British Eventing fights new frangible pin rule with data

[JER]

From Horse & Hound: "British eventing fights new frangible pin rule" (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/279996.html)

Since January 2009, riders have been eliminated for breaking a frangible pin but, if this amendment is approved, from 15 April competitors will get 25 penalties instead.

But British Eventing (BE) chief executive Mike Etherington-Smith said: "We're completely against 25 penalties for breaking a pin, as we were elimination. You cannot penalise people for something they can't control — we have data to support the fact that pins weaken."

BE research, presented at the FEI safety conference at Hartpury College, showed pins are weakened by successive hits.

BE comes through with data and research once again. :yes::yes:

[RAyers]

HEY! USEF/USEA and ProLogs guys! Read and Listen up!!!!! I believe we already pointed this out a year ago for both the pins and logs.

Reed

[Gnep]

Zzzzzz, Reed and JER I hope you are not suggesting that research and education matter, that would be a pfuiiiiiii.

[IFG]

I've missed you guys! Research apparently only matters in Britain. Research related to eventing that is. Fortunately in the biomedical sciences, we have stimulus grants. Back to work now....

[ksbadger]

Just shows engineering principles are, indeed, universal. The exact moment of failure for any weak link subject to multiple & varied impacts is not predictable so no one should be penalised if a fence comes apart underneath them.

[msghook]

Hey rayers and gnep

We have advocated this position to the FEI for the past two years, and most recently supported BE's position on the issue. So don't critcize when you don't know what's been going on. Next time, try asking me before you pontificate.

Malcolm

[RAyers]

Malcolm,

I do not see how my previous post was pontificating. I am not criticizing your stance on the frangible pin. I am specifically pointing out that there is another new design idea that has the same potential for rules mistakes based on the material failure modes. I will point out a thread on July 18th of last year where both Gnep and I both mentioned the engineering deficiencies of EPS materials such as used in ProLogs (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=157966&highlight=ProLogs). We did not disparage the idea but the fact that these are being used sans relevant design and testing. OK, it wasn't a year ago but it was before this article came out.

I appreciate, applaud and wholly support the stance you are taking with the FEI.

Now I will pontificate though:

From an engineering/R&D point of view the horse has left the barn with more and more courses using these materials without USEF design data. At least with the frangible pins, they had fairly extensive BE testing prior to incorporation but as the data indicates, certain materials design constraints were not considered when the rules were developed. It has always been my position that engineers must be involved in the safety decisions at the USEF in order to advise those who do make the rules.

The USEF/FEI are in a position to get ahead of the curve with the EPS logs. As these were not available/common 2 years ago, I do not expect you to have a rules position on these specifically yet. But I should expect the rules to account for the fact that multiple hits can weaken a log so that it can fail/break even after a light touch. How will the USEF rule that?

Reed

[msghook]

If the log is weakened and breaks; it breaks. We do not penalize for breaking either frangible or non-frangible obstacles. Over the years, I have seen plenty of convential obstacles break w/o negative consequences, so material failure per se does not necessarily constitute a hazard. I agree that the foam logs are untested, however, the standard for safety, at base must be: it may not increase the risk of injury. If the foam logs break sooner than a wooden log, then they cannot increase the risk of rotational fall. Granted we do not know that there may not be some other hidden downside to the foam logs(that is the role that the USEF testing agreement with U.K. can answer when we have funding to start it (so send in your loose change and coupons). At the moment though, we have no evidence to support that concern. I do not support their use in high hazard applications until we know more and neither does Mark Phillips, but the horse has rather left the barn regarding their deployment in the field, so we are currently left with being vigilant, which I can assure you, the Officials are.

On the lighter side, the only problem with the foam logs is that they allegedly make a "funny, squeaky noise" if your horse gives them a good rub and that noise will frighten your horse so that it runs out at the next element of the combination. Seriously put forward by a rider last week.

Malcolm

[tuppysmom]

I heard the funny squeeky noise from the log and I was standing on the track. I don't think the noise caused the penalty though, JMHO.

[JER]

Hey rayers and gnep

We have advocated this position to the FEI for the past two years, and most recently supported BE's position on the issue. So don't critcize when you don't know what's been going on. Next time, try asking me before you pontificate.

Malcolm

Malcolm, a couple of comments:

1. You say you have advocated this position for 2 years. On the basis of what? In other words, what was the data/research/analysis on which this position was based? (From what you said, I gather you were advocating this position before the BE data came out.)

2. If people on this board -- people who are very involved in the sport in a variety of ways -- don't know what's been going on, this might indicate a communications issue or at least a serious lag time in news filtering down to the level of the membership. Perhaps this could be improved.

[Gnep]

Hey rayers and gnep

We have advocated this position to the FEI for the past two years, and most recently supported BE's position on the issue. So don't critcize when you don't know what's been going on. Next time, try asking me before you pontificate.

Malcolm

Malcom, not against USEF or USEA, but FEI, seams they do not get it, as usual.

Well I can understand the run out, horse with hair standing up and goose bumps don't jump well, old Indian rule

[SevenDogs]

On the lighter side, the only problem with the foam logs is that they allegedly make a "funny, squeaky noise" if your horse gives them a good rub and that noise will frighten your horse so that it runs out at the next element of the combination. Seriously put forward by a rider last week.



The rider at this show was willing to discuss, ad naseum, how the foam logs caused her run out with anyone that would listen. I saw the ride in question and even looked at it again on the video, knowing she had made an inquiry, and I can say I would be embarrassed about making that claim. :no:

[msghook]

JER,

The BE data has been around for some time. The first time that FEI proposed penalties for breaking pins, the USEF opposed it based ont the BE data as communicated to us by Mark Phillips. Just last month, the FEI trotted out the same issue and backing the BE, the USEF opposed the initiative, for the same reasons. As far as the FEI statement encouraging experimentation with frangible technology, the Eventing Committee is not comfortable with that approach, especially considering the litigious nature of American society and the differences between Euopean tort law and ours.

I support the USEF arrangement with U.K. engineering, to research new technologies. However, that requires money and USEF and USEA are trying to lock up the necessary funding. You can contribute through either organization. It is pointless to complain that this or that technology is "untested" when there is no avenue through which we can test it. That being the case, the prime principal (as I said to Reed) is that nothing we do should INCRESE the risk.

As to your second comment: perhaps before you make the very general statement that so many on the Board (which Board?) are in the dark; you should try talking to some of us, instead of amongst yourselves. You might be surprised to learn that most of the USEA Board and all of the Eventing Committee are well aware of the issues. Not everything is as you have apparently decided it is.

Malcolm

[JER]

Malcolm, thanks for the clarification on the first point.

As for the second point, about testing, I don't agree with your argument. New materials -- which carry claims of greater safety -- need to be studied and tested. There appear to be no guidelines for implementing and incorporating these new materials and, as was discussed in the previous thread that Reed linked to, knowing when not to use something is crucial.

Getting to the third point -- communications -- please understand that I've found the USEA to be a bafflingly uncommunicative entity. Emails go unanswered and unacknowledged. Or at least mine do, repeatedly. I have found that bringing up the same discussion point on this board does occasionally prompt a response from the USEA, so a forum like this is often the only avenue to enlightenment. (If you do a search, you'll see that I'm far from the only poster complaining of this problem.)

But again, thanks to you for jumping in here. Direct communication always makes for greater clarity. :)

[SevenDogs]

As for the second point, about testing, I don't agree with your argument. New materials -- which carry claims of greater safety -- need to be studied and tested. There appear to be no guidelines for implementing and incorporating these new materials and, as was discussed in the previous thread that Reed linked to, knowing when not to use something is crucial.



JER and others: How would you propose to address the issue of funding theses tests? I think it is a valid point in this discussion.

[LLDM]

JER and others: How would you propose to address the issue of funding theses tests? I think it is a valid point in this discussion.

If it is a private company that is bringing these materials to the market and expects to approved and embraced by sanctioned and rated events, it is on them to get funding for testing. Just like any other private company in the USA. If they put out a plea to "eventers" or wish to receive incentives/support from our official orgs, they need to submit official (and public) requests for such funding which comes from membership dollars.

Example - Charles Owens doesn't expect the USEF or USEA to fund their safety research. In fact, they tend to support our orgs, not the other way around.

Raising money - be it private equity money or, in the case of a non-profit entity which exists for the sole purpose of making eventing safer, still needs to have the capacity to fund itself. That is what angel money, venture capitalists and professional fund raisers are for.

SCFarm

[JER]

JER and others: How would you propose to address the issue of funding theses tests? I think it is a valid point in this discussion.

ProLogs is a private, for-profit business entity. If they make claims that their product is safer, they need to back it up with some science of their own. That's just for starters.

The USEA/USEF could set up a dedicated fund for independent testing (independent of the manufacturers -- Gnep discussed the need for this), ideally with a budget and plan. If anyone on here noticed the current contributions material with the USEA, you can check off that you're making a donation to 'safety' but it also says there's no guarantee that your money will actually go towards that; they reserve the right to allocate it elsewhere. That doesn't fly for me, so I didn't contribute. (I did send an email asking how to make a direct contribution to safety efforts but alas, no reply (:cry:) so my money went to a non-eventing cause that didn't ignore my emails.)

BE hooked up with Goodyear as a corporate sponsor for safety and testing. The Goodyear safety research fence (do a search, we discussed it) toured BE events last year to collect data. Perhaps the USEF/USEA could attract a similar arrangement.

There's also the USEA/F (?) partnership with the University of Kentucky. I thought this was supposed to be about safety research and development.

Of course, all of these bright ideas need time and man-hours, even before they need money. Someone has to do the leg work, the calls, the emails, the false starts. This is a real problem with organizations that rely on a small staff and lots of volunteers to get many jobs done. So I recognize that it's no easy feat.

[RAyers]

It is a matter of resource utilization. While I agree with the intent of collaborating with U of K, from personal experience, it is VERY difficult to get a dedicated research program up and running at a university. I found it better to start with a series of specific research projects to develop the infrastructure and process of collaboration. For about 1/6 the cost the USEF could test and understand the ProLog technology to the point of knowing how they can be utilized. This would come about by using those members who are professionals in the fields necessary and allowing them to donate their time.

FYI, I donate 4 weeks (approx. $10,000, e.g. summer salary, benefits, administrative costs, facilities etc.) of my time to the Speed Study. When professors conduct independent research, the costs can increase up to 50% (The Salk Institute is 100%). The $150,000 asked for UK must also include university administrative costs. U of K has a 47% indirect rate on research projects done on campus (directly from the U of K Office of Sponsored Projects Administration.

Therefore, the indirect cost on the $150,000K being asked is roughly $75K. Thus to get $150K of work a total of $225K must be paid or you only get $75K for a total of $150K paid. This cost is necessary since that indirect cost pays for utilities, janitors, facilities, secretaries etc., all those things needed to support the research.

So one way around that is to have small specifically directed projects done as industry sponsored research (e.g. the indirect rate can drop to 9%) and use those who already have a vested interest in the work who can donate their time and effort. Once they can prove the validity of the program then make a full scale continuous research program.

Reed

[SevenDogs]

The USEA/USEF could set up a dedicated fund for independent testing (independent of the manufacturers -- Gnep discussed the need for this), ideally with a budget and plan. If anyone on here noticed the current contributions material with the USEA, you can check off that you're making a donation to 'safety' but it also says there's no guarantee that your money will actually go towards that; they reserve the right to allocate it elsewhere. That doesn't fly for me, so I didn't contribute.



This is a legitimate concern and I too would have difficulty contributing towards a specific cause that may or may not see my money. USEA folks: Is there a way to fix this?

[poltroon]

Creating proposals for specific projects and inviting people to fund them may be more attractive to people than a general fund. I note that a lot of political advocacy groups had good success with creating an ad, putting it on YouTube, and then inviting people to send them money to air that specific ad. That kind of specificity: my money will make this exact thing happen - may be a help in raising money for the research.

[JER]

Moneybomb! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb)

Heck, if Dennis Kucinich can raise $131,400 from 1600 donors in one day...

[frugalannie]

I think Reed's analysis and suggestion is right on. The most "bang for the buck" would come from having USEA members donate their time and skills to design and implement research protocols for new materials. From reading this thread and others, it seems that Reed, Gnep, JER and IFG among others have key skills. Others may also, but I don't know of them.

On the other hand, the USEA could allocate $104 per annum from it's general fund to buy lottery tickets. If they win, funding problems are over!;)

[RAyers]

I think that if the USEF were to say they will conduct safety tests on several designs of EPS logs (varying sizes, rates of impacts, and fastening methods), they could get much of the data they need with about $30,000 to UK, if ProLogs were to donate their products.

I am building my biomaterials research program in the same manner as I am suggesting. I do lots of smaller dedicated research projects for reduced expenses with the intent of growing them into larger programs. I find I can do a lot of work for groups, companies, individuals, for much less (about 1/10 the cost) than a full program. It is amazing how much research you can really get done with even $10K, if you plan it carefully.

There is one other cost cutting consideration, university researchers are driven by the NEED to publish (major consideration toward promotions, tenure, etc.). The program put out by the USEF will need to answer or push the engineering/science of a given topic and lend itself to scientific publication. If not, then the USEF is left funding a research project as an "outside contractor," resulting in much higher costs. (For example, here time on the SEMs is $275/hour to outside contracts, $75/hour to dedicated research projects with a specific professor.)

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

I don't have my notes from the USEA convention handy, but I remember being impressed at some of the research which was underway or about to be underway with UK - AND I remember David O's rueful comment that USEF had lined up a funding source , I'm pretty sure it was for more research. Unfortunately the source was AIG...

It does seem like more updates on committee activities and thinking would be nice - but the way internet vultures come out tearing flesh might make a committee member hesitant to publish their thoughts...

[eqsiu]

I had no idea there were penalties at all. That is stupid, there are no penalties for knocking over a cross country jump (saw it :lol:), so why would there be penalties for the pins breaking? They are a safety feature, nothign more. You can practically climb over cross country jumps and be fine.

Research shouldn't be necessary for this. The pins are a safety feature, and not a judging device.

[LisaB]

Okay, those of you in the r&d field could probably answer this.
How does one get funding for proper testing?
What I mean , for example, did the whole helmet certification come about? I keep thinking that there were a group of crazy chasers who finally got a lesson in fallibility and started to make a safer helmet. Others joined in to buy that helmet. Then organically, there was enough private funding to develop the whole standardization/approval process so now our helmets are as safe as they can be and constantly improved upon.
I'm thinking that how does such a small company such as prologs get funding to do proper testing?
And Malcolm, I appreciate you coming on this board to answer our questions because you all do get in this black hole and we see nothing. Maybe just a few blurbs on useventing.com but that's it. So, thank you.

[canterlope]

I had no idea there were penalties at all. That is stupid, there are no penalties for knocking over a cross country jump (saw it :lol:), so why would there be penalties for the pins breaking? They are a safety feature, nothign more. You can practically climb over cross country jumps and be fine.I believe the thinking behind the penalties is that if a horse hits a fence hard enough to break a pin, the horse and rider would have fallen and faced mandatory retirement had that pin not been in place. In other words, the pin is to keep horses and riders safe, not a way for competitors to avoid a penalty.

[Fence2Fence]

I don't work for industry, but in my day job I negotiate research grants and contracts for a particular institution that probably wouldn't be hard to guess.

Lisa, based my experience, I think that's probably a logical assumption. Most r&d funds come from the company's income. They could have also received funds from interested individuals and entities that want to see the technology developed, and you could also have the owner of the company funding the r&d until the product takes off. Unlikely that CO received any governmental type funds to develop safety equipment, but some r&d funds that industries have come from state and federal funds, through grants and contracts, which are either peer reviewed or go through a bid process, depending on the funding mechanism.

Reed.... the F&A rate (aka indirect) is 47.5% for this particular fiscal year, not 47%, and applicable to private/federal/industry regardless. I'm not sure where you came up with your 9% rate, but it's not an appropriate rate here.

[RAyers]

...

Reed.... the F&A rate (aka indirect) is 47.5% for this particular fiscal year, not 47%, and applicable to private/federal/industry regardless. I'm not sure where you came up with your 9% rate, but it's not an appropriate rate here.

I was using the 47% as an approximate.

As for the 9%, almost every university I know has a mechanism to allow for adjustment of F&A rates based on the industry. For example, an industrial collaborator may request of the university that only 8% F&A is charged based on their internal rates. This is done during contract negotiations. Certain NASA grants will only cover 8% F&A, regardless of university policy. I have done this at several universities. There are also departmental center negotiated contracts outside the Research Administration where a F&A can be reduced and is common among larger institutions.

Reed

[Gnep]

LisaB,you do what every other small business does Go To The Bank. If you can't find a bank, you look for a partner that might can go to a bank, if that does not work you go and find a partner with cash.

Good solid coloteral around 150 to 200%, at least 30% of your own money, a solid business plan, and you get the money.
And if all of that does not get you the money, SOL.
I am installing a thermal solar hot whater plant in my business, that will provide around 100,000 gallon of 160 degree water per month, were do you think that money comes from and how it gets raised.

The point is, they started out without taking the problem of the proper ingeneering and sience testing. If you produce a savety product or plan to do it, that is the most important part of your budget, production and sale are second, because you are liable for your product.
A bank that is worth its money, will not finance a product like this without a proper research and testing programm. Not because the bank is liable, but because of the producers liability problem.
If that product causes an injury or a death because it does not perform as advertised and somebody can point out that research, testing etc. was not adequate than all hell will brake loose.
That is like holding a dynamit stik in that hand whichs fuse just is smoldering, is it going to blow or is it not going to blow.

It took for ever to get the pin into the US, why ?, liability, find somebody who could get the liability insurance and have the guts to be the distributer.