PDA

View Full Version : EXO vs Point Two Air vest



tomac
Mar. 3, 2010, 12:09 PM
I've noticed a lot of discussion about these vests after the falls at Pine Top this weekend and I would just like to set the record straight about these vests....1st off, I do not in any way represent Point Two...But I do think it is the single best piece of safety equipment to come along since the helmet ! The air vest is quick enough opening that it will significantly reduce your impact with the ground as well as absorb impact from a horse landing on you...It also has a very good neck support system...The EXO (no longer in production btw) does pose a very real whiplash threat. The metal cage will collapse and thus dissipate energy from the impact of a horse landing on you...However as some may think, the frame disintegrates (breaks), it DOES NOT DISSOLVE OR TURN TO DUST....In its original form the EXO would not pass beta testing...Only after it was mated with a standard safety vest to help combat the threat of a broken frame piece penetrating the body did it pass...IMO this is the reason not to wear one....Also the weight of the vest is significant and has been known to actually contribute to riders falling because of the inertia created by the added weight.(much like the early SEI helmets were known to have contributed to smaller riders and kids falling when they got ahead of the motion)...As for the cost of the Point Two, we are sharing them within our barn whenever possible until everyone can get their own...

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 12:25 PM
Please tell me you're a shill for Point Two and not as misguided and misinformed as your post indicates.

FrittSkritt
Mar. 3, 2010, 12:28 PM
Paging RAyers...

Also, someone posted this link on another thread, which I think is a good read for anyone on either side of the debate:
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4887813/page/5/fpart/1/vc/1

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 12:38 PM
I've no opinion on the safety of the Exo, but I saw the Point Two in Florida recently and I'm considering getting one; I think it's intriguing. I read through the whole Horse-and-Hound debate, and thought that parts of it were interesting and parts just stupid--from seeing the P2 up close and seeing how it's worn, I don't think, for example, that there is any way possible its inflation could cause internal injury. I wish there was more science and less anecdote about it. I'd especially like to see any kind of study regarding the effect that being tethered to the saddle has on the trajectory of the fall.

I'm very curious as to whether any of the riders injured at Pine Top was wearing a Point 2. And what type of falls were they? I've seen both Jan and Rebecca's falls described as "rotational," but haven't heard a word on Karen's.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 12:41 PM
tomac, as a professor in the Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Department at the Colorado School of Mines who teaches fundamental materials engineering and their applications, I can easily state that your post contains a glaringly LARGE number of factual errors and misconceptions.

I will assume since you said, "As for the cost of the Point Two, we are sharing them within our barn whenever possible until everyone can get their own... " like most professional trainers/barn owners/riders, you are showing true ignorance to what and how safety devices function.

I am tired of folks making unfounded and unsubstantiated assessments of equipment.

Please present the data or studies that prove your BELIEF because as you write that is what it is.

I will say this, any device requiring a mechanical trigger to function also has ADDED a point of FAILURE for the device to NOT work. The P2 vest is NOT a FAIL-SAFE design. It is a FAIL-DANGEROUS design. There is a REASON why jockeys are NOT allowed to wear P2 vests.

Reed

nomeolvides
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:00 PM
The reason the EXO has not been a massive success has to be partly because of people like tomac who scare-monger. Seriously, if the Exo had been given to all the pros, I wonder if it might have been more successful.

ETA: Since when did production of the Exo end? I'd like a link for that, perhaps.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:02 PM
The air vest is quick enough opening that it will significantly reduce your impact with the ground as well as absorb impact from a horse landing on you..

Please describe how you come to this assessment? Were there load cells attached to the body to measure impact forces? How does this compare to other vests? Was at any time an analysis of a horse landing on a person conducted? What are the impact forces exerted on the body during a rotational fall?



..It also has a very good neck support system.

How so? Does this mean that compressive loads imparted on the head are then transferred to the spine?


The EXO (no longer in production btw) does pose a very real whiplash threat.

Proven how? How does this compare to other vests on the market? As far as I understand the vest is still in production with all proceeds going to the BE injured riders fund.



The metal cage will collapse and thus dissipate energy from the impact of a horse landing on you...However as some may think, the frame disintegrates (breaks), it DOES NOT DISSOLVE OR TURN TO DUST.

Uh, you obviously have no idea about the mechanical and material properties of magnesium. Now, using YOUR mental ideas, I will ask you this, if a Mg frame is SO bad why is it used EXTENSIVELY as a frame for super cars and race cars? Hmmm... It must have some AMAZING impact protective properties.

As a matter of fact, Mg is CLOSER to acting like native bone in its mechanical properties than any other material. In other words, it can DEFORM and RETURN to its original shape under much HIGHER loads than even STEEL or TITANIUM.

What does this all mean? It DISSIPATES LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY through the deformation of the bonds of the atoms in the structure and can still remain intact. This is a reason why Mg is used in situations where HIGH impact forces are expected.



Also the weight of the vest is significant and has been known to actually contribute to riders falling because of the inertia created by the added weight (much like the early SEI helmets were known to have contributed to smaller riders and kids falling when they got ahead of the motion).

Proven how? What study? The never was any study done on helmets per se as you imply.

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:05 PM
Reed-

I understand that the tether is a place the vest can fail--it only works if triggered. But are you saying this makes wearing it more dangerous than not wearing it? Since it's worn over a conventional vest, if it doesn't inflate, you've got essentially a conventional vest--not more dangerous than you were before you started.

Or do you fear that the break-away of the tether will fail? That would be a different problem altogether, potentially much more serious.

I don't understand why EXO didn't hand out a bunch of freebies to highly-visible top-level riders. It's straightforward marketing--no different than free review copies of my novels going out to members of the Newbery committee.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:09 PM
Reed-

I understand that the tether is a place the vest can fail--it only works if triggered. But are you saying this makes wearing it more dangerous than not wearing it? Since it's worn over a conventional vest, if it doesn't inflate, you've got essentially a conventional vest--not more dangerous than you were before you started.....

The fact the P2 REQUIRES a standard vest underneath is because it is a FAIL-DANGEROUS design. It means it should NEVER be used as the sole source of protection, unlike EXO, RP, CO vests.

Failure can be:

1) the rider never separates far enough from the horse to trigger the vest
2) the lanyard fails
3) the rider fails to fasten the lanyard appropriately or even at all
4) the gas canister fails (leak, not charged, insufficient pressure)
5) the gas canister is punctured during the fall
6) the vest is punctured during the fall
7) the rider is not separated with enough force to pull the lanyard

These are all off the top of my head. But you see that the rider than has to rely on the factory doing their job but even there there is a failure rate.

So I ask you, if you have to have a rotation, and you KNOW that one in every 10,000 canisters (these are standard canisters you get for a variety of other uses) fail but pass through to be sold, are you willing to bet your life on that? Can you be SURE that your P2 vest will work EVERYTIME?

Reed

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:14 PM
I don't understand why EXO didn't hand out a bunch of freebies to highly-visible top-level riders.

They tried to. BNrs balked at the weight. However, UK eventer Kitty Boggis did accept. (I discussed this personally with the EXO people.)

But BNrs aren't so good at math. When you add up the weight of the PointTwo (900g) and a conventional body protector, you're not far off the weight of the EXO so it's not a very strong argument.

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:28 PM
Reed-

No, I don't think you can say the P2 will work every time. But I think you can say it will work most of the time. Given that you do wear it over the conventional vest, if the errors in the P2 aren't going to be harmful, it can't hurt. So, as I see it, the main salient questions are:

--if the P2 doesn't perform correctly, is that harmful?

--if the P2 performs as it should, is it helpful? To what degree, under what conditions?

--if the P2 performs as it should, can it still be harmful (ie, the tether changes the flight of the fall to a more dangerous one; the forces are shifted in a way that causes more harm than the same fall without the P2)?

--what are the odds that the P2 will fail?

If you know the answer to all that, you can do the math and determine whether or not wearing the P2 is a statistically useful thing to do.

Of course, we don't seem to know the answers; I would like to.

But I think you're answering a different question--is the P2 better or worse than the Exo--and duh, that's the topic of the this thread, but it's not as much what I'd like to know as the answers to the others.

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:30 PM
I've taken several falls in the last several years, but every damn one of them was in showjumping. Where's the app for that?

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:32 PM
Of course, we don't seem to know the answers; I would like to.

The other relevant question is whether the level of protection offered by the Point Two (as worn over the conventional BP) represents a significant improvement over the level of protection of the conventional BP.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 01:34 PM
No, I am not answering any question. I am responding to the idea that the P2 vest is the best idea (no it is not and neither is the EXO, RP or any other vest).

You ask the questions that any true engineer should ask for any product they are developing.

Here is the crux of it, what are good odds to you as to the vest working? How will you feel if you are the one failure? It is too easy to dismiss things in this sport as "Oh well, thems the breaks." yet turn around and sue Toyota of 19 failures out of over 20 MILLION vehicles! It is a form of hypocrisy. It is easy to dismiss risk and injury when it happens to somebody else.


Reed-

No, I don't think you can say the P2 will work every time. But I think you can say it will work most of the time. Given that you do wear it over the conventional vest, if the errors in the P2 aren't going to be harmful, it can't hurt. So, as I see it, the main salient questions are:

--if the P2 doesn't perform correctly, is that harmful?

--if the P2 performs as it should, is it helpful? To what degree, under what conditions?

--if the P2 performs as it should, can it still be harmful (ie, the tether changes the flight of the fall to a more dangerous one; the forces are shifted in a way that causes more harm than the same fall without the P2)?

--what are the odds that the P2 will fail?

If you know the answer to all that, you can do the math and determine whether or not wearing the P2 is a statistically useful thing to do.

Of course, we don't seem to know the answers; I would like to.

But I think you're answering a different question--is the P2 better or worse than the Exo--and duh, that's the topic of the this thread, but it's not as much what I'd like to know as the answers to the others.

flabbergasted
Mar. 3, 2010, 02:17 PM
Good grief, give the guy a break. He expressed his opinion about a vest, presumably based on his own experience with it, and nothing else. He didn't claim scientific certainty or absolutes.

nomeolvides
Mar. 3, 2010, 02:28 PM
Good grief, give the guy a break. He expressed his opinion about a vest, presumably based on his own experience with it, and nothing else. He didn't claim scientific certainty or absolutes.
Whilst making claims such as this:

The EXO (no longer in production btw) does pose a very real whiplash threat

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 02:40 PM
Anybody can have any opinion at all.

My opinion is, I would like to know if the vest is actually helpful before I spend $700 on it, and I sure as heck want to believe it won't be harmful.

The science here reminds me a lot of food science--butter is horrible, margarine is great, no, wait, margarine is horrible, butter is better, no wait--

However, a big difference between body protectors and margarine is that the science of falls, while complex, is much easier to accurately understand than the science of interactions within all systems of the human body. So I remain hopeful that someone will figure it all out.

As for being the one failure in 10,000 (if those are really the odds), I'm okay with that. It sucks to be that one, but those are still pretty reasonable odds given all the other stuff that can go wrong with horses. My husband makes his living as a cataract surgeon; the national average for a particular kind of surgical complication is 4%, my husband's average is less than 0.1%, or less than one in a thousand, so I have a feel for what that means on a daily basis.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 03:51 PM
Good grief, give the guy a break. He expressed his opinion about a vest, presumably based on his own experience with it, and nothing else. He didn't claim scientific certainty or absolutes.


Hey, none of the statements I asked questions about were stated as opinion. They were stated as fact with no substantiation with the overall observation, "I would just like to set the record straight about these vests."

If he was a student of mine, he just failed his degree.

Reed

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:09 PM
..
However, a big difference between body protectors and margarine is that the science of falls, while complex, is much easier to accurately understand than the science of interactions within all systems of the human body. So I remain hopeful that someone will figure it all out.

As for being the one failure in 10,000 (if those are really the odds), I'm okay with that. It sucks to be that one, but those are still pretty reasonable odds given all the other stuff that can go wrong with horses. My husband makes his living as a cataract surgeon; the national average for a particular kind of surgical complication is 4%, my husband's average is less than 0.1%, or less than one in a thousand, so I have a feel for what that means on a daily basis.

Not really. The science of falls is still not well calculated or understood because of the biomechanics of the body and the tissues. The mechanics of injury are almost as complex as understanding biology. There is a reason why there are thousands of people who do this type research (not specifically pertaining to horses).

Again, not meaning to take away from your perspective, you are giving you opinion as to the relative risk which is fine for you. However are you willing to have everybody have to agree with you about those risks? You may be fine wit it but I am sure a mother of a child competing probably isn't or a sole provider for a family isn't.

Thus a company that makes safety products should not be fine with added risks either. Otherwise they risk legal liability when something goes wrong. As Toyota, Sulzer Medica (they went bankrupt due to a single failure that cost them $1 billion in law suit settlements) and others.

purplnurpl
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:13 PM
you guys and argue and moan all you want to but it comes down to this...what ever the rider is willing to wear is what is going to be safest for that rider.

There are times that nothing will save us.
Riding a horse can be like sitting on a 1500lb torpedo with a bad clutch. Any type of fall is a situation with insane possibilty.

The fact of the matter is:

1. The Exo is hard to fit (right Rayers? didn't you have to buy yours for a large amount and THEN have your students fit it to you?) ya, thought so.
Sorry, we all don't have rocket scientists on our pinkies to help us out in life.

2. The Exo is not comfortable

3. The Exo is really hard to put on

Doesn't matter how great the Exo is--if you aren't going to wear it then that is the end of the story.

My friend has one but it does her little good because she is purple when she comes across the finish line. Those vests can really make you feel 'stuck' which then can lead to anxiety.

I too would be more willing to wear the Point Two.

Stats would be nice though, as everyone has mentioned.

Is the Exo really out of production?

LexInVA
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:18 PM
It is still available for purchase through quite a few retailers.

FrittSkritt
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:18 PM
The EXO isn't out of production - you can still order it from retailers like BoB. The patent to the BodyCage exoskeleton was donated to a nonprofit org.

FrittSkritt
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:19 PM
Dammit Lex... JINX! :lol:

Fergs
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:30 PM
My two cents:

I bought a Point Two air vest in England this summer. At no point in time have I ever assumed that it would be the be-all, end-all safety solution to all my problems. The rep was very forthcoming about the fact that this is a SUPPLEMENT to, not a replacement for, a regular body protector. Their application to motorcycling is much the same...these fit over top the regular padded jackets motorcyclists wear.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Point Twos are being worn by jockeys in the UK.

Any time you get on your horse, something can fail. That's just the chance you take. But if a new device like the air jacket can add an additional layer of protection and have minimal interference (as well as what I perceive to be very minor consequences if it fails), then I am all for it.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:31 PM
purplnurpl,

You are quite right. I do have an EXO and I did have some difficulty getting it to fit. However I am not advocating for the EXO in this thread. I have noted that the same beneficial arguments for the EXO can be applied to every other vest on the market except the P2. I am pointing out the contrary argument of the OP's and P2's contention that the product is "...the single best piece of safety equipment to come along since the helmet!"

You are right, what is worn is what is best. At the same time, when pro riders tout a device without real understanding of how it works, what is safe, they mislead those who have no idea what to buy or what gives them the best value for their money. Yes, it is all about marketing so when folks see Phillp D or others tooling around in a P2 they want one. Little do they know PD's P2 was most likely given to him (like his saddle etc.) at no cost simply for marketing.

You purchased a RP, I believe. It is also a fail-safe vest. Thus you know that there is a greater chance for it to work than if it relied on a mechanical mechanism to function.

Both devices have their advantages and disadvantages, you point out several on the EXO. But since these are the only 2 that supposedly can protect during a rotational fall, the risk of not understanding these differences is greater.

Reed

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:34 PM
...

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Point Twos are being worn by jockeys in the UK...



No. Because the vest is not certified per EN 13158:2000, it can not be worn by jockeys in the UK (per the British Racing Authority).

Fergs
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:40 PM
No. Because the vest is not certified per EN 13158:2000, it can not be worn by jockeys in the UK (per the British Racing Authority).

Cannot be worn alone or at all? There are a lot of testimonials on the P2 website from English jockeys, as there are from English eventers.

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 04:57 PM
Cannot be worn alone or at all? There are a lot of testimonials on the P2 website from English jockeys, as there are from English eventers.

They can voluntarily wear them but they have to wear the Level 1 body protector as P2 can not meet EN 13158:2000 for puncture, or impact. The standard EN 13158 requires
manufacturers to supply safety data as part
of the compliance process. P2 can meet these.

Any other BETA certified vest has all of this done.

Reed

Equa
Mar. 3, 2010, 05:07 PM
How about this one?


http://www.air-vest.com/mm5/merchant...Air-Equestrian


Cool video - not.

LexInVA
Mar. 3, 2010, 05:13 PM
I hate that music but that vest is kinda cool in a strange way.

RL
Mar. 3, 2010, 05:18 PM
Don't mean to interrupt, but can anyone give some insight to hit-air? How do they line up here?

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 05:48 PM
IIRC, the Racing Authority wouldn't allow the PointTwo due tot he lanyard attachment to the saddle.

John Francome, the ex-jockey quoted on the PointTwo testimonials page, retired from race-riding in 1986.

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 06:02 PM
you guys and argue and moan all you want to but it comes down to this...what ever the rider is willing to wear is what is going to be safest for that rider.

C'mon purplnurpl, you're smarter than that.

We have rules in equestrian sports so that riders can't exercise their right to be 'safer' without a helmet.

But if you really feel this way, you might want to buy one of my new 'safer' tin-foil helmet covers. It'll protect you from everything, including microwaves and conspiracies.


1. The Exo is hard to fit (right Rayers? didn't you have to buy yours for a large amount and THEN have your students fit it to you?) ya, thought so.
Sorry, we all don't have rocket scientists on our pinkies to help us out in life.

Mine is off-the-rack and fits just fine.


2. The Exo is not comfortable.

I wouldn't agree with this. My EXO is more comfortable than my CO (which I don't like at all).

But really, I think most riders are big babies when it comes to wearing actual protective equipment. Go play hockey or snowboard or take up fencing -- you'll stop complaining about riding gear.


3. The Exo is really hard to put on

I can put mine on in about 30 seconds. Ask Blugal. She saw me do it the other night.

tomac
Mar. 3, 2010, 06:28 PM
Here is an item from H & H about the EXO and although it is not the press release I read originally it does include info about why the company no longer exists http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/267628.html....

Reed, you speak like a true engineer...I raced Motocross professionally as a research and development rider for Suzuki of Japan...It was my job to take what the designers and engineers built and then go and use it IN THE REAL WORLD, and break it and bend it and generally find out all the things that the product didn't do in reality that the engineers where sure it would do...You can design and engineer and test "the better mouse trap" but in the end if it doesn't catch mice it's no good.

Good try with the race car analogy...After Motocross (you guessed it), race cars...My family still builds NASCAR frames so I am a bit familiar with crumple zones and how certain sections of the car are designed to disintegrate around the cockpit...I am more familiar with why we switched to carbon fibre tubs to protect a drivers body from collapsing and breaking metal structures...I am also familiar with why after much thought and design we created struts and suspension components that would break and breakaway from the car in order to absorb impact and darn, when they break away they become deadly projectiles...Great idea, bad outcome...So now we tether all of those parts with good old fashion steel cables so that we don't kill any more drivers and spectators with sharp, flying metal (and carbon fibre) objects...

Anyway, my point is, you can design and test all you want in the lab, but there is no substitute for real world trials and knowledge...

About the old SEI helmets...No, there is no testing data, etc about the accidents these helmets caused, They were conceived and tested to death in the lab...In the real world they didn't work and with enough complaints from riders, coaches, parents, etc...the design was made better and safer with the resultant smaller and lighter shelled helmet...

And the next time any of you start talking about facts and factual data, you need to keep in mind that just because it's written down and you agree with it doesn't make it a fact...It's what politicians and spin doctors love to do and some of you are very good at too...

Your cars engine and it's safety features and it's handling characteristics are for the most part trickle down from the elite world of Formula 1 car racing and also trickle down from other series of elite motorsports....So when you disparage me for being a big name upper level rider, remember that I have been asked to try everything from fly spray to galloping boots to helmets, gloves, body protectors and tack trunks, so that the average rider who doesn't jump 4' fences or ride 6 horses can have the safest, best fitting, actually works around the barn products available....So Reed, engineer away and then give to us to show you if it really works...

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 06:45 PM
Here is an item from H & H about the EXO and although it is not the press release I read originally it does include info about why the company no longer exists http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/267628.html....

The company does not exist but the vest is still made. I read the same article.


Reed, you speak like a true engineer....You can design and engineer and test "the better mouse trap" but in the end if it doesn't catch mice it's no good.

Funny, tell that to GM, Ford, Dodge, Hyundai and others because the steel and metal research we do goes into the cars you drive. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/science/15steel.html. So, don't tell me I don't understand real world.

You are mixing your understanding and explanations. You discuss STRUCTURAL properties and MATERIAL properties as if they are the same. Again, you fail fundamental Engineering Materials understanding.

Sure you can test all you want but do you want to test on LIVE humans? It seems you advocate the use of riders a guinea pigs to see of the vests work or not. At the same time, anecdotal evidence does NOT substitute for real understanding and FACTS. As usual, zealots and fools say that the "REAL WORLD" is so different than what the engineers and others do. Funny, I think many of us live in that "REAL WORLD" you so porudly claim is your sole domain.

Using your logic of insular activities, this means that pro upper level riders have NO idea about the REAL WORLD the rest of us live in when it comes to horses.

I do engineer away and amazingly things are out in the world that work very well. (explosive components for the US Army, solid rocket motors for the Air Force, orthopaedic devices [Synthese and Cerapedics).

Reed

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 07:14 PM
Reed,

I like the way you think, and I appreciate your sharing your engineering knowledge with us. But I think you're off to say that a 0.01% failure rate is not acceptable in this situation. It would be in automobiles, yes, I understand. But here--if the P2 does add a layer of protection, then it will add that protection 99.99% of the time. It's extra protection, not the only protection.

Which still doesn't answer any of the questions about whether it does protect, whether it can ever do harm, or whether the EXO would be a better choice.

Would I put one on my child? If it turns out that I think it's a good idea for me, then hell yes, I will. I'd like to minimize her chance of injury as much as I can.

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 07:42 PM
Would I put one on my child? If it turns out that I think it's a good idea for me, then hell yes, I will. I'd like to minimize her chance of injury as much as I can.

Actually, the manufacturer has said the Point Two is not intended for use on children. IIRC, the height/weight restrictions are <4'11" or <85lbs.

(If you go to various vendors' sites in the UK, you'll see the info on that.)

You said earlier that you weren't concerned about compression/deflation injuries from the Point Two but until the manufacturer releases some specs and data proving otherwise, it is a very valid concern. Rapid compression and subsequent rapid deflation can do a lot of damage, depending on how much force is involved.

In EMS, we have a *&%#$! device called MAST pants or PASGs. They're basically a blood pressure cuff in the form of pants (oh what a great idea!), designed to prevent shock in certain types of situations. The list of contraindications is miles long (because compression is quite dangerous) and because ER staff tend to cut them off (which is rapid decompression) rather than deflate them properly, they're rarely allowed per local protocols (I've never been licensed anywhere that allowed them).

In addition to mechanical failure, there are other reasons why the PointTwo won't deploy. Like if you're not separated from your horse. If your horse goes over backwards or sideways or you have a rotational fall in which you stay with the horse, the PointTwo won't/can't deploy. (I guess the good news there is you wouldn't have to buy a new canister.)

The same is not true of the conventional BP or the EXO. It performs its function regardless.

tomac
Mar. 3, 2010, 07:56 PM
I am very technically challenged when it comes to showing quotes etc....So I will just respond to two different things here:

I can do math: The EXO weighs 8lbs and the Point Two mated with a medium size Tipperary weighs under 3.5lbs...Fact

The EXO is still available for sale...It is no longer in production and yes the patent was donated to "riding for the disabled assoc." They are not producing the vest...Fact

gully's pilot
Mar. 3, 2010, 07:59 PM
Sure, JER, but you're always wearing the Point 2 WITH the other vest.

My child is 5'2", 120 lbs, 12 years old, currently eventing unrecognized starter trials.

JER
Mar. 3, 2010, 08:18 PM
I can do math: The EXO weighs 8lbs and the Point Two mated with a medium size Tipperary weighs under 3.5lbs...Fact

Fact: the Tipperary body protector is not BETA-approved. The BETA-approved BPs weigh more than the Tipps.

Keep in mind that the Point Two literature says the Point Two has been designed as "a top up protection system to wear along side a BETA or European standard approved body protector."

I put my Flex-Rider and CO on a scale last year and weighed them (separately). IIRC, the total (which I posted here), with the added approx 2 lbs for the P2 was in the 5+ lb range.

Like I said, the difference wasn't significant. Heck, I don't even think a 4.5lb difference (your math with the Tipp) is significant.

RL
Mar. 3, 2010, 10:46 PM
Can anyone comment on the hit-air?

RAyers
Mar. 3, 2010, 11:33 PM
...

Which still doesn't answer any of the questions about whether it does protect, whether it can ever do harm, or whether the EXO would be a better choice....



Exactly! And that is the point. While riders and those who are in governance positions can tout the grand capabilities of the P2 vest, not ONE of them actually has any factual data to back up their claims. At least the EXO and EVERY other vest had to undergo a minimum of standardized testing so you, the customer, KNOW what you are buying. The P2.... maybe, maybe not.

If you want to buy the P2 do it NOT because the hippest, most wonderful rider is wearing it or touting it on COTH, claiming they are buying one for all of their customers. Buy because you are a smart consumer who does their research, asks the HARD questions of the manufacturer and has a good feeling about the product.

As for the Hit-air the same comments I have about the P2 apply there as well. Again, the crash dynamics in a motorcycle accident are very different than a fall from a horse, particularly a rotational fall. I am not sure how one equates each but the marketing folks do.

Reed

yellowbritches
Mar. 4, 2010, 09:08 AM
I have been told (granted, by a CO rep) that the EXO only passed testing because it basically has a traditional vest built into it. It wasn't the EXO part that passed testing, but the traditional vest. So, essentially, if this is true (and I don't know where to find the honest to God truth on this), the EXO would essentially be in the same boat as the P2, in that it isn't the fabulous, state of the art, new fangled invention that makes it safe, but the good ol' fashion safety vest UNDER the new fangled invention that makes it safe.

All I can say is that I have been very impressed with what I've seen of the P2 (the spectacular fall at the Europeans was very impressive). I love the idea of it. I also know, after having tried FrittSkritt's EXO on I find it HIGHLY uncomfortable and would not be happy wearing it around a course. I would say a 3 to 5 lb difference on my back while galloping xc would make a huge difference to me....but that's me.

FrittSkritt
Mar. 4, 2010, 10:07 AM
I also know, after having tried FrittSkritt's EXO on I find it HIGHLY uncomfortable and would not be happy wearing it around a course. I would say a 3 to 5 lb difference on my back while galloping xc would make a huge difference to me....but that's me.

That's 'cause you're not massively muscular from taking Weight Gain 3000, anabolic steroids, and pumping iron... like me. Beeeeefcake! :winkgrin: :lol:

It definitely took some getting used to, but the more I wore it, the more used to it I got... but obviously it varies from person to person. Is it as comfortable as the Tipperary I used to wear? No, not really, but I'd say it's no more UNcomfortable than my old Charles Owen was.

bornfreenowexpensive
Mar. 4, 2010, 10:18 AM
All I can say is that I have been very impressed with what I've seen of the P2 (the spectacular fall at the Europeans was very impressive). I love the idea of it. I also know, after having tried FrittSkritt's EXO on I find it HIGHLY uncomfortable and would not be happy wearing it around a course. I would say a 3 to 5 lb difference on my back while galloping xc would make a huge difference to me....but that's me.

that's my impresssion as well. Not scientific I know. But you are not going to get me to wear an EXO, I found it to uncomfortable (don't like the CO either)...so that makes it a moot point. I could be talked in to wearing a P2.

All that said...all my worst accidents have been at home, schooling on the flat. And since I don't even wear my normal vest for that.....I have a hard time spending the money even on the p2.

It doesn't matter how good a technology is....if they can't get us to wear them easily....it doesn't do any good.

purplnurpl
Mar. 4, 2010, 10:27 AM
But if you really feel this way, you might want to buy one of my new 'safer' tin-foil helmet covers. It'll protect you from everything, including microwaves and conspiracies.





what is really funny about this comment is that just last Monday I made my guys in the lab wear tin foil cone hats to protect us from alien radiation.

But yes, I do believe, and I guess I am not that smart (and reading the post above BornFree can be put in the dunce corner with me), that when it comes to supplemental protection the safest product for one particular rider is going to be something that the rider will actually wear.

As the rather insulting remark concerning your tin foil helmet covers, the EXO and the P2 actually have positive safety factors to consider--were as you are just mocking me with a poor comparison.

Try to think like a layman.

JER
Mar. 4, 2010, 10:36 AM
what is really funny about this comment is that just last Monday I made my guys in the lab wear tin foil cone hats to protect us from alien radiation.

You may have inadvertently harmed your colleagues. An MIT study -- by actual scientists -- suggests the use of tin-foil hats may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities.

This is what happens when you don't do your research first.

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/).

(:lol::lol:)

Jazzy Lady
Mar. 4, 2010, 10:55 AM
The P2 is supposed to be fitted properly so that when it inflates it's not squeezing the bejeebers (very technical and scientific, I know) out of you. It is quite loose over your protective vest. You also have your vest to protect you from the force of it exploding aswell. The point is not protect you, and if it was really too tight you wouldn't be able to roll. A friend of mine tried one on at Fair Hill and they made sure it was loose enough that when it inflated she could still breathe comfortably while feeling secure (much like the fit of a properly sized regular body protector).

I couldn't imagine wearing the exo. I am very small and the added weight would make a significant difference to me. I could see if you had long legs or some weight down below to proportion it properly, but with short legs and small torso, I would feel like a torpedo waiting to happen.

JER
Mar. 4, 2010, 11:14 AM
A friend of mine tried one on at Fair Hill and they made sure it was loose enough that when it inflated she could still breathe comfortably while feeling secure (much like the fit of a properly sized regular body protector).

The concern from an injury POV is not about breathing. It's about the effects of rapid compression and deflation.

The P2 deflates after 15-18 sec -- which means it can only protect from immediate impacts. If you are trapped under your horse, it still deflates. Not much protection then. But this is not surprising as the P2 is a design that comes from motorcycles.

As others (Reed) have discussed, motorcycle accidents are quite different from riding accidents. On a bike, you're often going at a higher speed and your bike weighs 400 lbs max. If you and your bike take the same trajectory and your bike hits you (a motorcycle rotational fall -- this happens a lot), it's not the same thing as having your 1000 lb horse fall on you.

(ATV accidents are in some ways more similar to riding accidents as the ATV often pins and traps the driver.)


I couldn't imagine wearing the exo. I am very small and the added weight would make a significant difference to me. I could see if you had long legs or some weight down below to proportion it properly, but with short legs and small torso, I would feel like a torpedo waiting to happen.

You could make it work if you wanted to. I weigh 110 lbs so the EXO represents a greater % of my weight than it will for most people. And it's not an issue for me.

What's odd about this thread is we're talking about a product -- the P2 -- that is being heavily marketed as a safety product without a shred of evidence to validate it. There is nothing on their UK website or their USA website save for some very silly videos (the crash test dummy one -- please explain to me why a rider goes SPLAT! face-first like Yosemite Sam when they don't wear the P2 but tucks and rolls with the P2). The reason to wear it, the P2 folks say, is because these BNRs wear it. But they wear it because they were given it for free.

I love safety products. I'll wear 'em all. In every sport. I don't care how hot I get or how silly I look or who else is wearing what. But I do want to see some demonstration of why and how something is a safer option. With the P2, there's no information about that.

Jazzy Lady
Mar. 4, 2010, 11:22 AM
I'm no doctor or engineer or scientist and I don't pretend to be one on tv, but my point about it not being too tight would pertain to the inflation and rapid compression. If the vest isn't tight enough to sqeeze you, the rapid compression should not *in theory* affect the rider. If the vest is too tight then yes, I could see that posing a problem. When it was fitted to her, it was significantly loser than a blood pressure cuff and althought she felt it snug on her when triggered, she felt comfortable still. Whereas when I have a blood pressure cuff on my arm, it is damn tight when it's inflated.

I understand what you are saying about the deflation and that is a very valid concern. Someone on the H&H mentioned having the deflation mechanism be triggered by a medic or the rider themselves which makes sense. It's not like you are allowed back on in the event of a fall anyway.

JER, do you have a horse that has the capacity for an extremely dirty stop given the right circumstances? I need all the "staying in the backseat" help I can get depending on his mood. I feel the extra weight on my torso, being insignificant or not would hinder this ability ;)

Fergs
Mar. 4, 2010, 11:25 AM
The P2 is supposed to be fitted properly so that when it inflates it's not squeezing the bejeebers (very technical and scientific, I know) out of you. It is quite loose over your protective vest. You also have your vest to protect you from the force of it exploding aswell. The point is not protect you, and if it was really too tight you wouldn't be able to roll. A friend of mine tried one on at Fair Hill and they made sure it was loose enough that when it inflated she could still breathe comfortably while feeling secure (much like the fit of a properly sized regular body protector).

I will say that anyone interested in the P2 should get properly fitted by a knowledgeable product rep. I'd definitely steer clear of buying one sight unseen from the internet, because your regular body protector, weight, and body type will determine what size you need. I'm very petite and only 5'3", but I wear a medium air jacket, both because of my regular body protector type (old-school Tipperary) and the length of my torso.

Weight would be a major concern for me re: the EXO. Bulk, too. I want freedom of movement and ability to get out of the way if s*#$ goes down!

Throughout this discussion I've found it interesting that the arguments against overstating the safety of the new air vests hasn't been extrapolated to helmets. We supposedly have minimum safety standards for those, and yet just last weekend, out of the three BNRs who crashed, two had head injuries. The only one of those three who didn't have any broken bones was the only one wearing an air vest. Probably coincidence/luck of the draw, but interesting nonetheless.

JER
Mar. 4, 2010, 11:44 AM
Throughout this discussion I've found it interesting that the arguments against overstating the safety of the new air vests hasn't been extrapolated to helmets. We supposedly have minimum safety standards for those, and yet just last weekend, out of the three BNRs who crashed, two had head injuries. The only one of those three who didn't have any broken bones was the only one wearing an air vest. Probably coincidence/luck of the draw, but interesting nonetheless.

I'm not sure I get your point.

There is a helmet standard. All helmets worn in competition must meet that standard as per the rulebook.

In some sports, helmets (or the equivalent face/head protection) must be tested or inspected before the start of every competition. If your gear fails, you don't compete. (Some NGBs inspect riding helmets and put stickers on them if they pass. You may have seen this.)

Per the USEF regs, it's more an observational thing if you get called out on your helmet not meeting the standard.

Re: the accidents last weekend, an interested party could do a post-mortem on the helmets to see if they, in fact, performed as expected (as in up to standard) given the conditions of the fall. An ASTM helmet is not a tin-foil hat; it can't protect you from everything. If the forces are great enough, you still get hurt.

As for broken bones -- in riding accidents, fractures (like in the clavicle) are often caused by axial or torsional loading. There's not much that any vest can do about this.

purplnurpl
Mar. 4, 2010, 12:38 PM
You may have inadvertently harmed your colleagues. An MIT study -- by actual scientists -- suggests the use of tin-foil hats may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities.

This is what happens when you don't do your research first.

On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/).

(:lol::lol:)

ROFLMAO.
I love you.

I'll forward that one to my guys.

tangledweb
Mar. 4, 2010, 01:30 PM
They are not producing the vest...Fact

Somebody forgot to tell the manufacturer
http://www.woofwear.com/

RAyers
Mar. 4, 2010, 01:38 PM
Regardless of what folks buy these are the facts:

The P2 is NOT certified and is only worn as a supplementary safety system to protect against rotational falls.

All other vests, regardless of how or why, are approve to BETA and EN standards established to provide uniform comparison of products.

Rotational falls from a a horse are NOT mechanically equivalent to motorcycle falls/crashes (e.g. there is a reason why we do not wear motorcycle helmets, and it has a lot more to do with the injury type and not the weight of the helmet).

P2 and any other gas canister system is a fail-dangerous design due to a mechanical necessity for deployment, regardless of rate of failure. (Before you come back with what about car air-bags, they do not have gas canisters. They use an explosive thermite gas generator). All other vests are a fail-safe design.

Not one vest, EXO, P2 or otherwise has ever been proven to have saved a life in a rotational fall. There are numerous anecdotes of people claiming the EXO saved their lives (see H&H article). The same goes to P2. These are testimonials but that is all they are.

Equestrian helmet design and testing has been well defined for well over a decade while vest standards are still nascent. Minimum levels of force to cause brain damage is well established. There are NO methods to determine internal organ damage as the result of impact outside the cranium.

It does not matter how much protection you have, internal injuries are still easily incurred simply due to the tissue mechanics and conservation of energy. ("We" vaporized sheep behind the massive steel walls in battle tanks simply by impacting the tank with a high velocity projectile). Thus if you hit hard enough, regardless of what you wear or how big the horse is that falls on you is, you can still have massive internal injuries, including broken bones.

Marketing is not fact. Just because a person is a pro or at the top of their ladder does not mean they tell the truth about or actually have a true understanding about the product they tout/sell.

tomac
Mar. 4, 2010, 01:43 PM
WoofWear was not the manufacturer....they distributed the product with their name on it...

Fergs
Mar. 4, 2010, 02:47 PM
The P2 is NOT certified and is only worn as a supplementary safety system to protect against rotational falls.

When I bought my P2, the rep specifically told me it was NOT meant to be a fail-safe for rotational falls. Instead, it's an added layer of supplementary protection for the falls we are most likely to have, which are (one hopes!) not rotational in nature.

As you point out, anyone saying otherwise is saying so anecdotally. The company uses some of these testimonials on their web page, but that's not the same thing as making the claim themselves...it's just like the blurbs you read on the back cover of some books. They're endorsements from people who've read the book and recommend it. Most blurbs aren't paid for and, while they may be effective marketing tools, are not substitutes for independent assessment of the content.

I brought up the helmet issue because, although helmets have an accepted safety standard, that doesn't necessarily make the wearer more safe. Depending on the type of fall you have, age of your helmet, fit, etc., it may fail. Same goes for any vest you wear. My sense is that the opposition to the air vest has been very knee-jerk because it's NOT the cure for all our ills. Yet it was never touted as such. (At least, I never viewed it that way...)

RAyers
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:23 PM
I am not accusing P2 of making false claims. Some ULRs, on the other hand.... And, while you say P2 was never touted as such, look at tomac's initial claim in the OP, "But I do think it is the single best piece of safety equipment to come along since the helmet !" If that is not touting, I am afraid to hear what is. And sadly, people will blindly take that statement as truth simple because who tomac is. That is what P2 and any other vest maker relies upon in their marketing campaigns. "Buy our product because sooper rider bob uses it!"

The difference between a P2 and a book, not many folks are at risk of death or maiming as the result of a book failure (OK, maybe a BAD paper cut). It is not a fair comparison of testimonial capacity especially when some of the testimonials come from retired riders who do not use the product on a regular basis. It DEFINITELY does not substitute for well considered and deliberate TESTING.

As for helmets, their effectiveness and testing is predicated on well studied forces within the cranial vault that result in brain damage.

My specific opposition is that it is a poor design as a piece of safety equipment for horse riders that was adopted from a sport with totally different accident dynamics. There was no consideration between the applications. I see this in medicine all the time. Many of the devices used in orthopaedics were intended for other industries but adopted to medicine. Sure, they work 95% of the time but when 500,000 people get these devices it means 25,000 people suffer (permanent debilitation or death) from FAILURE because the device was never really designed for its application.

The first time a person is in a rotation and the vest fails due to a cartridge failure or failing to deploy because of a lanyard, a person could be dead and P2 is directly at fault.

Reed


When I bought my P2, the rep specifically told me it was NOT meant to be a fail-safe for rotational falls. Instead, it's an added layer of supplementary protection for the falls we are most likely to have, which are (one hopes!) not rotational in nature.

As you point out, anyone saying otherwise is saying so anecdotally. The company uses some of these testimonials on their web page, but that's not the same thing as making the claim themselves...it's just like the blurbs you read on the back cover of some books. They're endorsements from people who've read the book and recommend it. Most blurbs aren't paid for and, while they may be effective marketing tools, are not substitutes for independent assessment of the content.

I brought up the helmet issue because, although helmets have an accepted safety standard, that doesn't necessarily make the wearer more safe. Depending on the type of fall you have, age of your helmet, fit, etc., it may fail. Same goes for any vest you wear. My sense is that the opposition to the air vest has been very knee-jerk because it's NOT the cure for all our ills. Yet it was never touted as such. (At least, I never viewed it that way...)

Jazzy Lady
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:28 PM
Hey Reed, some paper cuts REALLY hurt and take a long time to heal. ;)

His Greyness
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:39 PM
WoofWear was not the manufacturer....they distributed the product with their name on it...

Tomac, you have a talent for misunderstanding if not misrepresentation.

Body Cage Limited (http://www.bodycage.co.uk/index.html) is the company that developed the concept and design of the metal cage that is incorporated in the Woof Wear Exo Body Protector. Body Cage Ltd. obtained patents for their design and licensed it to Woof Wear who manufactured and sold the complete product - the Woof Wear Exo Body Protector. Royalty payments to Body Cage Ltd. for the use of their patents fell far short of the cost incurred in developing the body cage. Body Cage Ltd. decided to do no further development of the body cage and donated the patents (and associated revenue stream) to the Riding for the Disabled Association. Body Cage Ltd. has gone on to develop other equestrian safety products.

Woof Wear (http://www.woofwear.com/) is still in business making and distributing many equestrian products including the Exo body protector. (http://www.woofwear.com/pages/WP0002.html)

flabbergasted
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:45 PM
The first time a person is in a rotation and the vest fails due to a cartridge failure or failing to deploy because of a lanyard, a person could be dead and P2 is directly at fault.

Well, you may be an engineer, but you are obviously not a products liability attorney.

RAyers
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:55 PM
Well, you may be an engineer, but you are obviously not a products liability attorney.

True, but I have been part of the forensics in product liability cases. It is amazing how the lawyers or whoever will accuse the smallest thing to find money/blame.

Fergs
Mar. 4, 2010, 03:59 PM
The first time a person is in a rotation and the vest fails due to a cartridge failure or failing to deploy because of a lanyard, a person could be dead and P2 is directly at fault.


If they're wearing it correctly, in conjunction with a regular body protector, how would the outcome be any different than wearing a regular vest alone? I don't get it.

Also, there can be big liability issues in publishing...see the consumer health section of your local bookstore and you'll see what I mean. Bad information can absolutely lead to illness or even death.

RAyers
Mar. 4, 2010, 04:16 PM
If they're wearing it correctly, in conjunction with a regular body protector, how would the outcome be any different than wearing a regular vest alone? I don't get it.


Because the manufacturer as well as others are making specific implications that this vest will protect a rider in a rotational fall. Thus the customer will purchase the vest with that intended use. Given that the regular vests make no such claim, P2 becomes the target.

By the way, has anybody notice on Point Two USA website that the vest has NOT inflated when the rider's head has already hit the ground? Notice that the rear "ribs" of the vest are still flat in the first image and the vest is only fully inflated after the rider has somersaulted.

JER
Mar. 4, 2010, 04:22 PM
Because the manufacturer as well as others are making specific implications that this vest will protect a rider in a rotational fall. Thus the customer will purchase the vest with that intended use. Given that the regular vests make no such claim, P2 becomes the target.

If anyone wants to see the claims that P2 is making, just click on the SmartPak side bar ad that appears on this BB.


By the way, has anybody notice on Point Two USA website that the vest has NOT inflated when the rider's head has already hit the ground? Notice that the rear "ribs" of the vest are still flat in the first image and the vest is only fully inflated after the rider has somersaulted.

Shhh... it's hilarious that the P2 people don't seem to realize this.

Fergs
Mar. 4, 2010, 04:22 PM
Because the manufacturer as well as others are making specific implications that this vest will protect a rider in a rotational fall. Thus the customer will purchase the vest with that intended use. Given that the regular vests make no such claim, P2 becomes the target.

Would you mind showing me where on the P2 website P2 makes that claim? Or are you again referring to rider testimonials?

Like I said, the rep that sold me my vest explicitly told me the P2 was NOT meant to save you from a rotational fall.

RAyers
Mar. 4, 2010, 05:07 PM
Would you mind showing me where on the P2 website P2 makes that claim? Or are you again referring to rider testimonials?

Like I said, the rep that sold me my vest explicitly told me the P2 was NOT meant to save you from a rotational fall.



Hmmmm.... a direct quote from the Point Two website:

"Point Two USA Airjacket during rotational fall by horse and rider.
Both the horse and rider walk away uninjured during this rotational fall. Luckily the rider was protected by a Point Two USA Airjacket."

Seems to me they imply their product is meant to save you during a rotational fall.

Reed

riderboy
Mar. 4, 2010, 05:15 PM
Hey, I'll wear whatever will fit me, unfortunately the EXO won't fit my splendidly sculpted body.

Fergs
Mar. 5, 2010, 09:30 AM
Ok, that explains it! I had no idea there was a separate website for the US distributor of the P2. The original P2 site, the UK one, doesn't make the same claims. (Although they do have video of a rider having a rotational fall while wearing a P2.)

bornfreenowexpensive
Mar. 5, 2010, 10:55 AM
Ok, that explains it! I had no idea there was a separate website for the US distributor of the P2. The original P2 site, the UK one, doesn't make the same claims. (Although they do have video of a rider having a rotational fall while wearing a P2.)

What the P2 rep told me is that the P2 vest can help with respect to the impact of some falls, which to me would including some rotational, but obviously can't protect in everything. They had some good videos....with some pretty bad riding...where the vest certainly looked like it did offer some supplemental protection in a rotational fall....but every fall is different.

This is just what I remembered...so it might not be very accurate. But they certainly were not making a hard sell....or extreme claims that this would save your life. Just more this is a supplemental product that might help reduce injury in certain situations. I liked it....just not in the budget at this time. I wouldn't expect it to keep me safe in everything....I know that everytime I ride...I could be killed doing it....I choose to improve my skills to minimize my risks as much as possible. And don't kid myself that a piece of equiment is fail safe in any way.

tomac
Mar. 5, 2010, 05:45 PM
His Greyness, I might say the same about you...I have had a few conversations since 2000 with Matthew Asprey...I applaud him for trying to create better protection for eventers...I too was at the event where Simon Long died...However, and I may have somehow misunderstood this, from several sources by phone and in person, but it is my understanding that the EXO is no longer in production...Yes it is still for sale because WoofWear has a lot of them still in their inventory...It was my understanding that the patent was given to the Disabled Riding Assoc. for tax purposes in order to write off some of the huge losses Mr. Asprey sustained .The patent is basically worthless as there are few sales and few future sales anticipated.. Doctors at Events was very concerned about the whiplash effect of the vest and that among the many other things brought up in this thread contributed to only a few hundred sales...

goobs
Mar. 6, 2010, 10:34 AM
Did anyone mention the article Buck Davidson wrote for COTH? He seems to highly endorse this vest and states he bought one for his GF and his dad. Claims it saved him from going to the hospital after his fall at one of the events he recently attended. Maybe Reed should inform him of the liabilities of this product? I was ready to believe in this product until I read what Reed wrote!

tollertwins
Mar. 7, 2010, 11:15 AM
Can somebody please explain to us non-eventers what a 'rotational fall' is?

I'm looking at perhaps buying one of the lightweight hit-airs so have been reading this thread with some interest.

I don't typically do anything where my horse is gonna fall on me unless he trips over his own feet. Not impossible, but more improbable than if I were jumping at speed.

I'm more likely to come off if he decides to bounce and go sideways at top speed.

Is a 'rotational fall' one where the horse lands on you after tripping over the fence?

yellowbritches
Mar. 7, 2010, 11:23 AM
Can somebody please explain to us non-eventers what a 'rotational fall' is?

I'm looking at perhaps buying one of the lightweight hit-airs so have been reading this thread with some interest.

I don't typically do anything where my horse is gonna fall on me unless he trips over his own feet. Not impossible, but more improbable than if I were jumping at speed.

I'm more likely to come off if he decides to bounce and go sideways at top speed.

Is a 'rotational fall' one where the horse lands on you after tripping over the fence?
I'm sure there are others who can explain it more specifically, but it is basically when the horse hits the fence hard enough that it causes the horse to somersault over the fence. Obviously, at the rate a horse on xc is traveling and their sheer mass in general, this does not always end well. A rotational fall is very scary and can be tragic, but there are also plenty of horses and people who get up and walk away. And you don't have to be jumping xc fences for it to happen.

The video here- http://www.point-two.co.uk/equine/index.html is a great example (just posting it because it IS a great example. I won't say anything about the fact that the guy is wearing a P2).

EventerAJ
Mar. 7, 2010, 11:28 AM
Can somebody please explain to us non-eventers what a 'rotational fall' is?

Is a 'rotational fall' one where the horse lands on you after tripping over the fence?


A rotational fall is one in which part of the horse's chest, forearms, or knees contacts the fence, and the momentum results in the horse flipping vertically over the fence, possibly landing directly upon the rider. Gruesome photos here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3624105245_b0fa1773fd.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624105245/&usg=__jeY8gcWU_IRO9DMbUWKPMOdov94=&h=333&w=500&sz=163&hl=en&start=2&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=7U4ixHiQ2g1sBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drotational%2Bfall%2Bphotos%26um%3D1%2 6hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.google:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1), scroll through the series to get a full understanding.

RAyers
Mar. 7, 2010, 01:25 PM
HEY! Those are the same rider and horse in the P2 website but from a different angle! Note that in the flikr pictures the caption notes "Faith lands and her head and neck take the brunt of the fall as her horse is now literally upside down as the fence acts as a pivot for his somersault."

This is where no vest is capable to protecting. In order to fully protect the head and neck the forces would need to be transmitted into the lower spine where then the lower vertebra would be at risk of fracture.

Reed





A rotational fall is one in which part of the horse's chest, forearms, or knees contacts the fence, and the momentum results in the horse flipping vertically over the fence, possibly landing directly upon the rider. Gruesome photos here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3367/3624105245_b0fa1773fd.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624105245/&usg=__jeY8gcWU_IRO9DMbUWKPMOdov94=&h=333&w=500&sz=163&hl=en&start=2&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=7U4ixHiQ2g1sBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drotational%2Bfall%2Bphotos%26um%3D1%2 6hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.google:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1), scroll through the series to get a full understanding.

JER
Mar. 7, 2010, 06:02 PM
More on that sequence (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624921770/in/set-72157619636137281/):


Faith's Point Two air jacket has inflated and has possibly protected her from futher injury. The air jacket works when the cord that is atttached to a gas canister at the bottom of her jacket and clips to the saddle, becomes detached when a rider falls, triggering the cannister and inflating the jacket.

Faith suffered 2 broken bones in her neck and back, but no spinal damage. Sammi was a bit sore, but both should have a full recovery.

Except the air jacket hadn't inflated yet. That is clear from the photo. It inflated after her impact with the ground. Very useful at that point. :rolleyes:

The injuries occurred from the transfer of force from her head to her neck. Result = cracked vertebrae.

The P2, even if it actually deployed before she hit, couldn't have prevented that.

The rider suffered no further injuries to her torso after her initial impact because (1) the horse didn't fall on her and (2) her head and neck took the force of the fall. The subsequent rolling onto her torso was insignificant.

This fall would have played out EXACTLY the same way without the P2.

EventerAJ
Mar. 7, 2010, 06:11 PM
I feel really silly.

I google image-searched "rotational fall" and that's what came up first. I didn't even bother to read the captions, lol. I had no idea it was a P2 vest involved.

It is completely apparent that no vest, inflatable or otherwise, can possibly help you landing directly head-first pile-driving into the ground.

RAyers
Mar. 7, 2010, 06:54 PM
Interesting because on the P2website they EXPLICITLY state, "Both the horse and rider walk away uninjured during this rotational fall. Luckily the rider was protected by a Point Two USA Airjacket."

But the flikr photos state, "Faith suffered 2 broken bones in her neck and back, but no spinal damage. Sammi was a bit sore, but both should have a full recovery."


tomac, Buck Davidson, and others, are you sure you want to tout a clear lie?

Reed

tollertwins
Mar. 7, 2010, 07:58 PM
Thanks for the info everybody! Sounds like it might be poifect for my peace of mind, since 'fences' isn't in my vocabulary to start with, much less fences at speed!

JER
Mar. 7, 2010, 09:05 PM
Just to be clear...

The rotational fall shown on the website of PointTwoUSA is an incident that happened at Bramham Horse Trials in June 2009 involving rider Faith Cook.

According to the PointTwoUSA website, 'both horse and rider walk away uninjured.' (http://www.pointtwousa.com/product.html)

This is not true.

The London Evening Standard reported on the incident in an article titled 'Dramatic fall at the last as horse and rider take a tumble' (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23707753-dramatic-fall-at-the-last-as-horse-and-rider-take-tumble.do):


Eventer Faith Cook suffered a back injury when her horse, Nagor de la Roche, fell at the final water jump at the Bramham International Horse Trials in Wetherby, West Yorkshire, at the weekend.

Miss Cook, who was competing in the under-25 section, was detained in Leeds General Infirmary.

A trials spokesman said it was too early to say whether she would make a full recovery.

The horse suffered severe bruising.

Moreover, event photographer Paul Rainford posted photos of the entire fall sequence (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/sets/72157619636137281/) on Flickr, along with these comments (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_rainford_photography/3624921770/in/set-72157619636137281/):


Faith suffered 2 broken bones in her neck and back, but no spinal damage.

At the very least, PointTwoUSA needs to do some work on their website.

riderboy
Mar. 8, 2010, 09:58 PM
Did anyone mention the article Buck Davidson wrote for COTH? He seems to highly endorse this vest and states he bought one for his GF and his dad. Claims it saved him from going to the hospital after his fall at one of the events he recently attended. Maybe Reed should inform him of the liabilities of this product? I was ready to believe in this product until I read what Reed wrote!

I saw it, Buck gives it a pretty enthusiastic thumbs up and credit fo saving his bacon during a fall. I mean, are all of these BNR wearing 2 points on the payroll to endorse them, or are these testamonials legit.