Ian Stark: XC jump elements that 'are supposed to shatter'

[JER]

I watched the Galway Downs video (http://useventing.com/blog/?p=2049) posted on the USEA website.

In a brief interview with Galway CD Ian Stark -- starts at 0:56, relevant section at 1:14 -- he says:
"We're trying out these new poles here, if the horses put pressure on them, they're supposed to shatter."

The log in question looks like one of those EPS (expanded polystyrene) Prologs (http://www.saferbuildingmaterials.com/) to me. If you go to the Prologs website -- www.saferbuildingmaterials.com -- you'll see a press release, some photos and no information whatsoever about the science, testing, engineering or installation specifications for these allegedly safer jump components.

Both jump elements in the video are log-type jumps that could be set with frangible pins. Frangible pins come with specific instructions, as they were developed and engineered to function under specific conditions by a group with a long history in the transport safety business. I would think that due to the difference in materials -- solid wood vs. EPS -- would change the situation for installing or using frangible pins.

In other words, is it safe to use a frangible pin with an EPS log? Or by installing an EPS log, do you forego using a frangible pin?

Frangible pins have a lot of research and testing to back them up, as well as guidelines for installation. If a horse hits a fence that's 'supposed to shatter' and it doesn't function as expected and the rider dies, would that same rider have been spared by a properly-functioning (and tested, with a liability/warranty history) frangible-pin?

And 'supposed to shatter'? What does that mean? Is it safe to jump a pole that shatters on impact? How does the 'shattering' of the pole make the jump (and resulting accident) safer? In what situations would you not want to use a pole that shatters? What happens to the log that 'shatters' under heat, cold, moisture, etc? How many times can the log take minor hits before it fails?

Hopefully, someone has some good answers to this. Please tell me we're not going at safety willy-nilly with untested materials.

[Eventer13]

Hopefully, someone has some good answers to this. Please tell me we're not going at safety willy-nilly with untested materials.

I think we're going willy-nilly with untested materials.

Question is, will that just end up hurting more riders and horses? Seems very dangerous to me... I don't want a shattered piece of material going and stabbing my horse in the chest.

[LR1976]

Hmmm, I'm interested to hear what others have to say. After watching the video those "logs" aren't what I thought they'd be. They don't look like something I would want to have shatter under my horse.

[Mrs. Cowboy]

I know I also cringe at the use of the word "shatter", but when you think of safety glass, which is designed to shatter (break into a bunch of tiny pieces, lessening the impact force as well as protecting from cuts from sharp edges), I wonder if it's the word we're afraid of, rather than the use of a new kind of fence.

What if the quote was "...They're supposed to crumple..."; would that make people feel better? By associating the planned failure of the material with cardboard instead of wood?

Frangible pins started out as a new and different thing, and yes, they've had lots of testing NOW. But you don't test something without putting it to some sort of use. So it's a catch 22. They have to put it into use without testing, but you don't get testing without putting it to use.

Personally, a photo showing the log AFTER a huge impact would do a lot to ease my mind. But I'm not going to offer to throw myself into the jump either. As the PROLOGS start to be used more, I'm sure the data collected will be made available to the public.

Edited to add: I work in transportation engineering, so "EPS" makes me associate these logs with the dense rubber material that is installed here in CA at the beginning and edge of bridges, to absorb the space made by the concrete bridge expanding and contracting. It's good tough stuff, but still moveable with 1 person's arm strength. So maybe too many people are seeing "shatter=plastic" instead of "rubber=flexible"

[JER]

Mrs. Cowboy, the extensive testing on the frangible pins was done BEFORE they were used on XC elements.

And in the real world, you test before you use. Think 'medical devices' or 'car braking systems.'

[Mrs. Cowboy]

Mrs. Cowboy, the extensive testing on the frangible pins was done BEFORE they were used on XC elements.

And in the real world, you test before you use. Think 'medical devices' or 'car braking systems.'

That's all well and good, but full testing involves real use. How do you simulate a fall of horse and rider in a lab?

The addition of SOME EPS elements on SOME courses is not the same as requiring every fence in every course in the nation to make an immediate switch. If this really turns out to be a horrible thing, they'll be written OUT of the rules. But EPS itself has had plenty of lab testing on it's strength and durability. This is just a new forum for a well-known (in my industry) material.

[JER]

That's all well and good, but full testing involves real use. How do you simulate a fall of horse and rider in a lab?


Like this (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:17J8vJrkJDIJ:www.britisheventing.co m/core/core_picker/download.asp%3Fdocumenttable%3Dlibraryfiles%26id%3 D153+%22new+equestrian+dummy%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a).

University of Liverpool and Transport Research Lab did this work in 2000, including building an equine crash test dummy.

ETA: Mrs. Cowboy, this topic has been discussed very in-depth here over the last decade. :) If you do a search, you'll find a lot of good info on frangible pins and testing.

[crittertwitter]

"After further engineering and design testing, [the folks at Safer Building Matereials] hope to soon offer a full line of jumps from logs, walls, “mushrooms”, and other custom designed frangible cross country jump obstacles." (http://www.saferbuildingmaterials.com/)

I would like to open myself up for a good, mean [COTH style!] flogging and publicly praise these folks and their work. It is meaningful that not just COTHers, but tangentially connected voices throughout the sport, called for research into ways to make eventing safer and there have been responses. Many have gone to the extent of *demanding* safer courses. Sure, there may be parties that develop along different sides to choose a solution, but luckily where there is demand, there are entrepreneurial minds out there to meet them. Perhaps even bring some pockets to bulge!

If this technology can prevent rotational falls, they are a fabulous innovation. I'd rather a pony (and me) get splintered than squished and broken. Rubber, huh? How about those rubber burns.

I sure hope this works so I don't have to debut our optical illusion technology. The horses would be so disappointed when they found out the jumps weren't even reeeeal!

[Mrs. Cowboy]

[QUOTE=JER;3985373]Like this (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:17J8vJrkJDIJ:www.britisheventing.co m/core/core_picker/download.asp%3Fdocumenttable%3Dlibraryfiles%26id%3 D153+%22new+equestrian+dummy%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a).

University of Liverpool and Transport Research Lab did this work in 2000, including building an equine crash test dummy.

QUOTE]

That's great. I've seen it before but I stand by my position. Lab results are not real life. Will a frangible pin remove all danger? Nope. It will lessen the chance of a rotational fall...for an "average" 16 hand horse.

That's not a miracle. And it's not going to make me stop hoping for more advancements in fence type.

I'd rather land on an EPS log than a wooden one.

[Jealoushe]

That's great. I've seen it before but I stand by my position. Lab results are not real life. Will a frangible pin remove all danger? Nope. It will lessen the chance of a rotational fall...for an "average" 16 hand horse.

That's not a miracle. And it's not going to make me stop hoping for more advancements in fence type.

I'd rather land on an EPS log than a wooden one.

So you believe in using real car crashes with humans as opposed to Crash Test Dummies?

There are better ways to go about fixing these problems..

[RAyers]

...If this technology can prevent rotational falls, they are a fabulous innovation. I'd rather a pony (and me) get splintered than squished and broken. Rubber, huh? How about those rubber burns.

I sure hope this works so I don't have to debut our optical illusion technology. The horses would be so disappointed when they found out the jumps weren't even reeeeal!


While I agree with the sentiment, un-tested/un-proven technology can kill many more before it becomes safe (airbags in cars are an example). Yes, there is a learning curve to any new technology and real world testing is one of them. However, WE will be the test dummies.


Reed

[crittertwitter]

Well, to the one who can calculate interplanetary objects ;) ... what would be worse than a rotational fall? That invites the thought, "You don't wanna know" but really, there is some pressure to do *something* about the fence types. The Safer Materials site says they are testing the materials. At what point are the materials proven?

[JER]

A rotational fall is our worst nightmare on XC over solid obstacles made of traditional materials. The dreaded rotational fall carries a 30% chance of serious injury or death.

This is because the horse crushes the rider -- and that is what our safety efforts should be trying to prevent. It's not the rotation that kills you, it's the crush on landing.

What if, due to siting or installation or footing, a 'shattering' log causes your horse to fall on you?

This is why we need research and testing.

These EPS logs might be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I'd like to see the tests that prove it as well as the specs for how to use them, where to use them and when not to use them.

[RAyers]

Well, to the one who can calculate interplanetary objects ;) ... what would be worse than a rotational fall? That invites the thought, "You don't wanna know" but really, there is some pressure to do *something* about the fence types. The Safer Materials site says they are testing the materials. At what point are the materials proven?


A horse that while not rotates lands directly on a leg, shattering the cannon bone or severing the hoof.

As for the Safer Materials site, they did 1 (ONE) test on ONE (1) log. The testing company refused to assure their measurements can be applied to anything other than a 18-19 inch diameter log. Thus, the moment designers start carving the log, they weaken the material and subsequent failure modes. Now, what will you do if the log does NOT shatter but fractures along one of those surface grooves, rotates into the horses legs and flips the horse that way?

I may be a bit of an alarmist but I have seen small scratches on the surface of even high performance alloys lead to catastrophic events (explosion of a jet engine, burn through on a solid rocket motor, ala Challenger etc.)

There are ways to develop materials and designs that are inexpensive, rapid, and proven. These guys are using the riders as the test dummies and not collecting REAL data so that if/when something happens they can justify the design decisions.

Reed

[Gnep]

The big differance between Prolog and the guys who developed the pin, you can actually acess the tests, test data and the reserch behind the pin.
When it comes to Prolog, we are asked to trust a commercial business, that what they claim is true.
I would like to see a independent agency test those logs, so that everybody knows if they work as advertised.

Give you a nice example. Chinese care maker claimed that their car is save and would exceed savety standards. They tested that claim in Europe, the vehicle failed every single standard crash test.

[tangledweb]

While I agree with the sentiment, un-tested/un-proven technology can kill many more before it becomes safe (airbags in cars are an example).

Are you claiming that
A: airbags were put in cars without prior testing, or
B: early airbags killed more people than they saved?

[Mrs. Cowboy]

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;3985491]So you believe in using real car crashes with humans as opposed to Crash Test Dummies?
[QUOTE]

Not at all. I believe that seatbelts are a great thing...and I still wear them in a airbag-equipped car. A new technology doesn't cancel out those that have come before it.

[TLA]

I think that Ian had a bad choice of words in the term "shatter". The logs appeared to be the ProLogs. I walked both water jumps before and after the CIC and A, and both had sustained damage due to the rubs they took from the horses. They were of styrofoam, and where the surface was scarred, you could see the little pellets used to form them. There was no real roughness to the damaged surfaces that would injure a horse. I didn't ask Ian about the logs, but would have to guess that a real log of that size would have been too heavy to pin. The logs did give both the 1 stride and the bounce the massive appearance they needed to ride well, which I thought they did.
Tom Angle

[RAyers]

Are you claiming that
A: airbags were put in cars without prior testing, or
B: early airbags killed more people than they saved?

Airbags were used with prior testing, however the technology was relatively premature to be used in common everyday applications (micro accelerometers and the thermite reactions were still being developed) and thus there were incidents where the airbags caused accidents and injuries or magnified the injury in an accident. Thus, the safety device was a detriment for a time until the technology was better developed.

In this case, the safety device has had LITTLE to NO development/testing and is being implemented without a good understanding of how they fit in safe course/fence design.

[tangledweb]

Airbags ... relatively premature ... Thus, the safety device was a detriment for a time until the technology was better developed.

Again, are you claiming that early airbags killed more people than they saved?

I don't disagree with your premise, but I don't think your example works.

[RAyers]

Again, are you claiming that early airbags killed more people than they saved?

I don't disagree with your premise, but I don't think your example works.

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I claim airbags kill more than they saved? Anyway, that can never be tested given there is no way to get paired data. Which is part of my point with ProLogs.

To be more specific, there are a whole list of other injuries, some fatal, that are specific to airbags and thus requiring their continued development and upgrades (off switches, dual rate inflation, modified propellants,...).

My premise is that these new materials/designs may result in a whole new level of unanticipated injury given they are not understood and as the airbag will need to be continually developed and tested.

Don't get me wrong they have a noble idea but Mike Winter and Kyle Carter step so far out from their world of understanding when they speak about these logs that they come off as hucksters and not really knowing their product performance and design. And it shows when Ian Stark unintentionally uses the same terms. It makes him seem uneducated as to the materials/designs. In other words, he only knows what is told to him and those who told him are misinformed.

Reed

[JER]

My premise is that these new materials/designs may result in a whole new level of unanticipated injury given they are not understood and as the airbag will need to be continually developed and tested.


So -- what are the rider's options?

If you've entered an event and you find these new, untested, unproven, little-understood, sold-as-safety-products materials on your XC course, what do you do?

Can you withdraw and get a refund? You signed up for a horse trial, not a product safety trial. You did not sign a consent form nor were you informed that you would be required to jump these obstacles.

Should the USEA/USEF/FEI require traditionally-built options for every 'test' fence?

Should the USEA/USEF/FEI/organizer be required to provide all relevant data/testing/safety info on the experimental safety obstacles to riders/owners/coaches?

Should the orgs have to fully inform participants/guardians about the experimental fences?

(FWIW, I did send out some emails to the USEA about this and received no reply, unless you count Kevin Baumgartner's dear-occupant fundraising letter. But I don't.)

[slickteam12brs]

I poked around at the bounce into the water at Galway, and they seemed to be made of a very dense styrafoam material. As mentioned earlier, there were some obvious rubs on them after the 3* horses ran. You could make out the shape of the horse's fetlock, cannon, hoof etc. The second fence was on a few foot drop into the water. I think the possible reason for placing them is that this material probably would crumble as apposed to frangible pins which are designed to release the top rail, which usually falls right under the jump. In this perticular senario, because of the drop after the fence there would still be a pivot point for a rotational fall to occur at. I think the idea was to remove that pivot point by placing a jump that would essentailly part in two when struck.

[Gnep]

What realy troubles me, we implement materials, that have no real testing. You could get DQ for wearing a helmet, that has all the necessary testings done in EU and UK but not the US, we set standards on all our other savety stuff, but than we happily use criticall equipment that has no real testing.
Even the Pin, I think it is the best thing we have right now, will only work if certain parameters come together and even than it could ??? become a hazzard if it has been weakend by to many rough hits, 1.8 tons, that value got stuck into my mind, that was the max hit the Goodyear jump took, without causing a crash.
Can that log take hits like that, or would the crap fly around, 1.8 tons, stuff flys around big time, what happens than.
The intention are very good, the basic idea is great, should be applauded, but the implementation and testing are very questionable.

It realy makes me uncomfi, I like to know the risk I take, I like solid poles, I know what happens, I hate rotten or weak poles, I don't know what happens.
Can I slip, slide, bank or what ever that pole, without having it break and the pieces getting between my horses legs ?
I would like to know, I know that I can do that on a wooden pole/log, have done it often enough.
What if I am the 10th rider and 3 or 4 before me have abused the log ?

TLA saw already the cormaterial exposed, are they going to throw the log away ? Or will it just be turned so that the abused surface is not to be seen ?
Pins are exchanged on a regular base and are suposed to be removed after the show, or use of the jump is over per recomendation by the manufacturer and by ongoing research.
What about this log ?

If we take a dive and hit dirt with the helmet, we throw it away, if we have had a solid hit with our vest we are asked to either get rid of it or exchange, were possible, the foam by manufactures recomendation.
The log is plastic and foam, will take hits, hard hits, will it get replaced or reused because it still looks pretty good.

It realy troubles me, because we are playing with fire, or better a stick of dynamite with a broken fuse.

[groom]

I think we're going willy-nilly with untested materials.

Question is, will that just end up hurting more riders and horses? Seems very dangerous to me... I don't want a shattered piece of material going and stabbing my horse in the chest.

So -- what are the rider's options?

If you've entered an event and you find these new, untested, unproven, little-understood, sold-as-safety-products materials on your XC course, what do you do?

Can you withdraw and get a refund? You signed up for a horse trial, not a product safety trial. You did not sign a consent form nor were you informed that you would be required to jump these obstacles.

Should the USEA/USEF/FEI require traditionally-built options for every 'test' fence?

Should the USEA/USEF/FEI/organizer be required to provide all relevant data/testing/safety info on the experimental safety obstacles to riders/owners/coaches?

Should the orgs have to fully inform participants/guardians about the experimental fences?

(FWIW, I did send out some emails to the USEA about this and received no reply, unless you count Kevin Baumgartner's dear-occupant fundraising letter. But I don't.)


Wait a minute. At present, there are no regulations stipulating what xc fences must be made of, or how they should be constructed. No design regs whatsoever. I am sympathetic to your point about the lack of science behind styrofoam building materials, but the reality is that there is no science behind anything we've been jumping and building. It's all seat-of-the-pants engineered, and always will be. Engineered obstacles will bankrupt Eventing.

[JER]

I am sympathetic to your point about the lack of science behind styrofoam building materials, but the reality is that there is no science behind anything we've been jumping and building.

Not exactly. There's a long-standing anecdotal history, which counts for something in the world of materials science and product liability. We know how Material X is affected by X conditions of stress, etc. Wood, FWIW, is a very well-studied and -documented and -regulated building material.

It's all seat-of-the-pants engineered, and always will be. Engineered obstacles will bankrupt Eventing.

The frangible pins were not a seat-of-the-pants development. See previous posts.

The problem with ProLogs is the manufacturer's safety claims despite an apparent lack of testing, research and data. If you make claims that your product is safer, you'd better be prepared to back it up in court or risk a pay out that might even bankrupt you. Otherwise, you're guilty of making false claims and perhaps more, like negligence causing death or injury.

False claims cost the makers of Airborne ("invented by a teacher!") over $30 million -- and nobody died using Airborne. :lol:

[His Greyness]

Horse and Hound is reporting the outcome of the coroner's inquest (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/279627.html) on a rider who died after a rotational fall at a fence fitted with frangible pins.

[groom]

Not exactly. There's a long-standing anecdotal history, which counts for something in the world of materials science and product liability. We know how Material X is affected by X conditions of stress, etc. Wood, FWIW, is a very well-studied and -documented and -regulated building
material.



Right. But there is no 'building code' which prescribes how to use wood or any other material. And it would not matter if there were, because there are no trained officials to inspect course construction. Don't you see that this will be an exceedingly expensive undertaking?

[Jealoushe]

As mentioned earlier, there were some obvious rubs on them after the 3* horses ran. You could make out the shape of the horse's fetlock, cannon, hoof etc.

If that is true, I would like to know how well a horse can "slide" over these fences. A lot of horses can easily slide over logs when they are greased up, but if they touch these fences and their legs get implanted or indented in them slightly isn't that just another way to have a rotational fall?

[VicarageVee]

I was at Galway and watched the *** combination for which the logs were used (the bounce into lake Galway) and saw the logs before and after the *** ran. They are heavy duty styrofoam, and yes, they did seem to do the job. There were quite a few marks on the second log of the bounce where horses had clipped it. They seemed forgiving and smart.

[Wee Dee Trrr]

I just wanted to note that the people who were at Galway and have posted here about the "logs" seemed to have liked them...

Ian is a very smart individual. Also pretty obstinate, I'm inclined to think that if he didn't like the "logs" they wouldn't have been on the course.

I'm not sure how a styrofoam fence can be MORE dangerous than wood... I'd rather wreck my car into packing material than a tree...

But, of course, I won't be the person jumping these fences.

[RAyers]

I was at Galway and watched the *** combination for which the logs were used (the bounce into lake Galway) and saw the logs before and after the *** ran. They are heavy duty styrofoam, and yes, they did seem to do the job. There were quite a few marks on the second log of the bounce where horses had clipped it. They seemed forgiving and smart.

Forgiving and smart may not indicate any safety. Maybe the only difference between those and real logs would be the "indents" and marks. Nobody knows if any of those "hits" would have been rotation because the biomechanics/dynamics of the horse were not measured.

I bring this up so as to try to head off confusion that something that looks forgiving is NOT confused with safe. In the same way Ian Stark uses "shatter" in appropriately, "forgiving" can also be used inappropriately when used in a context of safety. A rubber band is also forgiving but none of us would confuse that with a safe fence.

quiterandom, your view is common and is also how the perception of something that is soft is safe. Just because you would want to drive you car into a certain barrier, does not make it safe for other uses. You are discussing two VERY different types of impacts and kinetics. A soft material can be just as dangerous as a hard material as soft materials act as hard materials under certain impact conditions. I assure you, I could make a styrofoam fence that will flip a horse just as effectively as any wood fence.

Also, do not confuse nor accept that because Ian Stark "is a very smart individual. Also pretty obstinate, I'm inclined to think that if he didn't like the "logs" they wouldn't have been on the course." means he knows the safety/mechanics or function of the materials. In the video he proved he did not understand how the material worked when he said it would "shatter." Even my 19 year-old sophomore students know that is a fallacy.

Reed

[LisaB]

I agree that testing should be done before implementing something of this magnitude.
But we don't have money. Not a real good excuse but an excuse nonetheless.

So, let's ask ourselves. Are we better off with new materials and engineering than without them?
So far, the consensus at least on the frangible pins is yes, we are better off with them. Is it ideal to toss out a new material to an int/adv track? No. But it is what it is for now.

[Jealoushe]

I'm having trouble understanding how some people don't get what RAyers is saying.

Yeah it's a good that they are trying, but it's not good ENOUGH. There has to be testing done.

[JER]

I agree that testing should be done before implementing something of this magnitude.
But we don't have money. Not a real good excuse but an excuse nonetheless.

So, let's ask ourselves. Are we better off with new materials and engineering than without them?
So far, the consensus at least on the frangible pins is yes, we are better off with them. Is it ideal to toss out a new material to an int/adv track? No. But it is what it is for now.

ETA: Are you saying that lack of money is a valid reason for using materials without testing?

Does 'toss out' a material mean to put it on the course or does it mean to discard it as an idea?

(I'm not getting your point.)

[TLA]

Fortunately, the riders rode so well, and the jump rode well, so we avoided finding out how/if they worked. If there had been a larger entry, I think that the log in would have needed to be changed due to damage. And now, I think, throw it away.
I still remain untempted to use them on my courses.
Tom Angle

[LisaB]

ETA: Are you saying that lack of money is a valid reason for using materials without testing?

Does 'toss out' a material mean to put it on the course or does it mean to discard it as an idea?

(I'm not getting your point.)
No, not a valid reason, JER, just a reason. I'm all about testing! Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't definitely not want to be a lab rat in the test study!
And toss out, I mis-typed. I'm saying that to use new materials and engineering on adv and int tracks is not the wisest thing to do.
Hmmm, you're making me think (oww!). Why didn't they keep testing them at schooling venues? Many folks would have loved to use them rather than forking out $$ for a new jump. Schooling venues get beaten up tons more than an event would. Try Frying Pan Park!
Okay, so JER and Reed are right. They jumped the gun. There are ways to test these things out and cheaply!

[Shrunk "N" Da Wash]

How about we all ride better and safer so we don't fall at all. :lol:

[RAyers]

I think we are better off with new materials and fence designs (e.g. collapsable tables etc.) However, because we are suggesting the incorporation of man-made materials, the need to characterize them in the appropriate conditions crops up. This becomes an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

There are hundreds of people who work on problems like this every day. In my case, I work with doctors to figure out how to save lives through bone tissue engineering on one hand and on the other hand how to burn out a bunker and its occupants. Both have logical and rational processes. Neither are done simply by saying, "Hey, let's try this on real people!" for our first try.

Reed


I agree that testing should be done before implementing something of this magnitude.
But we don't have money. Not a real good excuse but an excuse nonetheless.

So, let's ask ourselves. Are we better off with new materials and engineering than without them?
So far, the consensus at least on the frangible pins is yes, we are better off with them. Is it ideal to toss out a new material to an int/adv track? No. But it is what it is for now.

[LisaB]

I thought that's what college students and bums are for Reed ;)

[RAyers]

I thought that's what college students and bums are for Reed ;)

Collateral data, Lisa. ;)