PDA

View Full Version : The oliver townend fence, fence 20



enjoytheride
Apr. 25, 2010, 05:59 PM
Any thoughts on this fence? I believe there were 3 rider falls there, did it have a frangible pin, and was it in consideration for a styrofoam fence?

I thought we could seperate this fence discussion from the other thread.

kookicat
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:09 PM
Yes, it had a frangible pin. None of the horses hit it in the right (wrong?) way to break the pin. I believe that there has to be direct, downwards pressure to sheer it.

I do think there was something going on there- it's one heck of a coincidence for three horses to have such similar falls if there wasn't.

ZIL
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:29 PM
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxWZ2uKLQb4).

AppJumpr08
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:44 PM
Yes, it had a frangible pin. None of the horses hit it in the right (wrong?) way to break the pin. I believe that there has to be direct, downwards pressure to sheer it.

I do think there was something going on there- it's one heck of a coincidence for three horses to have such similar falls if there wasn't.

Bottom line: if there is enough force to flip a horse, the pin should break.

There is something that needs to be investigated here.

That video made me *shudder*

kookicat
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:50 PM
I agree. I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable folks can give a better explanation that I did though! :)

I'm not sure what the foam logs do. Can someone explain that to me? :)

a_quick_one
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:51 PM
Wow. That was the exact same fall all three times - caught the left front. And an almost fall a fourth time in the same fashion. That doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

a_quick_one
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:55 PM
I agree. I'm sure one of the more knowledgeable folks can give a better explanation that I did though! :)

I'm not sure what the foam logs do. Can someone explain that to me? :)

There's a video of one in action in this thread: http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252371&highlight=galway+downs+styro+log

And discussion of it here:
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250713&highlight=galway+downs+styro+log

CoolMeadows
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:55 PM
Someone on the other thread pointed out that the horses didn't see the drop till they'd left the ground at the log and so were thinking of putting the gear down to land with that little bit of woah for a drop. I wonder if it would have made a difference to have a one stride instead of a bounce before the first step. The downside to that being that I think that OT was saved by the horse continuing down the steps instead of landing with a final thunk on him.

Also wonder if the little give of styrofoam would've allowed them that extra time to get the leg up and over and scramble instead of flip. A lot of what ifs but with 3 almost identical rotational falls, something wasn't right. I hope all the horses are well.

ETA: just watched the foam log video, didn't realize they snapped but so glad to see them keeping horses and riders safe.

kookicat
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:56 PM
There's a video of one in action in this thread: http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252371&highlight=galway+downs+styro+log

And discussion of it here:
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250713&highlight=galway+downs+styro+log

Thanks!

Had a quick view of the first vid. That's pretty clever!

Okay, so horse hangs a knee on the first fence, the log breaks... then what? I figure a clever horse would manage to get the leg back on the flat, but with a double drop coming up, I wonder if the log would make things worse. I could see horse and rider falling down both steps if the horse couldn't sort his feet out in time.

What does everyone else think?

Kementari
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:58 PM
That video definitely isn't much fun to watch. :(

BUT, it looked to me like the two prior horses (prior to OT, that is) probably wouldn't have flipped if it weren't for the downbank. They certainly would have fallen one way or the other, but the rotational part was once they hit the bank. So, in fact, the pins did not NEED to release to prevent those rotational falls at THAT jump - and I'm pretty sure we can't expect those pins to release to prevent a fall at a subsequent jump.

And, honestly, looking to frangible pins as a way to prevent every accident is as silly as thinking you'll never get a brain injury if you wear a helmet. They lessen the severity of SOME accidents, but are not and cannot be designed to be effective in EVERY accident. That's why good course design, talented horses, smart riding, and, quite frankly, luck are all still going to play a part.

Ajierene
Apr. 25, 2010, 06:59 PM
Bottom line: if there is enough force to flip a horse, the pin should break.

There is something that needs to be investigated here.

That video made me *shudder*

None of the horses flipped over the fence. They flipped when they fell. If you look at a true rotational fall, the horse's head is closest to the ground as they flip over the jump.

In looking at all three falls, the horse hangs a leg, clears the jump, but cannot get that hung leg out fast enough to prevent a fall. The horse falls on a shoulder first. The only true rotational part is the last horse (gray - not Townsend) as he goes over the bank.

You can see the last horse they show go over the jump, he hangs a leg as well, but not as bad and is able to get his feet under himself and recover. The bay horse that falls looks like he would have been able to recover had that bank down not been there.

The jump itself does not cause the horse to flip - the process of losing his balance does. The horses also do not flip in the 'rotational fall' sense, they all land awkward and fall over.

RiverBendPol
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:13 PM
Well, I'm no pro, I've never seen a frangible fence up close nor am I a TD but it seems to me, and was pointed out by a friend, that the vertical posts might be on the wrong side of the horizontal log? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong...I know Reed says the force has to come down from on top of the rail but with the posts on the far side, even a downward force wouldn't be able to make the thing fold. What do you guys think? My friend and I find it hard to believe the jump is supposed to be built with the posts on the far side but assume it must be-otherwise, wouldn't SOME savvy TD, rider, CD or JCW(:winkgrin:) have noticed the posts were on the wrong side? Same at the coffin. Please enlighten us.

foxhavenfarm
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:14 PM
After watching the videos of this fence and seeing the styrofoam logs in action, I think there would have been a different outcome for all of the horse/rider combinations that had rotational falls at that fence.

AppJumpr08
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:15 PM
None of the horses flipped over the fence. They flipped when they fell. If you look at a true rotational fall, the horse's head is closest to the ground as they flip over the jump.

In looking at all three falls, the horse hangs a leg, clears the jump, but cannot get that hung leg out fast enough to prevent a fall. The horse falls on a shoulder first. The only true rotational part is the last horse (gray - not Townsend) as he goes over the bank.

You can see the last horse they show go over the jump, he hangs a leg as well, but not as bad and is able to get his feet under himself and recover. The bay horse that falls looks like he would have been able to recover had that bank down not been there.

The jump itself does not cause the horse to flip - the process of losing his balance does. The horses also do not flip in the 'rotational fall' sense, they all land awkward and fall over.

I'll respectfully disagree. The point of a frangible pin is to prevent falls like this. To my mind, if frangible pins aren't breaking, they should be installed differently.

lduhamel
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:27 PM
Whether the log was breakable or pins were involved, my questions was what was the ground jury thinking during this whole process. Did they consider removing the vertical after the first fall???? At any other event one rotational fall usually causes removal of the fence for the rest of the competitors. Did they not even consider it after the second rotational???? I'm well aware that these were not classic rotational, but they were pretty close, seen the video of all three. A little to late to remove when Ollie fell and Phillip retired on course before that jump.

Just wondering why the vertical remained on course for a 3rd fall to happen.

*JumpIt*
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:31 PM
Just an interesting comparison of the three falls at this question. Sorry for the pq shots, they are taken from the video posted above.


http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad319/quailroost/Hollow%20Falls/Screenshot2010-04-25at72623PM.png
http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad319/quailroost/Hollow%20Falls/Screenshot2010-04-25at72618PM.png

J-Lu
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:34 PM
If the pins break, what happens to the log? Does it fall forward with the momentum of the collision or just down (i.e. is there a way to keep the log from rolling over stumbling/falling horse and rider if the pins break)? Sorry that this is such an elementary question.

RiverBendPol
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:37 PM
http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad319/quailroost/Hollow%20Falls/Screenshot2010-04-25at72623PM.png


The very last photo, bottom right, in this series shows what I'm talking about. Those posts appear to be keeping the rail from collapsing. Anybody have the answer here? Shouldn't those posts be on the approach side of the rail?

Kementari
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:48 PM
The very last photo, bottom right, in this series shows what I'm talking about. Those posts appear to be keeping the rail from collapsing. Anybody have the answer here? Shouldn't those posts be on the approach side of the rail?

The log rests ON the pins - they give way when there is a certain amount of pressure on the TOP of the rail. Regardless of which side of the posts the rail is on, the pins would not release with forward pressure on the rail.

(If you think about it, any forward-type release would result in a rail swinging, at least to a certain extent, rather than just dropping, and that could make an accident worse - as the rail swings back into the horse - rather than better.)

SimpsoMatt
Apr. 25, 2010, 07:56 PM
J-Lu .. the log is tied to the posts with rope. If the pins break, the log will drop, but will not be totally free.

RiverBend .. I had the same question about one of the jumps at the coffin (I didn't notice the one at the hollow). I would expect that the force on the log would not be straight down, but more forward and down, and with the posts bracing against the forward force, it didn't look like there would be enough downward motion to break the pins.

I noticed that one of the other jumps at the coffin was set up the other way, which looked correct to me.

On the other hand, it's really hard for me to believe that the course designers and builders would screw up a detail like that. There must be something about the function of the pins that I'm not understanding, because I really don't think those guys could have made a mistake that was so obvious that casual spectators noticed it right away.

RiverBendPol
Apr. 25, 2010, 09:48 PM
J-Lu .. the log is tied to the posts with rope. If the pins break, the log will drop, but will not be totally free.

RiverBend .. I had the same question about one of the jumps at the coffin (I didn't notice the one at the hollow). I would expect that the force on the log would not be straight down, but more forward and down, and with the posts bracing against the forward force, it didn't look like there would be enough downward motion to break the pins.

I noticed that one of the other jumps at the coffin was set up the other way, which looked correct to me.

On the other hand, it's really hard for me to believe that the course designers and builders would screw up a detail like that. There must be something about the function of the pins that I'm not understanding, because I really don't think those guys could have made a mistake that was so obvious that casual spectators noticed it right away.

Matt, thanks, I agree with your last paragraph too. My friend, who pointed this out to me, is the organizer of one of the oldest events in this country, faaaaaar more educated in the questions of course design than I. This puzzle is driving her crazy. If you do the Badminton course walk with designer Hugh Thomas and competitor Polly Stockton, you'll see his frangible pin jumps are not set up in the same way as Ollie's fence. The Badminton fences have the rail on the away side of the vertical posts. He even discussed the frangibles on the walk.

LAZ
Apr. 25, 2010, 10:06 PM
You'd be wrong about Ollie Townsend's fall. The image of that horse somersaulting through the air is engraved in my retinas. His horse came in on a bolder stride than the horses I watched there in the morning, looked (in my opinion) to see the question a bit slow & caught his leg. They were incredibly lucky to get away from that with minor injuries, IMO. I thought he would break his neck.

Can't comment on the other two, other to say (again IMO) Buckingham Place was struggling before he got there and I was not surprised to hear they'd had trouble. I'm glad they are OK. I thought R Star was looking good where I saw him, a few fences earlier.


None of the horses flipped over the fence. They flipped when they fell. If you look at a true rotational fall, the horse's head is closest to the ground as they flip over the jump.

In looking at all three falls, the horse hangs a leg, clears the jump, but cannot get that hung leg out fast enough to prevent a fall. The horse falls on a shoulder first. The only true rotational part is the last horse (gray - not Townsend) as he goes over the bank.

You can see the last horse they show go over the jump, he hangs a leg as well, but not as bad and is able to get his feet under himself and recover. The bay horse that falls looks like he would have been able to recover had that bank down not been there.

The jump itself does not cause the horse to flip - the process of losing his balance does. The horses also do not flip in the 'rotational fall' sense, they all land awkward and fall over.

Duramax
Apr. 25, 2010, 11:24 PM
I was at the coffin when Dorothy and Radio Flyer fell. It was nearly the same exact thing- horse catches knee and then flips- almost identical to what was happening at the Hollow. (Although Dorothy said that she took one tug too many- so easy to do!!) I'm inclined to think that having very vertical rails as the first element of these combinations is not a good thing- the horse is coming off the ground with its front end right as it sees the next question (down bank or ditch, etc.) and that slows down their take-off or distracts them just enough so that they catch a leg. What about a "rampier" or more forgiving first element of these technical combinations?

J-Lu
Apr. 25, 2010, 11:44 PM
Thanks, SimsoMatt!!

Blugal
Apr. 26, 2010, 12:11 AM
I was at the coffin when Dorothy and Radio Flyer fell. It was nearly the same exact thing- horse catches knee and then flips- almost identical to what was happening at the Hollow. (Although Dorothy said that she took one tug too many- so easy to do!!) I'm inclined to think that having very vertical rails as the first element of these combinations is not a good thing- the horse is coming off the ground with its front end right as it sees the next question (down bank or ditch, etc.) and that slows down their take-off or distracts them just enough so that they catch a leg. What about a "rampier" or more forgiving first element of these technical combinations?

My thoughts exactly.

blackwly
Apr. 26, 2010, 12:30 AM
I posted this on its own thread, but if you are interested in understanding the frangible pins better, watch this video:

http://www.badminton-horse.co.uk/latest_news/2010_course_preview.aspx

Hugh Thomas (CD at Badminton) illustrates their placement in a key combination and has lots of other interesting things to say about course design.

ZIL
Apr. 26, 2010, 12:53 AM
There is some interesting information here (http://useventing.com/resources/files/docs/Frangible_Pin_Handbook_Rev_10-13-2009.pdf) in the "Frangible Pin Handbook." First, it appears that these were, by definition on page two, the types of falls the frangible pins are intended to prevent because the horses impacted the fence between the knee and elbow.

The report states that the rail must be free to drop at least 16 inches and be "retained by roping" (page 4).

It appears from the diagrams that the system is designed so that the supporting posts are behind the rail. See also the photos in this (http://www.spalding-labs.com/SpaldingLabsGivesBack/UseaFrangibleFenceStudy/Resources/FrangibleFenceSafetyStudy.pdf)power point presentation, slide 15, which show the jumps with the standards behind the rail.

I agree with Matt that it is difficult to imagine that incorrect construction would go unnoticed given the amount of work required to build these fences and the review required of the TD.

Here's (http://www.stockimageservices.com/details.php?gid=129&pid=8160)a close up of a frangible pin jump.

hb
Apr. 26, 2010, 01:10 AM
I'll respectfully disagree. The point of a frangible pin is to prevent falls like this. To my mind, if frangible pins aren't breaking, they should be installed differently.

Absolutely agree with you AppJump.

All three of those falls the horse split their legs over the jump. The horse that broke the log at Galway did exactly the same thing, left a leg behind, broke the log and was none the worse.

Given that it seems that the styrofoam log would have had a different outcome for all three at Rolex.

But IMHO, it also seems that there should be a penalty for breaking the styrofoam log. If the only thing stopping a fall is the log breaking the round should not be scored as well as one that didn't have that mistake.

Equa
Apr. 26, 2010, 02:33 AM
Seeing the video of those falls and the fence - I did wonder if the horses failed to continued jumping as they tried to process and prepare for the strange landing...my horse did this at a straightforward, fairly vertical 2** ski-jump (I know, doesn't make sense, but it's the best way to describe it). The whole course was lovely turf, and the landing for this jump was downhill onto a road covered in sand. Luckily, the grease and his own agility seemed to save him and he got the right leg through in time to land properly.

SimpsoMatt
Apr. 26, 2010, 06:28 AM
Maybe it helps to think about the pin construction with physics instead of intuition (although my knowledge of the former is minimal).

As the horse chests the jump, the force applied to the rail is going to be mostly horizontal. As the horse begins to rotate, the angle of the force changes, which increases the downward component of the force. Assuming the shear point of the pins is sufficiently low, at some point in the rotation, the downward component of the force will increase enough to shear the pins. It seems logical that this depends only on the weight of the horse and the angle of force, and would occur at the same point in the rotation regardless of which side of the posts the log is on. This point just needs to occur before the point at which the horse flips.

This is described in the handbook ZIL posted


The horse took off from a standstill. Momentum carried the horse over the fence to the critical
position of downward pressure on the rail. The pin sheared at the point when downward
pressure reached the pre-determined maximum. The rider was thrown free; horse was restricted
to take-off side of the fence. The horse walked away uninjured.

RiverBendPol
Apr. 26, 2010, 06:44 AM
There is some interesting information here (http://useventing.com/resources/files/docs/Frangible_Pin_Handbook_Rev_10-13-2009.pdf) in the "Frangible Pin Handbook." First, it appears that these were, by definition on page two, the types of falls the frangible pins are intended to prevent because the horses impacted the fence between the knee and elbow.

The report states that the rail must be free to drop at least 16 inches and be "retained by roping" (page 4).

It appears from the diagrams that the system is designed so that the supporting posts are behind the rail. See also the photos in this (http://www.spalding-labs.com/SpaldingLabsGivesBack/UseaFrangibleFenceStudy/Resources/FrangibleFenceSafetyStudy.pdf)power point presentation, slide 15, which show the jumps with the standards behind the rail.

I agree with Matt that it is difficult to imagine that incorrect construction would go unnoticed given the amount of work required to build these fences and the review required of the TD.

Here's (http://www.stockimageservices.com/details.php?gid=129&pid=8160)a close up of a frangible pin jump.

Thanks. I agree, it does seem impossible that an incorrect construction would get by all those brilliant eyes. But explain to me why the jump didn't give way. Explain to me how the rail is supposed to fall when it has 1100 pounds moving at 500mpm pushing it into 2 stationary posts. I know all about the theory of the construction, the ropes, the 16" fall zone, etc. I just don't get this part of the equation!
Your Bromont photo is a beautiful example of the jump design but it doesn't tell us from which direction the fence is to be jumped.
I won't keep beating this to death but I really still don't get it.

LaraNSpeedy
Apr. 26, 2010, 07:27 AM
Who was it - the IRL guy off the top of my head who broke the styrofoam log? I know he got a penalty for refusal and a penalty for breaking the log.

I completely agree about the design of #20. A few of the people on the course designing staff spoke like they had concerns about that jump - maybe that is why there was a manditory meeting of the riders Sat night. But I did not feel they were talking about the pins or the log though the breakable log at the water jump did its job - the whole jump had a lot of questions - no room for error and alternative - with error being a good chance at a flip. I think that they either should have removed it from the competition or in design made a good alternative. Perhaps as another posting says - made it a one stride instead of a bounce.

annikak
Apr. 26, 2010, 07:34 AM
I am thinking that maybe the actual weight was not enough-to us, it seems like it should have been, but maybe not...

I still wonder about the placement of the camera...it was on scaffolding, and knowing that area of the park, where there are too many things to draw the horses eye? It's not very natural to see a weird thing out there. Thinking how many horses really looked at the cameras in dressage and SJ, makes me wonder. IIRC, that is a "key" jump but has not often caused such issues.

SimpsoMatt
Apr. 26, 2010, 08:25 AM
OT's fall may have looked "rotational" as the horse somersaulted, but he did not rotate over the jump. The classic "rotational fall", that the frangible construction is designed to prevent, occurs when the horse's chest hits the fence and he rotates up and over the fence.

If you watch the video of OT's fall, that's not what happened. He was clear of the fence when he "rotated". The center of rotation, if any, would be the right front foot that was on the ground, not the horse's chest on the fence.

The only contact between horse and fence was that one hanging leg, and that leg is sliding over the top of the fence. There's no way there could be enough pressure on the fence in that situation to cause it to break away.

Kementari
Apr. 26, 2010, 09:03 AM
OT's fall may have looked "rotational" as the horse somersaulted, but he did not rotate over the jump. The classic "rotational fall", that the frangible construction is designed to prevent, occurs when the horse's chest hits the fence and he rotates up and over the fence.

If you watch the video of OT's fall, that's not what happened. He was clear of the fence when he "rotated". The center of rotation, if any, would be the right front foot that was on the ground, not the horse's chest on the fence.

The only contact between horse and fence was that one hanging leg, and that leg is sliding over the top of the fence. There's no way there could be enough pressure on the fence in that situation to cause it to break away.

This. :yes:

I the same for the other two horses, who rotated AFTER both their front legs were on the ground.

BarnBrat
Apr. 26, 2010, 09:14 AM
These falls were not true rotational falls that the pins were designed to prevent.

What we really need to be asking is what about that question caused horses to hang leg. Something was obviously very wrong and the question asked was more than the horses could handle.

Even IF a frangile pin or styrofoam log could have prevented those falls...that would not address the true problem. We would still be asking these horses the same question.

RiverBendPol
Apr. 26, 2010, 09:20 AM
Good grief, then I was right yesterday when I said, completely tongue-in-cheek, that the jump wasn't high enough. He caught his leg instead of chesting the thing. Whatever happened, it is a damn lucky thing no one was seriously hurt. Dumb luck should NOT be what we rely on to get our horses around safely, that's for sure.

I'm guessing too that if the jump had been set back so as to make it a 1-stride to the banks none of this would have happened.

I'm so sorry for Will and Oliver, sleeping in the airport. They've really had a traveling nightmare.

asbjockey
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:11 AM
After watching the video, I'm a bit disturbed by the official that is removing his helmet and lifting his head before the EMT's get there. Was there someone there that determined he had no neck/spinal injury that quickly?

eponacowgirl
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:15 AM
I know UK had "people" at every fence. The person stabilizing his head and neck has a stethoscope and I don't know if UK's "people" were doctors, interns, students, residents or what, but the folks in blue coats/t-shirts were all associated with this group, so in essence, I would imagine that- yes, there were people there that quickly that could determine if he had no neck/spinal injuries. Whether they actually DID determine that before stabilizing his head and neck is not something I can determine.

Robby Johnson
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:22 AM
The downside to that being that I think that OT was saved by the horse continuing down the steps instead of landing with a final thunk on him.

Agree.

IBWmassage
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:24 AM
I know UK had... people... at every fence. The person stabilizing his head and neck has a stethoscope and I don't know if UK's "people" were doctors, interns, students, residents or what, but the folks in blue coats/t-shirts were all associated with this group, so in essence, I would imagine that- yes, there were people there that quickly that could determine if he had no neck/spinal injuries. Whether they actually DID determine that before stabilizing his head and neck is not something I can determine.

DH had an instant and rather pithy reaction to them removing his helmet so quickly. He said, among other things, that the next time I schooled XC he was going to duct tape a note to my helmet that it was only to be removed by an EMT or DR. He felt, from an engineering perspective (his educational/professional background) that there was a fault in the design.

eponacowgirl
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:26 AM
The downside to that being that I think that OT was saved by the horse continuing down the steps instead of landing with a final thunk on him.


I also ditto this. I think his horse would have landed, stayed and scrambled right on top of him had he not rolled down that step.

PhoenixFarm
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:39 AM
Posting from my phone in the airport, but briefly. I had a course designer and official tell me yesterday that there is currently a theory being investigated that because narrow faced jumps as this one was have lighter (due to shorter length) logs, it may change the ratio required to shear the pins. If found to be true, it may mean the narrow jumps may need different pins than "regular" ones. This is just a theory right now, but they are studying it, and will make changes as needed.

eponacowgirl
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:42 AM
Posting from my phone in the airport, but briefly. I had a course designer and official tell me yesterday that there is currently a theory being investigated that because narrow faced jumps as this one was have lighter (due to shorter length) logs, it may change the ratio required to shear the pins. If found to be true, it may mean the narrow jumps may need different pins than "regular" ones. This is just a theory right now, but they are studying it, and will make changes as needed.

VERY interesting. Will be good to see where this research goes.

Although, you'd think that would have been touched on before... but I'm leaning towards styro-logs right now.

caffeinated
Apr. 26, 2010, 10:59 AM
Fyi there were medical staff at every fence. We were right behind the team at the Hollow the whole time we watched it. It wasn't random untrained people removing helmets :)

SuZQuzie
Apr. 26, 2010, 12:51 PM
I show my engineering boyfriend a picture of the fence, the video of the falls, and stills of a "true" rotational fall and he is extremely upset that someone would consider this design to be effective and is now on a mission to redesign a better frangible pin model as well as other "safety jump" designs. I'm kind of excited to see what he comes up with...

RAyers
Apr. 26, 2010, 01:16 PM
Posting from my phone in the airport, but briefly. I had a course designer and official tell me yesterday that there is currently a theory being investigated that because narrow faced jumps as this one was have lighter (due to shorter length) logs, it may change the ratio required to shear the pins. If found to be true, it may mean the narrow jumps may need different pins than "regular" ones. This is just a theory right now, but they are studying it, and will make changes as needed.



This would have been obvious if engineers would have been kept in the design process throughout its entirety. It is a fundamental tenet that there is a scaling to all mechanical properties. The original pins were designed for large fences. CDs thought that they could use them on any fence.

A simple fix is to narrow the shear neck even more when used on skinnies or light weight fences.

Reed

OverandOnward
Apr. 26, 2010, 01:39 PM
Not just falls - HORSE FALLS. Rotational. THREE. ONE JUMP PROBLEM.

In that case it really does not matter that over 50 horses got over ok. And fwiw, some of those had a scary moment that righted itself, Bonnie Mosser for one. It does not matter that quite a few skipped down easy-peasey.

It goes beyond the pin.

I don't have a problem with double-downs - actually they are fun, I've only done the low ones.

But a bounce is more risky for leg-hanging. Leg-hanging is more risky for falls. A fall at a double-down is likely to be a skiing-type fall in that gravity takes the body down and down until ... What if one of those horses had rolled or slid off the second step down?

This jump problem design was stupid from the get-go. It is a magnet for disaster, regardless of the pin. Eventing has had enough of that recently.

OverandOnward
Apr. 26, 2010, 01:43 PM
... They were incredibly lucky to get away from that with minor injuries, IMO. I thought he would break his neck.
...
What if it weren't Oli's incredibly lucky day?

What would be happening right now? Discussing frangible pins? Or trying to save the sport from the next media onslaught?


Leave the pin alone and design jumps that will work properly with the pin we have - as many already do. Trial and error mucking around with pins is not the smart money here - in spite of all the engineering intelligence and physics.


(Although I would understand if Oli probably didn't think it was his lucky day.)

Coppers mom
Apr. 26, 2010, 01:46 PM
Not just falls - HORSE FALLS. Rotational. THREE. ONE JUMP PROBLEM.

In that case it really does not matter that over 50 horses got over ok. And fwiw, some of those had a scary moment that righted itself, Bonnie Mosser for one. It does not matter that quite a few skipped down easy-peasey.

It goes beyond the pin.

I don't have a problem with double-downs - actually they are fun, I've only done the low ones.

But a bounce is more risky for leg-hanging. Leg-hanging is more risky for falls. A fall at a double-down is likely to be a skiing-type fall in that gravity takes the body down and down until ... What if one of those horses had rolled or slid off the second step down?

This jump problem design was stupid from the get-go. It is a magnet for disaster, regardless of the pin. Eventing has had enough of that recently.

I agree. Even as short a time as 10 years ago you weren't seeing this kind of craziness in course design. I would rather have everyone getting around thinking it was a bit easy than killing people in the name of making it challenging.

If they don't have the room for a full format, that's fine. Have the full format style course over a shorter distance. Don't try to cram the same number of fences in on half the distance. They're just making cross country a deadly stadium round the way things are going now.

Brandy76
Apr. 26, 2010, 02:03 PM
Quote:
"Originally Posted by OverandOnward
Not just falls - HORSE FALLS. Rotational. THREE. ONE JUMP PROBLEM.

In that case it really does not matter that over 50 horses got over ok. And fwiw, some of those had a scary moment that righted itself, Bonnie Mosser for one. It does not matter that quite a few skipped down easy-peasey.

It goes beyond the pin.

I don't have a problem with double-downs - actually they are fun, I've only done the low ones.

But a bounce is more risky for leg-hanging. Leg-hanging is more risky for falls. A fall at a double-down is likely to be a skiing-type fall in that gravity takes the body down and down until ... What if one of those horses had rolled or slid off the second step down?

This jump problem design was stupid from the get-go. It is a magnet for disaster, regardless of the pin. Eventing has had enough of that recently. "


Quote - from Copper's Mom:
"I agree. Even as short a time as 10 years ago you weren't seeing this kind of craziness in course design. I would rather have everyone getting around thinking it was a bit easy than killing people in the name of making it challenging.

If they don't have the room for a full format, that's fine. Have the full format style course over a shorter distance. Don't try to cram the same number of fences in on half the distance. They're just making cross country a deadly stadium round the way things are going now."




ALL THIS. EXACTLY. It really isn't even eventing anymore. It's, well, sort of the equine version of survivor.

Again, I keep asking, no one answers "who thought that making the courses so technical was a GOOD thing?" Were there so many ties after xc? No.


I find it really sad that the focus is how to mitigate and repair the after effects of today's course design (med crews at every fence, inflatable vests, frangible pins, disintegrating logs - although that's a great one).

For those who were at Rolex, this fence for instance. Did you think it was "fair" for the horses? Not big, not demanding, that's fine.
Was the question fair, or did it try to "trick" the horses?

rideforthelaurels16
Apr. 26, 2010, 02:07 PM
I agree that there is too much technicality in the xc courses these days. I love watching mid-90s cross country rounds - the jumps are big, but the combinations don't take so.much.riding - and the 'fifth leg' was more evident a lot of the time. I think we need to take a step back - we don't need to have these crazy accuracy fences on cross country. As far as keeping it interesting for the spectator goes, most people would rather see a horse jump a really imposing looking fly fence than an intricate combo. If course designers want to have all these technical questions, by all means - cram them all into SJ. God knows it would make the final day interesting - but at least it would be a *knock on wood* SAFE interesting.

LAZ
Apr. 26, 2010, 02:30 PM
What if it weren't Oli's incredibly lucky day?

What would be happening right now? Discussing frangible pins? Or trying to save the sport from the next media onslaught?


Leave the pin alone and design jumps that will work properly with the pin we have - as many already do. Trial and error mucking around with pins is not the smart money here - in spite of all the engineering intelligence and physics.


(Although I would understand if Oli probably didn't think it was his lucky day.)

Not sure why you quoted me on this one. I wasn't remarking on anything other than seeing OT and his horse flying through the air upside down. It was awful to see and I'm thrilled both he and his horse walked away from it.

I do not think there is any way to make this sport 100% safe. If anyone is looking for that I think they should take up something that doesn't involve galloping horses at solid obstacles. I believe the organizations in charge are making a huge effort to make things as safe as possible, but these things cannot happen over night and they should not happen without research.

I recently watched the 1978 World Championship video--things have come a long way since that time of no vests, no frangible pins, no styrofoam fences, minimal helmet certification. However, we still have rotational falls (classic or not) and break downs. It is part of the equation, no matter if we want to see it or not. Now the task from that point becomes to hire/use knowledgable people without personal agendas to figure out the best places/ways to minimize risk. But unless eventing morphs into something that is completely unrecognizeable from the sport/test it is now there will always be a substantial risk.

OverandOnward
Apr. 26, 2010, 02:30 PM
I started another thread in hopes of taking the derail I started here away from this thread ... sorry about the rant.

This thread is about Fence #20, everything but the pin ...
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254592