Should we formalise shield construction requirements?

I don’t care a lot either way, but I do think we should allow for something slightly more substantial in the shields than corflute, because that way your handles last longer. Maybe limit how close it can go to the edges??? (3" of foam!!!)

For example, if I create a round shield that has a piece of plastic to reinforce the handle, it really doesn’t make it significantly more dangerous, it just prolongs the life of the shield and adds a small amount of mass.

The stiffer handle gives more control over the shield, and stops it bending too much when struck. The same arguement could be made for light dowel handles, or a small plate of plastic to affix arms straps to on heater shield. In all cases, I think if they end three inches from the edge, they should be considered acceptable.

Sure. I’m more meaning the main sheets of material that the shield is made from.

EDIT: The barrel plastic handle idea is probably preferable to the fibreglass rods that I’ve been using in foam swords, from a safety perspective.

I guessed as much, which is why I did the picture. Good rule definition is hard (talk to a lawyer some time about badly written laws and then sit back in horror). Badly written rules can have an unintended effect if taken too literally.

For example, the intent of a rule banning metal shields can be misinterpreted as meaning no metal may be used at all and suddenly, shields get banned because they have buckles. An extreme (and silly) example that most people can see as silly, but there is a fuzzy middle ground that some people may go either way on. For example, a wooden spine on a shield that is used as a handle. The intent of the rule was to prevent people getting hit in the face by a sheet of plywood, but the knock on effect may be that we start building crappier shields because people take the written word too literally.

I suggest that you guys get some flathead arrows and some IDV arrows (sp?) and any other popular types and conduct some actual tests with different draw strength bows. Quoting examples and technical specs at each other doesn’t seem to be getting you guys anywhere. Perhaps our FX gurus might make an eye socket prosthetic with something squishy inside (Out! Vile jelly!), and you work out experimentally what exactly you need to do to squish the squishy stuff.

(Edited to remove personal comment)

That’s a good idea Steph, but an expensive one - the round-headed arrows Ryan is advocating are around £10 each (note that symbol is not a dollar sign…) and the other variety with the flat, open-cell head (see the knighthawk link) aren’t much cheaper, ~ £8 each.

Derek - you suggested allowing 3-4 types of arrows, really we’re only looking at 2, because those are the only options. All arrows here atm are either one or the other as far as I’ve encountered - Adam’s contacts may have points otherwise from the continent, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Shields - Derek’s picture and the sentiments so far actually mirror the little tutorial we put in other threads. From that diagram, wood/plastic reinforcing of the handle would be fine by me, though I’d be wary of anything hard ending up on the front face of the shield. If that pattern were on the back, or the short bit of dowel, or whatever, all well and good - but not on the front where there’s greater chance of hitting someone.

[quote=“infernalmud”]Cost is a big factor in weapon safety requirements. I saw in Denmark that the only arrows permitted in the larp I looked at were about $70 NZD each. I’ve always been keen to use archery in NZ larp, but not at that price.

All arrows used in larps like Mordavia and St Wolfgangs have been homemade, right? No safety issues?[/quote]

Every game I’ve been to, Jenna and Patrick have been the only ones with bow and arrows. By the standards we’re looking at, neither person’s arrows would be permitted (unless they’ve changed since). I’ve been wary of both, and I hate to say it moreso Patrick’s - DESPITEHIMBEINGAFINEARCHERTHISISN’TPERSONAL - simply because of the gaffer-warpping they have, stemming from my experience with gaffer-tape clad boffer weapons.

[quote=“TequilaDave”]That’s a good idea Steph, but an expensive one - the round-headed arrows Ryan is advocating are around £10 each (note that symbol is not a dollar sign…) and the other variety with the flat, open-cell head (see the knighthawk link) aren’t much cheaper, ~ £8 each.[/quote]If the cost is so prohibitive that noone in the country is planning to get them, then it becomes a non-issue. You’d only need a couple to do weapons tests.

Touche :stuck_out_tongue:

If I were to get them in wholesale in order to get the price down, then I’d probably have to buy more than a couple. And I wouldn’t bother with the flat-heads, given that they’re less aerodynamic and appear more prone to take damage and waterlog. They’re also ugly, and while that’s not a primary consideration it’s relevant, just as it’s relevant that latex weapons look the part more than big soft weapons.

That in itself kinda defeats the purpose of the exercise - we want to see these things side by side, ruling one out before there’s been a chance to test it ourselves is a bit narrow-minded.

I have an event lined up for early next year that will feature bows. It’s entirely possible I could take a range of photos demonstrating a few features of both - including the all important “how it fits into my eye”, and post them for all to see. The alternative is to try get a few back to NZ, as I’m looking at buying some for events over here anyways, and it would just mean getting a couple extra with my own and sending them home.

I’m not particularly interested in that exercise. For me, the point is to have some nice larp-safe arrows in NZ.

I didn’t import one latex weapon and compare it to our homegrown weapons, I imported enough to be useful. Because the international evidence pointed to them being superior to what we had.

Same goes with these arrows. They’ve already been proven in massive larps, and their engineering process appears far superior to the competition. The only reason I didn’t bring them in years ago is the expense per arrow.

Which is a fair enough comment, but if the latex weapons had turned out unsafe or noone wanted to use them, what then? And I still have to advocate the flat-headed variety on the grounds I’ve taken one squarely to the crotch, and I’m convinced the only reason I didn’t double over was because of the open-cell head cushioning the blow. This is not an exaggeration. If it had been one of those new IDV jobs, I doubt I would have been so lucky.

Aerodynamics has been mentioned. I went through my pics of the games, and at CP in particular with the mass skirmish there was a lot of arrow use (ie hundreds of shots) and all of them in my visual memory flew perfectly. Having a convex surface on the front isn’t going to make that big a difference. If it did make a significant difference, then a more aerodynamic arrow that travels faster would be a BAD thing, despite any gained accuracy.

That said, I’m not against the new arrows, I just want to see them up-front and personal, and maybe be shot by a couple first :wink:

All the arrows that turned up at st-wolf gangs were suitable for the poundage of bow being used (very low) however there have been changes reccomended to all of the archers for future events - all of these changes I hope are practical and easy to apply.

In regards to shields I will be making a very larp safe shield in the near future to test out as a full combat shield with Porl. If it passes our acessment then we will test it with a few others in more rigerous trials to see just how friendly it is - hopefully it will become the benchmark for the “above requirement” grade of shield.

Actually, a more aerodynamic arrow is safer, because the velocity is more constant over the entire flight. PROVIDING you drop the poundage on the bow to adjust.

If I have two arrows, one that decelerates at 2m/s and one that decelerates at 4m/s, then to shoot them both 20m, the second arrow must leave the bow at a substantially higher velocity than the first. What this effectively means is, a more aerodynamic arrow can be safer because it can be launched at a lower velocity and go the same distance. Math is funny stuff, but it works, and it is rarely incorrect :slight_smile:

Not disputing any of that - except the radical difference in any drag/deceleration. I argue that the difference is likely negligible, to use your example along the lines of 2m/s vs ~1.9m/s, and with such a narrow margin between the two having the barely faster model made of more solid materials than the slower one, possibly works against them.

That said - I’m still not against the newer IDV arrows, I just want to see them in action compared to the old ones which I’ve had a very positive (shock aside) experience with so far. And as Adam says - going with what you know can be best :wink: