't quite go far enough (modern longbow as a semi-recurve), and the TAA guidelines go way too far in the other direction.

toby wrote:.........Daryl wether the carbon fibre sleeve system is any better or not like most things is a matter of opinion.
I believe it is lighter and is meant to be a more reliable system to use. But going by the opinions of bow builders such as Black Widow & Big Jims bow company that rate them better than the steel type sleeve I would assume there must be something in it.......

They are not going to rubbish their own product are they.

Yes, people like different things for different reasons.

As traditional longbows have a small handle mass in relation to their limbs I have found that the metal sleeve system adds extra weight in the handle which can help make the bow more stable.

I found the following re ilf interesting, who would have thought it was invented and patented for take down compound bows. Daryl.

Yes David I have seen the same thing happen several times also as well as a couple of people string walking & a few gap shooters to boot.Good thing that sort of thing doesn't bother me.

Sorry Grahame I didn't expect you to do any research, just thought with all the links to organisations you posted earlier you might know if any exclude bows with Ilf, Das Etc fittings from their Trad Divisions. So I looked at all your links & couldn't see any that excluded them.

Daryl I have seen those images before but never took a lot of notice of them. Interesting how things develop, some one obviously decide all those cables & cams didn't lend themselves to any easy method of changing limbs & decide to put the system to better use on traditional bows. Only one string must of seemed so simple by comparison.

Kendaric I think that most recurves these days are cut past centre to some degree which is not a problem at all as it allows you to pack out the sight window as much as is needed to suit the diameter & spine of the arrows you shoot. Also being centre shot is more forgiving on arrow spine.

My thoughts, that is considering their only guidelines.

Hi Toby

These rules seem ok. I would probably still like to see the longbow division split into modern and traditional similar the IFAA and ABA ground rules, but it’s certainly not a deal breaker with me.

This is just a general question to the forum though and may open a can of worms!!

But what is the perceived problem with string or face walking, isn’t it just another form of aiming? (did I just mention the A word )

To save confusion with the original document could those offering suggestions submit them [changes only] on a separate document with a distinct heading such as "Suggestion for rule modification".

Daryl.

Any other opinions?
Remember they're like backsides we've all got one.
And I think it's good to hear diverse opinions.

Evening.

My take.

There are a set of rules that work. And work even better when people don't play around with them.

No one is willing to put in the hard yards and do the work to seriously prepare and see through alternatives.

So nothing will change and given the last half a decade as an example that is okay by me.

The next iteration of this topic is due in 6 to 9 months.

BowmanBjorn wrote:But it would appear on here that the sentiment isn't shared and that there are plenty of complaints on the rules of all clubs/ and organisations.

They, if they exist are noticeably absent by their lack of input.

It would appear that the silent majority are happy to work in with the clubs hosting the shoot.

toby wrote:Any other opinions?
Remember they're like backsides we've all got one.
And I think it's good to hear diverse opinions.

Well in that case my backside says two [2] divisions; pre 1901 and 1901 to 1960.

Daryl.