USEA blurb on Prologs (new 'safer' jump materials)

[JER]

From the USEA website: First use of safety jump material at Wayne DuPage Horse Trials (http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?id=1759)

This is an infomercial disguised as a news article. :mad::mad::mad: And that's probably the most positive thing I can say about it.

I'm all for safer jumps, safer materials, safer design, etc. But 'safety' is not using untested materials just because it sounds like a good idea or because BNRs own the company that produces it. Which is what happened at this particular venue.

And they even admit the data isn't there just yet:
For the competition (Figure 3) however, the TD was concerned about using an unproven technology on such a critical fence, and so I moved it from the location in the construction photos you see here to the fence just prior in a long galloping lane

Thank you, TD, for your good sense on this matter.

The article ends with this refreshing, yet frightening bit of honesty:
More research is also expected as this new safety material gets wider use at other venues. So if you see a funny looking log on your next cross-country course, thank the organizer for trying innovative ideas with course construction to help make our sport as safe as possible.

So after all those rider deaths, all those horse deaths, that so-called Safety Summit, this is what we get? First we use it, then we test it -- the ass-backward approach to safety!

:mad:

[TB or not TB?]

Noooooo it'll go over GREAT guys! Despite the fact that "Prologs are more costly to replace when broken than are frangible pins." So how much will entry fees rise again?

Oh, and that they dent when horses bump into them. And that they will "snap" when 500 lbs lands on them - and may leave bulky pieces of material for the horse to trip on (because, yanno, when an 80 lb pole goes flying, it's not dangerous at all!)

But heck at least now we'll save countless numbers of horses and riders from the stifle injuries that are killing them! Especially over those deadly logs. Wait, that is the leading cause of death, right?

I agree with JER. I am all about safety. I do think it is a good idea to explore options that would have less wear and tear on a horse, and hanging stifles on a drop is definitely unhappy. Yet this kind of seems like handing neosporin to someone with a severed limb - sure it'll help eventually, but the person still will die unless you stop the bleeding.

I am dismayed at the lack of testing before implementation in a recognized event, though I do applaud the innovation and direction toward safer jumps.

[BigRuss1996]

I am going to have to be the one to disagree....
These have actually been around a while now. The Canadian Team's final outing had them on their course as well. I also do not agree that as ULR's they couldn't have developed a good product.....exactly the opposite. They fully understand the horses jobs out there and the risks and how rotational falls happen. As riders they have almost a better feel for what would work for a horse and how this type of a fence and this material will work with them.
If you really knew any of these guys you wouldn't be saying these things. They are very knowledgable and have been in the sport a very long time. I personally think the logs they have developed are a great idea and a step in the right direction. Will they be "THE solution"....... no probably not...but I don't think any ONE thing is.

[Badger]

Why so much negativity when someone is trying to address the problems? You'd think it was some vast right-wing conspiracy. It's not. It's some riders and builders and organizers that are trying to think outside the envelope and do something horse-friendly that will help our sport. Constructive criticism is a very good thing, but belittle the effort rather than be supportive of it?

As far as stifle injuries, I've seen what looked like a "nothing" rub as it happened to a friend's prelim horse present a career-threatening injury that took a long and expensive rehab to recover from.

These logs look like a good step in the right direction and I'm glad organizers and designers are trying them and I look forward to seeing them on course next season.

I am sure we see all sorts of innovations on course that were not "tested" thoroughly. For example, I've seen cars and boats as jumps on courses...I don't think those were tested first. And new shapes are created by designers all the time...they are "tested" in use, not in a lab.

I would love to hear feedback from intermediate riders at Wayne who walked the course and saw the fence. What did you think? Did the jump concern you? If so, did you exercise your option not to run? Did anyone discuss concerns with the TD? For those that jumped it, how did it ride?

[LisaB]

hmmm, I'm with BigRuss on this one. I don't think it's been widely publicized and a lot of hoopla about them but they have been around and they have been used in schooling venues as well as competition. I would test new technology in schooling venues for awhile before a competition but it was done nonetheless. Schooling venues get beat up and tested out tons more than in competition.
But I would prefer the usea to develop guidelines and acceptance rules on new technology because hopefully, we will see a lot more of this kind of stuff in the future.

[mademoiselle]

I'm in the camp of people who think that it is actually a step in the right direction. It's not like there are are lot of different options to make the sport safer.
We can change the design of the fences, the design of the course and the type of material used to build the fences.
It seems to be a clever idea and while I agree that it's always better to 'try' things in a lab or in a schooling environment, it's very hard to really reproduce all the types of situations that can happened when a horse takes a jump.

I actually like the idea.

[RAyers]

I think what you will see is that the engineering types will tend to disagree with this "technology" while others will agree.

As I see it, the "press release" leaves some HUGE holes in understanding. What sort of "testing" are they discussing? Actual engineering functions? Accident amelioration? Those are two very different things. This to me implies a lack of thought in design which is further exposed by their website. Their website says "highly engineered" but the company is run by "eventing professionals." Why is it that everybody thinks they can be engineers? There is a REASON engineers get licensed.

To me, I do not think this is a good material given the environment and use would love to see the engineering design criteria used. When developing new designs for devices that affected people's lives, it has been my experience that outside of designing factors of safety at 200 times limit, extensive testing would be done PRIOR to use. Yes, it is called product liability. I can imagine a horse being injured at one of these fences and the subsequent lawsuit exposing inadequate testing.

I have already posted my ENGINEERING design reasons for the poor design of this material and its subsequent failure mechanisms.

mademoiselle, it actually is NOT that hard to reproduce the situations that would result in impact with a fence using good modeling. University of Bristol has done some amazing work and continues to build on their understanding.

I am all for new materials and fence design but stop doing this old farmer method of slapping together what you have and trying it. It is time to grow up and use professionals. Just like with rules decisions, use well reasoned, logical design processes. Back up the product with actual testing. You all ask this from the folks who designed and built your car, cell phone, house, horse trailer, so why not here?

Reed

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I guess have a different take. I wouldn't expect a "press release" or quick news article on the USEA web site to go into engineering details.....hell, that would put many of us to sleep! I also would not expect that information on their web site. They should be allowed to make a buck on their concept without telling all their potential competitiors exactly how to go about building competing material.

I also don't put down a company just because it is run by riders not engineers. That is the case with most companies..it doesn't mean that they do not have a good engineer or two on the pay roll or that they have not (or are not in the processes of) having it further tested by outside engineering firms. To me, it is at least a sign of people doing something.

To me, I just don't have enough information to put down this product or to be overly positive expect from the point of view that at least it is something that is being done, and can be evaluated.

[JER]

I guess have a different take. I wouldn't expect a "press release" or quick news article on the USEA web site to go into engineering details.....hell, that would put many of us to sleep! I also would not expect that information on their web site.

Here's their website: Safer Building Materials (http://www.saferbuildingmaterials.com/)

Not a shred of science or engineering info to be found.

bfne, why wouldn't you expect to see engineering details on a company's website? Wouldn't you, at the very least, expect to see a link to where you can find it? How do you make your own independent evaluation of a safety product if all you can find is a press release?

I also don't put down a company just because it is run by riders not engineers.

I don't care who runs a company as long as they use professionals as necessary.

The frangible pin technology is a good example of research informing design. This isn't. Or if it is, there isn't any evidence of it.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Here's their website: Safer Building Materials (http://www.saferbuildingmaterials.com/)

Not a shred of science or engineering info to be found.

bfne, why wouldn't you expect to see engineering details on a company's website? Wouldn't you, at the very least, expect to see a link to where you can find it? How do you make your own independent evaluation of a safety product if all you can find is a press release?



I don't care who runs a company as long as they use professionals as necessary.

The frangible pin technology is a good example of research informing design. This isn't. Or if it is, there isn't any evidence of it.


To me there is no requirement that they make that material easily accessable. I'm not an engineer. So having it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to me because I would not be able to evaluate it any way. But being a lawyer....I know that they have no obligation to put that information out in the public, nor would I expect it. If you are an engineer and would like that information to make the evaluation, I would suggest contacting them directly and see if they would share it with you.

Maybe there is none...maybe there is...but I'm not completely surprised that it isn't out there for everyone to see. That was my point.

To me, this is where we need oversight from organizations such as the USEA and USEF.....before such materials are used in a rec. event, I would want the governing bodies to make sure that the proper experts have evaluated it and tested it. This may be where there is a scary hole.

[JER]

To me, this is where we need oversight from organizations such as the USEA and USEF.....before such materials are used in a rec. event, I would want the governing bodies to make sure that the proper experts have evaluated it and tested it. This may be where there is a scary hole.

The Prologs people are selling SAFETY, aren't they?

So while maybe they aren't legally obligated to share their tech specs or engineering data or safety testing with the general public, it's not a stretch to think they might back up their claims of safety on their website or in their promotional materials. Even a FAQ would be nice.

What you're seeing on the USEA site is that the governing bodies are NOT doing any such oversight yet they're promoting (for free) these products on the organization website.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

The Prologs people are selling SAFETY, aren't they?

So while maybe they aren't legally obligated to share their tech specs or engineering data or safety testing with the general public, it's not a stretch to think they might back up their claims of safety on their website or in their promotional materials. Even a FAQ would be nice.

What you're seeing on the USEA site is that the governing bodies are NOT doing any such oversight yet they're promoting (for free) these products on the organization website.


You're right.

[RAyers]

I guess have a different take. I wouldn't expect a "press release" or quick news article on the USEA web site to go into engineering details.....hell, that would put many of us to sleep! I also would not expect that information on their web site. They should be allowed to make a buck on their concept without telling all their potential competitiors exactly how to go about building competing material.
...



People ran around on the deck of the Titanic. That was also "people doing something." There is a difference between doing something and doing something correctly.

Here is a website for a simple safety device:

http://www.safewaze.com/safewaze.com/prod_detail.cfm?prod_family=CARABINERS&ind_prod_num=0210-07001&prod_platform=HARDWARE

In a clear and succinct manner they convey that the device was tested and manufactured to a standard. From this I can, if I choose, investigate. Otherwise, as a layperson, I know that a SUFFICIENT amount of testing was done so I can have confidence in the product.

The same goes for riding helmets. By seeing that the helmet design meets ASTM F-1163 04, you can be assured that the helmet design was tested and engineered to accomplish a task.

Now the Pro Logs folks do not have to meet an ASTM standard (since one does not exist) so it would behoove them to present as much practical data PROVING the efficacy of safety and design as they can to justify the expense and necessity of this product.

This is what goes on behind the scenes in the real world every day. As an engineer/designer/materials scientist I hold them to the same standards the world holds me. That is not asking much.

Reed

[RAyers]

By the way, I know folks look at me and these posts and think "What a crabby mother.....! He isn't happy with anything!"

Perhaps, but if the USEF and many upper level pros are going to pin problems on amateurs (e.g. Craig Thompson's blog) and hold us to a higher, yet still UNMEASURED, standard, I sure as hell am going to reciprocate and hold them to the same standards my professional communities hold me when it comes to areas where I have a lot of understanding. I know BFNE, that you know what I speak about given your vocation. Just like you may advise us to not be our own lawyers, I advise folks not to be their own engineers, especially when other's lives come into play.

Is that too much to ask?

[deltawave]

First we use it, then we test it -- the ass-backward approach to safety!


This is standard operating procedure in the field of horse equipment, nutraceuticals, and even a lot of modern "medical" treatments (I use the term loosely) that are not FDA regulated.

Sports Medicine Boots, anyone? They were sold to the tune of BILLIONS in profits for 15 years before research came out showing they did DIDDLY SQUAT. Products come along, people are eager to have "something", they buy them because they "can't hurt" and so it goes. Our desire to do something good for our horses or ourselves fuels this modern phenomenon. The also-very-human desire to make a profit drives the other side of the equation.

[retreadeventer]

One of the problems I see, and the OP did too, in the USEA endorsing such stuff by putting "news releases" about it on the website. Tatamount to endorsement. Therein - liability.

Nothing wrong with innovation. Sell it if you can.

But associations who regulate the sport MUST regulate innovation that does/does not fall within course guidelines and to NOT do so would be negligent.

If a course was approved with such a fence might make the whole division legally worthless and indefensible....perhaps even the whole competition.....my goodness, the landowner should be very cautious about such things I should think. If I were the landowner or organizer, I would err on the conservative side I think.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

By the way, I know folks look at me and these posts and think "What a crabby mother.....! He isn't happy with anything!"

Perhaps, but if the USEF and many upper level pros are going to pin problems on amateurs (e.g. Craig Thompson's blog) and hold us to a higher, yet still UNMEASURED, standard, I sure as hell am going to reciprocate and hold them to the same standards my professional communities hold me when it comes to areas where I have a lot of understanding. I know BFNE, that you know what I speak about given your vocation. Just like you may advise us to not be our own lawyers, I advise folks not to be their own engineers, especially when other's lives come into play.

Is that too much to ask?


hey all....let's not attack BFNE...I've already had a bad day. I wasn't supporting or being negative on this product....I know very little about it. Just saying that not putting in a lot of engineering detail in a short on line article was probably because the majority of us wouldn't understand that detail anyway. I have NO idea if there is engineering or science supporting this product. I hope that there is....but since eventing is "self-regulated" or basically unregulated....my only protection (since I'm not an engineer) would be in the USEF or USEA hopefully creating and enforcing some standards. Hopefully that has been or is being done.

[RAyers]

my only protection (since I'm not an engineer) would be in the USEF or USEA hopefully creating and enforcing some standards. Hopefully that has been or is being done.

Exactly! We all are on the same page just different paragraphs. Given there are no standards this product can be introduced without understanding to a potentially unsuspecting competitor. Hence, deltawave's comment.

BFNE, I swear I was not attacking. I know you have your professional standards and so do engineers, doctors, vets as well as the safety industry. And it would make sense to use those systems that already exist to create a STANDARD method of approval for devices and products intended/marketed as SAFETY devices on XC.

A horse that hits a stifle is not a good measure of real protection from falls/rotations. And doesn't imply anything about the safety of the product. (Did they get the vet data from the horses to see if the injury would be more severe?)

Reed

[mademoiselle]

I understand your point Rayers, and I agree with you. My point is that it is positive that some people are trying to come up with a solution.
From your experience it is not a good one, but it might actually to something better that works.
I just don't like the 'it needs to be perfect or nothing' mentality, because it usually leads to inertia.

Because of the 'press release', people can learn about this new 'product' and maybe get in touch with the company to bring some input to take the concept in the right direction ...

I also understand that because it's supposed to be a safety 'device' it should be proven that it is safer before being used at shows.

But I wouldn't shoot it down right away, something positive could come out of it ...

[RAyers]

Except, we possibly have living crash test dummies (another person's comment not mine).

I am not trying to shoot this porduct down but there needs to be a stringent review before use. We do this with aircraft, cars, rockets, medical devices, any product that has the potential to significantly adversely affect a person's life.

I agree that positives can come from it and maybe this thread is one. Heck, I get to ramble a bit about engineering, materials selection and design as well as standards. It is almost like my undergrad class! Maybe that is not so good. ;)

I also agree that there may be subsequent incremental steps in design improvement. But if that is the case then, don't use this porduct in places where crashes are expected until they have a good idea of its response to full impact or crush, as well as environmental wear and tear (the EPS in your helmet degrades so we can expect this to do so as well), and so forth.



I understand your point Rayers, and I agree with you. My point is that it is positive that some people are trying to come up with a solution.
From your experience it is not a good one, but it might actually to something better that works.
I just don't like the 'it needs to be perfect or nothing' mentality, because it usually leads to inertia.

Because of the 'press release', people can learn about this new 'product' and maybe get in touch with the company to bring some input to take the concept in the right direction ...

I also understand that because it's supposed to be a safety 'device' it should be proven that it is safer before being used at shows.

But I wouldn't shoot it down right away, something positive could come out of it ...

[Gnep]

I think it is strange that a product like this gets promoted on the official USEA website, I think that is strange.

The Problems with those materials, they have a rather small bandwith of temperature range in which they work as predicted.
The warmer they get the more flexible they get, the colder they get the more stiff and britle they get, only in a very narrow temperature range do they react as predicted.
Considering the colouring of the logs, they will heat up on the sun side and stay cool on the shady side, polymers are not good conductors, opposit, sunny side hot shady side cold, foams, the core material is a perfect insulater, so even the core will not conduct heat.
Using two materials that are not conductors, and are of differant insulation proportions, is a very bad way to provide a predicted breakeaway point ( 500 pounds ) and a predicted way of breaking under not stable enviromental conditions.

From my engineering and chemisty background and my practical testing experiance of polymere, I would like to know how those logs break and deform from 40 degree to around 170 degree and I would like to know how the reacted to UV exposure ( which makes most Polymeres britle ).

The basic idea is realy great, I mean realy great, but before I would like to see those materials intreduced I would like to be convinced that they do not produce the opposit effect, to warm they flex to cold they shatter, how do the 2 differant materials react in consideration of temp changes, as an example.
At the present without that data provided, I would not want to jump them. They do not have to give away their secrest, but they schould provide the proof that those pvc logs have been tested to the maximum.

Mechanics is easy, materials is a S O B

[JER]

The TD at Wayne DuPage -- the wise licensed official who "was concerned about using an unproven technology on such a critical fence" -- was Brian Ross.

Many thumbs up for Brian Ross. :yes::yes::yes:

[denny]

The main thing that gets me about this whole safety thing is that until the 250 or so upper level riders who are most strongly affected by this wierd new sport they`ve created buy into safety, nothing major will change.

Phillip had a rotational fall one weekend, the reigning world champion had one the next weekend (and her horse died), and was there an outcry?

Nope, nary a word.

They are still in denial, and will be for as long as the FEI and the USEF let them be.

This sport can be made safer, but the changes that would be necessary to make it that way are unacceptable to those most directly involved.

Materials, like those discussed here, are only a piece of the solution.

Real change involves making the upper level riders themselves become advocates for real safety, and that means changing the way they think about horse falls and horse death.

Right now, if they have a horse fall, there is no penalty. (apart from the fall itself)

If their horse dies, there is no penalty. (apart from the death itself)

We have seen how little that changes anything.

But if a horse fall equals an automatic 1 or 2 month automatic suspension, then you`d see some change.

If a horse death equalled a major enquirey, like in Endurance, you`d see some change.

Don`t hold your breath, though, becausethe RIDERS don`t really want THAT much change, and the associations don`t have the will or the guts to make the hard decisions..

[Gnep]

Jup, if that aint true.

They pull a guy, red flag, that has a wild riding style, PD takes a huge risk and has a rotational and no word or consequences.

If a rider has 2 crashes with his horse in 6 month, the HORSE gets penelized, not the rider, what is wrong with that picture.

As I said in a nother thread, as long as people like PD are willing to take such huge risks, I feel that any safer jump will just tempt them to take even greater risks.
As long as the Red Flag is only displayed at LL and ML and the BNs get away with dangerous riding, we will not see any change, opposit we will see more of it.

[denny]

I`m not implying that ULRs are bad people. They are simply playing by the existing rules.

It`s the rules that need to be changed if safety is really what is wanted, not some bandaid to fool the public.

[S A McKee]

Breakable jumps have been required at the National level in Holland since 2001

http://www.fei.org/Disciplines/Eventing/Documents/NEDPresentatie%20Safety%20Forum%20Eventing%202008. pdf

No idea if they are using a similar material to Prolog.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Reed - remind me where to see all the data on safety of birch logs versus oak, and native sand landing zones versus imported sand, and 4 inch logs versus 9 inch logs...

While I absolutely agree that our sport could benefit from using actual safety experts and engineers, we are not an aeronautics lab - on the builders side we are more or less some guys with a tractor and a chainsaw. Even if we would be better off with a strong centralized organization mandating certain testing and standards, it will/would be a process to get from here to there. Haranguing the guy with the tractor who says "Hey, maybe this could work" seems likely to inspire defensiveness or dismissal.

Last I checked we are all in this together. Sure, we individually and in various alignments have varying priorities and strengths and zones of ignorance, but I don't think the devil walks among us - not even in the bodies of Mark or Darren or the devil-of-the-month. Is it Jon Holling now? Or Jo Whitehouse??

So really I'm talking tactics here, and tone or style - absolutely, some individuals and organizations need to be bitch slapped occasionally. But in a sport which has run lab testing on 1 XC component,frangible pins, to get up in arms because a group has developed a new component which hasn't met your lab standards?? And the USEA dared to run an article about it??

"We" are also not some easily categorizable 2 entities, "us" and "them." I worry that a couple of (knowledgeable, vocal) people on a BB haranguing every effort which actually gets off the ground, could be a strong disincentive for people to take whatever steps they are inspired to take.

Sigh. I have more thoughts on tone and "what 'they' need to do for safety" but have to ride a couple more horses first.

[deltawave]

Reed - remind me where to see all the data on safety of birch logs versus oak, and native sand landing zones versus imported sand, and 4 inch logs versus 9 inch logs...


Ha, good point! However, if we're going to be using and selling these new materials as an improvement upon the status quo, then I think a little attention to detail is warranted. Gnep's points are very well taken--these materials are going to sit out in the elements, and judging by what happens to some of the plastic/polymer materials that I have around here that disintegrate after one summer in the weather, I'd kind of like to at least know this substance is as good as wood or whatever other materials are used.

I am also one who is happy to see some progress being made, but it is indeed bass-ackwards to start using a product and THEN do the testing to make sure it works the way we need it to.

[RAyers]

The data for wood and sand is quite easily found. The properties of hundreds of species of wood are very well defined as the construction industry developed those. Yes, the properties of EPS are also well defined to a point. I can provide references. As for wood, it is this data that BE used to study the pins and the fences for the mechanics of rotation.

As a matter of fact, here are the specifications for round timbers. Look! There are ASTM STANDARDS for the woods thad CDs and builders use!!! Just like our safety helmets etc.

Standards and specifications for round timbers and ties including Engineering design stresses,
Product Material requirements, Preservative treatment Procedures, and Design values
Utility poles ANSI O5.1 TT-W-571, AWPA C1,C4,C35 — ANSI O5.1
Construction poles ANSI O5.1 TT-W-571,AWPA C23, ASTM D3200 ASAE EP 388
Piles ASTM D25 TT-W-571, AWPA CI,C3, ASTM D2899 NDS
Construction logs (See material supplier) — ASTM D3957 (See material supplier)
Ties AREA TT-W-571, AWPA C2,C6 AREA— AREA

aANSI, American National Standards Institute; ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials;
ASAE, American Society of Agricultural Engineers; AREA, American Railway Engineers Association; NDS,
National Design Specification (for Wood Construction); AWPA, American Wood-Preservers’ Association.

Thus, if a CD and builder use ANY purchased wood from a mill or what ever that is intended for construction, they are using a wood DESIGNED to a STANDARD! They may not know it but it is there.

I tell you what, next time I have a new medical device ready for testing, I'll have you do it. Don't bother with any other testing. we will go straight to patients. You see, it is about using riders as guinea pigs for unproven ideas. That is something I don't want to be, especially at the upper levels.

As Gnep mentions, nobody knows the rebound characteristics of these logs. They could just as easily ADD energy into a rotation via rebound (EPS has more ductility than wood) making a flip even worse or possibly creating a flip when one would not have happened. Of course cross-sectional geometry will come into play as well. At least with a log, I have a GOOD idea of how, what and why things may happen if my horse hits. EPS adds a whole new variable (unless they make it so that it has the same properties as wood).

As for "haranguing" the guy with the tractor and chainsaw, damn right. In your own words, "Hey, maybe this could work." implies you are willing to take the possibly INCREASED risk of injury or death to see if this product will work. I, however, will harangue any situation when I feel me or my horse is at added risk be it due to a decision of the CD, builder or any other official. I am my horse's advocate.

To the general idea of safety, it is like asking the banking or auto industry to fix themselves. They refuse to try to even LOOK outside their world for answers. There are some builders out there who ARE looking outside the box and rather than looking for new materials to build the same trap, are creating new fence designs using proven technology. It is a subtle difference but a very important one, in cost and safety.

Yes, we are in this together, yet it seems that only upper level riders and CDs have the answers as implied by the USEA article. Hmmm, where are the engineers who ride, who have VOLUNTEERED (as Kevin B. implored) to help?

The devil does walk among us and it is a failing SYSTEM. It is no individual but some individuals or groups serve as examples of the failures.

As for my words causing somebody to not try, then they sure as hell never intended to succeed in the first place. It it will be best for all for them to quit if they are going to give up at a CRITICAL review of a design. That is what engineering is. Life is rough, buy a helmet.

Reed - remind me where to see all the data on safety of birch logs versus oak, and native sand landing zones versus imported sand, and 4 inch logs versus 9 inch logs...

While I absolutely agree that our sport could benefit from using actual safety experts and engineers, we are not an aeronautics lab - on the builders side we are more or less some guys with a tractor and a chainsaw. Even if we would be better off with a strong centralized organization mandating certain testing and standards, it will/would be a process to get from here to there. Haranguing the guy with the tractor who says "Hey, maybe this could work" seems likely to inspire defensiveness or dismissal.

Last I checked we are all in this together. Sure, we individually and in various alignments have varying priorities and strengths and zones of ignorance, but I don't think the devil walks among us - not even in the bodies of Mark or Darren or the devil-of-the-month. Is it Jon Holling now? Or Jo Whitehouse??

So really I'm talking tactics here, and tone or style - absolutely, some individuals and organizations need to be bitch slapped occasionally. But in a sport which has run lab testing on 1 XC component,frangible pins, to get up in arms because a group has developed a new component which hasn't met your lab standards?? And the USEA dared to run an article about it??

"We" are also not some easily categorizable 2 entities, "us" and "them." I worry that a couple of (knowledgeable, vocal) people on a BB haranguing every effort which actually gets off the ground, could be a strong disincentive for people to take whatever steps they are inspired to take.

Sigh. I have more thoughts on tone and "what 'they' need to do for safety" but have to ride a couple more horses first.

[JER]

I agree with everything denny said. It's a strange thing that the FEI will give out a suspension for trace amounts of prohibited substances -- even while clearing the rider of intent -- but does nothing when a horse dies.

And to Jeannette and others who think it's nit-picky to hold XC jump materials to a standard - maybe you should just take a few minutes to see how you are protected by ASTM standards in your daily life. It's not just construction materials and your riding helmet -- the list is long and includes paint, rubber, textiles, metals, insulation, electronics and medical devices. And on top of ASTM standards, there are local building and municipal codes (which take into account conditions of stress, weather, humidity or geology particular to that location) and requirements for licensed inspection at various stages.

The reason for this is simple. It's what the ASTM would call 'life-safety concerns.'

Life-safety concerns. I think everyone will agree that we have those on XC.

New materials don't have a service history or performance history or historical database or any kind. This is why they need to be tested before they're implemented in a situation with life-safety concerns.

deltawave is right about the horse industry and testing. New products are usually promoted by getting influential people (BNTs, BNRs) to use them or endorse them, usually via a sponsorship or paid endorsement. It's all fine if it's a show coat or saddle pad but it's not ok if there are life-safety concerns and the product does not conform to any known standard.

[canyonoak]

<<Breakable jumps have been required at the National level in Holland since 2001

http://www.fei.org/Disciplines/Event...ing%202008.pdf

No idea if they are using a similar material to Prolog.>>


Very interesting. The material used in Holland is nothing at all like Prolog and sounds like a much better alternative to non-engineer non-event rider me. (But I have been an event mom for a long time, through ** in Europe..)

No idea why this material is not being explored by other countries.

[JER]

And so...

I wrote a letter expressing my concerns to the USEA/USEA Publications. Although I have not heard from them personally, they've made some changes to the article.

1. It's no longer on the front page. In fact, it's backdated to 11/01/08 (http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?id=1759), which is odd because the previous version noted it was 'updated' on 11/16/08. (I hope it's just a typo or silly mistake because I really don't like backdating.) Here's a cache (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:drkt9UR-UM4J:useventing.com/competitions.php%3Fid%3D1759+USEA+Prologs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3).

2. It now comes with a disclaimer under the title:
This article is intended for informational purposes only. The product referred to in this article has not yet been approved and is not endorsed by the USEA.

Except that allowing it to be used in competition is a form of 'approval'. :(

The good news is they are at least willing to respond to feedback, although perhaps not on a personal level. I guess their time is more precious than mine.

[Speedy]

If you don't like the way the sport is being played, then don't play. It is that simple. If LLRs make up the bulk of the sport, LLRs have the ability to strongly influence it. The message will be abundantly clear if recognized events don't fill, particularly if LLRs send messages indicating that they aren't entering due to poor fence design, untested fence materials, poor course design, etc. to the organizers, the TDs and the USEA when the events open. Complaining about these issues, while continuing to enter recognized events, isn't going to help - the message there is, "well, we care, but not so much that we'll protect ourselves, our horses, or the longevity of our sport."

[RAyers]

A self correcting market. How is that financial system working?

No, some of us believe in the sport and that things can be better within the system as it is. I prefer to enter and let my fees support organizers as well as the USEA and USEF. However since I am giving money, I will push for a say in how the sport is operated. I will fight to have my message heard and I know it has at certain levels (I have no idea if it is ignored or considered).

One way I know, the Univeristy of Kentucky effort in fence design. WE called for that and the USEF at least started something. It may not be much but it is a begining.

No, I will not hold back my money if there are efforts to make the sport safer using well considered reasoning.

Reed

If you don't like the way the sport is being played, then don't play. It is that simple. If LLRs make up the bulk of the sport, LLRs have the ability to strongly influence it. The message will be abundantly clear if recognized events don't fill, particularly if LLRs send messages indicating that they aren't entering due to poor fence design, untested fence materials, poor course design, etc. to the organizers, the TDs and the USEA when the events open. Complaining about these issues, while continuing to enter recognized events, isn't going to help - the message there is, "well, we care, but not so much that we'll protect ourselves, our horses, or the longevity of our sport."

[Sightunseen]

I see this from both sides of the road, I agree that doing something is better then doing nothing.....that being said I think that doing something and just throwing it into action is what got us here in the first place *cough* SHORT FORMAT *cough* I have been watching old (91 and 92) Badmiton and Burligh tapes and have seen SO many rotational falls!!! So why is it that those horses and riders survived? Just something I have been pondering....

[TLA]

EV 175 defines the responsibilities of the Course Designer, which include the design and construction of all the jumps. Currently, there is only one approved frangible technology - pins. There is so much responsibility being a CD (especially the very real responsibility for the safety of the horses and riders), that I am completely unwilling to use the horses and riders as "beta testers" for unapproved devices. In my opinion, far better to use proven materials and look to design areas - shapes, placement, etc, for safety improvements.

[TB or not TB?]

EV 175 defines the responsibilities of the Course Designer, which include the design and construction of all the jumps. Currently, there is only one approved frangible technology - pins. There is so much responsibility being a CD (especially the very real responsibility for the safety of the horses and riders), that I am completely unwilling to use the horses and riders as "beta testers" for unapproved devices. In my opinion, far better to use proven materials and look to design areas - shapes, placement, etc, for safety improvements.

I feel like this should be repeated.

TB out. ;)

[LISailing]

Reed & Gnep - I have to agree with both of you (especially since I'm a licensed engineer), that if a website states a product is engineered that some form of data should be made available. From their site, I have no idea about the wieght of the material, the load that it can support (dead vs. live), compressible strength and strain.

For those with no engineering experience, these are basic values that would typically be available for review. I'm not saying that the product is a bad idea, heaven knows that I have jumped some ridiculous objects as a kid. But, as an engineer I know that it is important to understand the cost vs. benefit of any new product. Some products sound great, but once you get down to the details you find out that they unpredictable and if used could be very, very expensive (loss of life, replacement, etc.)

My advice be very, very careful rushing to an answer, because it could be more expensive then you might have ever imagined.

[Gnep]

I think that the Dutch have a simple and very good solution with those cardboard logs, as long as it is well coated, inside out to prevent any moisture acumilation in the material it is a great material, very consistant during a very wide temp range, will not splinter etc.
Since it is temperatur stable one can very easily calculate breaking points and loads.

Best of all it is on top of it easy to get rid of, can be recycled and can made out of recycled materials.

Similar tubes are used as koncret forms, they come in differant diameters.

But what the Dutch testings showed that polymere are not a stable material and they discarded them.
By the way those cardboard logs have been in use since 2001, mandatory use.

That is some kick ass idea.

[JER]

Thanks, TLA, for posting your course designer's POV and thank you, LISailing, for weighing in as an engineer.

I like the Dutch tubes as an idea but haven't seen enough about them or the testing to really have an informed opinion.

(Speaking of frangibility and the Dutch folk, we could always hire them to build a course out of dominos. The Dutch rule the world in this endeavor, as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4Xp9VBZvQ).)

[JER]

My oh my....

The Safer Building Materials website (http://www.saferbuildingmaterials.com/) was updated today.

Here's what they have to say about their product:

Safer Building Materials' goal is to bring Eventing safer cross-country jumps through innovative design, engineering, and implementation of expanded polystyrene logs and other jump construction materials. Our product is intended and designed to:

• Be “frangible” in the case of a rider and horse fall
• Lessen the severity of an accident
• Decrease injuries or fatalities associated with falls
• Limit number of rotational falls
• Give the same visual question as current cross-country jumps
• Reduce bone, joint, and soft tissue injuries in horses currently
associated with mild to moderate impacts with conventional
cross-country jump materials during normal cross-country activities
• Demand same level of respect for jump materials as current
cross-country jumps

At this time Safer Building Materials, Inc is offering for sale several sized, colored and finish designed cross-country logs. The jumps are available to the public and to all those associated with jump design, construction, competition organization and promotion needs.

Those are some hefty claims. All very well and good -- except these materials need to be fully tested and approved before we start incorporating them into XC courses. As TLA said, humans and horses should not be unwitting beta testers for unproven frangible technology.

You'd think if they can update their website to offer to sell you some EPS logs, they could also demonstrate how and why and when their product is 'safer' or even safe at all.

To revive Reed's Titanic analogy, the Titanic was 'designed' and 'engineered' to stay afloat. So well, in fact, with all those watertight compartments and other advanced technology, that they didn't bother with basic safety items like lifeboats. 1500 'beta testers' died as a result.

[poltroon]

I agree with you all here... but while the wood posts we use today may meet a standard, we've never done any studies on them as course design elements, either. As far as I know, the only course design element to receive ANY kind of rigorous study is the frangible pin.

This particular idea is no better or worse than a CD who says, "Gee, what if we made a jump that looks like a cannon" or "Hmm, maybe if we filled in the top of the tables the fences would be safer" or "Let's make skinny arrowhead jumps to test for accuracy" or "let's plan this drop jump with terrain that slopes down rather than up." Course design is guesswork.

That has gone horribly wrong for us now. And we need to stop with the guesswork.

Somehow, we have to build a framework that will allow us to truly study all aspects of course design, and we have no time to lose.

PS: the problem with the Titanic was that they used cheap, defective rivets made mostly of slag in the hurry to get it built and launched in an environment with a rivet shortage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html

[RAyers]

True that there has been no mechanical design work on fences. However, Prologs, claim they DESIGNED their MATERIAL for a specific function and performance. See above for their claims.

There is a large difference between the mechanical design of a fence and the design of a material (hence the specific fields of mechanical engineering and materials science). In the development of the pin, they did have to generate the mechanical function of the fence. This is not difficult as there are plenty of mechanical design programs out there (MatLab, MathCad, etc.). Thus, a place like UK can develop a quick and extensive database of the mechanics of almost all types of fences - they all are variations of the vertical, oxer, or a drop.

Course design is not quite guesswork. We already had one CD and one builder chime in here with their opinions and ideas.

Answer to the factoid: The rivets is popular myth. The coke at the time had a larger sulfur content and so steels developed were not as impact resistant. A study of steel recovered, done at the Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly U Missouri-Rolla) and published in the Journal of Metals, showed significant sulfur and oxygen content in the steel plates, thus rendering them brittle, especially in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. This is similar to the cause of failure of the Liberty Ships in WWII. Yes, the rivets also had extensive sulfur and oxygen content as well.


I agree with you all here... but while the wood posts we use today may meet a standard, we've never done any studies on them as course design elements, either. As far as I know, the only course design element to receive ANY kind of rigorous study is the frangible pin.

This particular idea is no better or worse than a CD who says, "Gee, what if we made a jump that looks like a cannon" or "Hmm, maybe if we filled in the top of the tables the fences would be safer" or "Let's make skinny arrowhead jumps to test for accuracy" or "let's plan this drop jump with terrain that slopes down rather than up." Course design is guesswork.

That has gone horribly wrong for us now. And we need to stop with the guesswork.

Somehow, we have to build a framework that will allow us to truly study all aspects of course design, and we have no time to lose.

PS: the problem with the Titanic was that they used cheap, defective rivets made mostly of slag in the hurry to get it built and launched in an environment with a rivet shortage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html

[deltawave]

My 7yo son (a Titanic nerd) will tell you that if they'd have used nickel alloy to build the boat, she never would have sunk. Sank? :confused:

Yep, son of an engineer. I had no hand in forming THAT part of his brain. :lol: :rolleyes:

[JER]

I agree with you all here... but while the wood posts we use today may meet a standard, we've never done any studies on them as course design elements, either.

However, the wood posts/elements have a performance history.

(I know nothing about the Titanic. Never even saw the movie.)

[Carol Ames]

i asked t he engineer i know best, Dr.Neil spokes :yes:l who has jump judgedXC , and stadium judged with me; here is hisreply in 2parts his reply,s
FYI,he at onetime he ran SRI,Stanford research ; also
us government testing; his response ;: Serious issues are at stake here. You and I should just sit back and let the pros argue this one out. The eventers know where and how they are exposed to falls and impacts and they do, in some measure, know how to ameliorate the percussive effects of the various bits and pieces – one of the commenters pointed out that there is actual UK research at Bristol University on this and, from the sound of the comment, it might be that Bristol University work might not have been paid attention to. Further, maybe, on account of that passing over of the Bristol University work, someone’s ox just got gored to use a bad analogy. Might even have been the guy who paid for the Bristol University work.

Again, sit back and let the engineers and Pro Eventers argue this out – seems to me that the possibilities are as varied as imaginable and what fixes one problem complexes another. Just a guess and I probably shouldn’t even guess at that, considering the ramifications of a bad evaluation of the problem.
Neil.

!

[RAyers]

Carol, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. At the momnet there are upper and lower level eventers who also are engineers who are discussing this. At the same time, nobody here has an axe to grind as none of us are associated with Bristol. So, Dr. Spokes is a bit mistaken.

Reed

i asked t he engineer i know best, Dr.Neil spokes :yes:l who has jump judgedXC , and stadium judged with me; here is hisreply in 2parts his reply,s
FYI,he at onetime he ran SRI,Stanford research ; also
us government testing; his sponse ;: Serious issues are at stake here. You and I should just sit back and let the pros argue this one out. The eventers know where and how they are exposed to falls and impacts and they do, in some measure, know how to ameliorate the percussive effects of the various bits and pieces – one of the commenters pointed out that there is actual UK research at Bristol University on this and, from the sound of the comment, it might be that Bristol University work might not have been paid attention to. Further, maybe, on account of that passing over of the Bristol University work, someone’s ox just got gored to use a bad analogy. Might even have been the guy who paid for the Bristol University work.

Again, sit back and let the engineers and Pro Eventers argue this out – seems to me that the possibilities are as varied as imaginable and what fixes one problem complexes another. Just a guess and I probably shouldn’t even guess at that, considering the ramifications of a bad evaluation of the problem.
Neil.

!

[doublevee]

With all the issues raised re "Prologs", frangible pins have some "mechanical" flaws as well. Perhaps the engineers in the group have already pointed out these will break at a point where the yield strength of the material is exceeded. When these are manufactured, is an allowance made for the fact the yield strength will vary from one "lot" of material to the next?..also, temperature will affect the point at which the pin breaks. I saw one break at Fairhill this year and was pleasantly surprized.

[TLA]

The Transport Research Laboratory of the UK developed the frangible pins. I remember watching a video at Kentucky that documented the whole precess from gathering the data to testing the concept to the finished product. Quite a remarkable undertaking. I have the link to British Eventing, which sums it up:
http://www.britisheventing.com/page.asp?section=00010001000200220001
Given the difficulty finding materials (big logs, trees, etc) alternative materials have an additional appeal, but they need to undergo rigorous testing to prevent creating worse problems than we are trying to address.

[Gnep]

DW, the range of breaking power, the horses weight, with the pin had to be rather large.
Why,
1. not all horses weight 1200 pounds
2. you can use logs up to 400 pounds and more, I guesss last I heard evnen 600 pounds ( I have to check that one again )

So you have a 1000 pound horse and a 400 pound log, or a 1000 pound horse and a 200 pound log, 1200 pound and 400 pounds, and so on.

They use a alumium alloy for the pin, that is rather stable through the range of temps.

The Pin is sleeved and has a groove at the breaking point, the sleeve and the groove allow for a clean and within the weight ranges ( forces ) break.

The pin's breaking point is not based on impact, but on the idea if the horse rotates it will at one point put its weight on the pole/log in a downwards fashion, once enough of the horses weight rests on the log the pin will break and than release the kinetic energy, the horses rotation is stoped and the horse falls down.
The point is enough kinetic energy is transformed into a down motion to prevent further rotation.

This is a very common method if you work metal, you cut a groove, have a clean cut sleeve and you can break with a hammer the metal, clean as if cut. Or cutting a tree, groove on the opposit site of the cut and than cut and it will break easy and clean.

The problem with the Prologs, no clean braking point, the foam interior make it even more difficult to predict, because it will absorb and distribute energy, a holow or pipe typ log would be far easier to predict and calculate, they can even be produced with the grooves, to allow a predicted clean break, similar to the pin.

The point is predicteble, you want it to break in the range of x-z and not maybe v-z

[LexInVA]

Prologs are just the beginning. Just wait for the Epilogs!

[GreyDun]

Prologs are just the beginning. Just wait for the Epilogs!

That's the best quote ever. :D

[nature]

What about dialogs?

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by LexInVA:

Prologs are just the beginning. Just wait for the Epilogs!

:lol:

[LexInVA]

What about dialogs?

Trying to get rid of those is the point of having extensive use of Prologs! Monologs were suggested before Prologs but it didn't get too far on the grounds of not being exciting or spectator friendly. Not quite sure what all that was about...