There seems to be some confusion or misunderstanding about the safety of the Lexan mask. To help quell this confusion, I just wanted to post this message with a note from the SEMI Commission regarding its safety.
I apologize if the text is a bit sloppy - I am typing this out quickly and did not see a way to attach a file to the message. But rest assured the text below is as faithful as possible to the original document.
"COMPARATIVE SAFETY TESTS ON MASKS WITH TRANSPARENT VISORS.
Digest Report of the SEMI Commission of the meeting in Rome
1. A meeting was called in Rome by the International Fencing Federation on 4th February, 2000, at the premises of the technical laboratory of the Italian Fencing Federation, in the course of which Marcello Baiocco, engineer and member of the SEMI Commission, demonstrated to the participants the characteristics of the safety tests carried out on masks with transparent visors.
Present:
Mario Favia Secretary General of the FIE
Ralf Bissdorf President of the Athletics Commission
Vanni Loriga Press Attache of FIS
Frank Stott Technician of ICL Tech, expert in plastics materials
Gilberto Zarra Technician of FIS
Marcello Baiocco Engineer, member of the SEMI Commission
This dynamic test is conducted with the help of a falling weight, equipped in the same way as a press, which drops on the sample at a given speed. The resistance is measured in joules (1 joule is the energy of 1 Newton x 1 metre). This methodology is closest to the real conditions experienced when wearing a mask. The energy of a falling weight is:
E = 1/2mV ou: m=P/g et V=V2gh
That is: E = 1/2 P/g (V2gh)^2 = 1/2 P/g 2gh = Ph Kgm
And: 1 Kilogrammetre = 10 joules
Important note:
Energy levels with values higher than 7-8 joules are approximately equivalent to static resistances greater than 1500-1600 Newtons; values of 60 joules or more therefore represent extremely high impacts.
All the tests were conducted on samples taken from finished masks, and not from raw materials. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate that, contrary to the opinion of the fencers, during these tests, the resistance of masks with transparent visors was greater than that of mesh masks and, as a result, it is not true that transparent masks are dangerous for the fencers.
We began by testing the resistance of the materials to penetration using a falling weight of 2.4 kg, fitted with a steel spike with a section 3x3 mm square and a pyramidal point with an angle of 60 degrees.
The falling weight was placed at 55 cm from the samples to be tested and therefore featured an energy of: E1 = 10x2.4x0.55 = 13.2 joules.
Although the metal mesh and the cloth of the bib were completely pierced by the spike, the lexan of the transparent visor remained intact, only being marked by the impression of the pyramidal point.
As a further proof of the resistance of lexan, the test was conducted on a second sample, using the same falling weight, but from a height of 65 cm and so with an energy of E2 = 10x2.4x0.65 = 15.6 joules.
Again the lexan was not perforated.
Following the tests for resistance against performation, tests of resistance to violent blows were conducted.
The falling weight was increased by 2 kg, to a total of 4.2 kg, and the penetrating spike was replaced by a steel rod ending in a 2 cm diameter hemisphere.
The complete mask, made of metal mesh and with a lexan visor, without the bib to avoid any damping of the blows, was fixed in a durable way to the bottom of the test apparatus.
A first test was conducted with the falling weight impacting at the centre of the visor from a height of 1 metre, so with an energy of E1 = 10x4.4x1 = 44 joules.
A second test, impacting at the same point, commenced from a height of 1.5 metres, so with an energy of : E2 = 10x4.400x1.50 = 66 joules.
The masque resisted the blows entirely, without any deformation, save for a small mark from the weight at the point of impace.
There were no similar tests on a traditional mask because of the lack of a suitable mask, but the earlier tests had shown that the metal mesh was very distorted, to the extent of coming into contact with the fencer's face.
The tests speak for themselves, any commentary is superfluous.
Conclusions
The tests that were conducted have demonstrated that there is no problem of safety with the transparent masks, neither regarding the material used for the construction of the visor nor regarding the complete mask.
F. Stott, expert in plastic material at the tests, affirmed that even holes in the lexan are not dangerous if they are made in accordance with the appropriate techniques and are of a diamete greater than that of the thread of the fixing screws.
He added that low temperatures, even as low as 60-70 degrees below zero, do not have any influence, as when the temperature returns to ambient levels the characteristic properties of the lexan material are restored to normal."
He added that low temperatures, even as low as 60-70 degrees below zero, do not have any influence, as when the temperature returns to ambient levels the characteristic properties of the lexan material are restored to normal."
This concerns me ... how low is low enough to have problems with "the characteristic properties of the lexan material"?
If it's a cold winter day (as occasionally happens, here in Canada), my stuff is in my trunk for a few hours, and then I fence -- is a lexan mask that's currently around -20 degrees Celsius going to be a danger?
Are your lexan masks currently FIE approved (my understanding was that they were not)? If not, do you have plans to make FIE lexan masks again in the future? [edit: Nevermind, just went to your website where the lexan sabre mask was on the front page. I guess I received either dated or incorrect information. ]
I thought that the screw-holes through the lexan thing was shown to cause problems in fencing masks and that prompted changes in what the FIE was requiring. Is that not the case? If so, then I really don't care what F. Stott thought would happen in theory.
In theory, practice and theory are the same.
In practice, they're different.
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
What you have said is probably true, but I still have a few concerns.
1) What about the connection between the mesh and the frame for the Lexan. I have been told about an incident where a blade went through at that point.
2) As has been stated in other threads, masks age. How is an Armorer going to check a Lexan mask, if they have concerns?
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
How many times were the tests repeated on the same material? I know many kinds of armor are considered needing replacement after one hit, and I'd hate to see an FIE mask needing replacement after a dozen face hits. I suppose you could just replace the Lexan...
Could you replace the lexan? Not, if it is to remain an FIE mask. The nuts holding on the lexan, what torque are you going to put on them. Certification is given by the FIE mask of one style, that has not been changed or modified. Possibly, you could send it back to the manufacturer and they could replace it and certify it was done properly.
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
...I know many kinds of armor are considered needing replacement after one hit, ...
That's true for ceramic based armor, however, Lexan is not in the same category. It can take repeated hits, but does reach a point where it will fracture. And there are a lot of other variables involved, like the sharpness of the thing doing the hitting (load concentration), etc. like those that have been previously mentioned.
__________________
Remember those who put their lives in danger for your sake.
Could you replace the lexan? Not, if it is to remain an FIE mask. The nuts holding on the lexan, what torque are you going to put on them. Certification is given by the FIE mask of one style, that has not been changed or modified. Possibly, you could send it back to the manufacturer and they could replace it and certify it was done properly.
Interesting, I've looked at various lexan masks, and the few I've looked at all contain instructions on how to replace the lexan by yourself.
That includes LP and PbT
__________________ We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
You could do it, but technically it would no longer be FIE. Probably noone would even be the wiser, unless you told them. That is one of the things that scare me, that I can not test it. What if it was put together wrong?
I have failed 2 lexan masks and both were Zivkovic, but this was when there was only Zivkovic, none recently. These were so obvious, one had shifted so there was a gap between the lexan and the frame and one was missing a nut. This is my biggest scare, what about the not so obvious?
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
That's true for ceramic based armor, however, Lexan is not in the same category
In theory, an epeeist at a tournament of 100 fencers who won very bout 5-4 or 15-14 and took 1st could take... (24 hits in pools, bye to rd of 64, 84 hits in DEs) 108 total hits. Suppose 1/10th of those were hits on the Lexan. How would it hold up to that? 1/5th?
It's the repeated battering I'm concerned about, as opposed to one freak hit.
In theory, an epeeist at a tournament of 100 fencers who won very bout 5-4 or 15-14 and took 1st could take... (24 hits in pools, bye to rd of 64, 84 hits in DEs) 108 total hits. Suppose 1/10th of those were hits on the Lexan. How would it hold up to that? 1/5th?
It's the repeated battering I'm concerned about, as opposed to one freak hit.
Potentially the number could be a lot higher, as you are not counting late hits/hits out of time. I also know several fencers who actually aim for the lexan shields on face hits, as it is less tricky than a normal face hit since even if the point is glancing, it will trigger when it hits at the frame.
__________________
Just another lost soul saved by the (hit) First Church of EPEE!
What you have said is probably true, but I still have a few concerns.
1) What about the connection between the mesh and the frame for the Lexan. I have been told about an incident where a blade went through at that point.
2) As has been stated in other threads, masks age. How is an Armorer going to check a Lexan mask, if they have concerns?
The 2nd would be my major concern. If I have an old mask, how can I know the thing is safe!
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. We were in Columbus for the Arnold Fencing Classic, which was a highly professional affair, topping just about all tournaments I've seen in the United States to date. Kudos to Julia Richey and the Royal Arts Fencing Academy.
To answer the questions:
kalivor:
Lexan can withstand temperatures ranging from -40C/-40F to 100C/212F.
ouiyt:
Nothing more recent than 2000 because that was the only test performed.
Yes, our masks are FIE approved and have been for quite some time. You must at least know that we were the first to design them as well as receive FIE approval? Please read: http://www.zivkovic.com/about.jsp
There are no screw-holes going through the Lexan shield. The screws are there to keep the outer frame in place.
DHCJr:
What I 'said' is not like a UFO sighting, which may or may not be true. These are the results of the SEMI test, plain and simple.
If there were such an incident then that would have been widely reported and the FIE would have had to quickly rethink their plan for the transparent mask. As no such thing has ever been reported I believe this 'Italian incident' is yet more rumor-mongering. Can you point me to a news release or article about this?
Please keep in mind that there are numerous cases per year of injuries from traditional mesh wire masks, yet not a single one from a transparent mask.
Some ways to check the Lexan part of the mask would be the following: a) test the tightness of the screws; b) check to see that there is no rust around the screwheads or nuts; c) ensure that the visor is indeed installed according to the standards of the manufacturer. For example, each visor has a small imprint of the manufacturer's name in one of the visor's corners. Make sure it is there first of all, and secondly make sure it is from the original manufacturer; d) make sure the Lexan visor is 3 mm thick.
For further information, I would suggest writing to the FIE.
KD5MDK:
You might agree that having a Lexan shield on a fencing mask would be completely useless if it could only withstand one hit? As such, this was taken into consideration during the approval process.
DHCJr:
Of course the Lexan shield can be replaced. If you buy a mask from us, then you would use a shield from us. One for one. If you would like to send a mask back and have us do it, then that's fine. No one has done that yet - instead they prefer to do it themselves.
Back in the late 1990's we were the only ones making Lexan masks, so those were all done by hand - custom jobs in essence. You must be referring to those when you mentioned you failed two of our masks.
Of course, now that the transparent mask is a reality and will only gain more steam, the manufacturing process is much more rigid and standardized.
I must say that the mere fact that fencers brought you a mask with a gap and a missing screw demonstrates irresponsibility on part of the fencers, not the manufacturer. Honestly, do you really believe that we sold them a mask with a missing screw or with a loose Lexan shield?
Nothing more recent than 2000 because that was the only test performed.
Yes, our masks are FIE approved and have been for quite some time. You must at least know that we were the first to design them as well as receive FIE approval? Please read: http://www.zivkovic.com/about.jsp
There are no screw-holes going through the Lexan shield. The screws are there to keep the outer frame in place.
Bran:
First of all, thank you for replying to our questions here.
Secondly, just to be clear (I know how a text medium strips verbal and non-verbal cues out of language), the following is merely intended as questions to clarify some things for myself and ask questions, I'm not trying to challenge any of your statements or be adversarial.
While my information is a couple of years old (2003 and 2002), it was my understanding that you were the first to get lexan masks FIE approved. However, the first few approved designs (from Ziv. and others) had a provisional approval. The FIE subsequently changed some requirements (no bolt holes through the lexan, the maximum size of the lexan portion of the mask), revoked the provisional approvals, and started normal approval processes. My understanding was that, as of the time of my last information (again, nearly 2 years ago), that the only FIE lexan masks were made by LP, PBT, and Negrini.
While what I've mentioned above might be wrong in some specific details, or indeed, in some major points, the source of my information is one that I consider extremely reliable. It also correlates well with my observations, namely that I haven't seen a Ziv. lexan mask in use or for sale for at least the past several years (granted I haven't been specifically looking, but I've examined the equipment on display at your table at a number of fencing tournaments without noticing them).
Perhaps you can help clarify a few things for me.
Has Ziv. continuously had FIE approved lexan masks available for the past 6ish years, or did you have them, then not, and now again manufacture them?
Could you give a better timeline of the FIE requirements/history than the somewhat sketchy version that I included above?
You and DHC seem to differ on whether or not after-market (by the end user, rather than by the original manufacturer) modification of a mask (such as replacement of the lexan shield) affects the FIE homolgation of the mask. I think he's clear that ANY modification by a fencer would void the FIE approval (due to the mask no longer conforming exactly to the original specs) while you seem clear that such modification, using OEM parts, would result in a mask that still complies with the FIE standards. Have I correctly characterized your stance on the issue? DHC- Have I correctly characterized your stance? Clarifications or elaborations from either of you?
Thanks again.
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I must say that the mere fact that fencers brought you a mask with a gap and a missing screw demonstrates irresponsibility on part of the fencers, not the manufacturer. Honestly, do you really believe that we sold them a mask with a missing screw or with a loose Lexan shield?
I think he agrees with you and doesn't believe that the mask was manufactured with the problems that it presented when it came to him as an armorer. His point is that these were extremely obvious flaws that he could tell made the equipment no longer in spec, but he's afraid of the possibility of lesser, non-obvious, developed flaws which would similarly make an unsafe mask, that he isn't equiped to detect.
That said, I've heard an anecdote of a mask (non-lexan, non-Ziv.) being purchased at a tournament, brought immedaitely to the armorer's table, and immediately failed for missing an entire strand of the wire from the mesh (apparently the machine used in manufacturing had run out for a time and the faulty masks were not caught in whatever quality control systems were in place at the factory). The manufacturer had not caught the problem, the vendor had not caught the problem, and the purchaser had not caught the problem. When the armorer and purchaser went back to the vendor's table another mask of that brand was found to have an identical problem (presumably from the same instance of failure at the factory).
Problems and errors do happen. Hopefully they are all caught. Armorer testing is one of the safety checks that we have in our system. As an armorer, DHC is concerned when he feels that he cannot adequately safety check all of the equipment for which he is responsible. That's not an unreasonable position for him to take, in my opinion.
-B :)
__________________
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Yes, Bran these were the early masks. Ouiyt, Zivcovic has FIE approval for actually 2 types of visor masks. You can check last years Escrime #45 for the list on the FIE web site. The Medical Commision also approves masks, but it is not a requirement for FIE certification. They have only approved 4 of the 14 FIE masks. Zivcovic is not one of them. What they are testing is the amount of transference of air. I do not know the details, but as I said is not required and is not part of the approval process.
The incident I was talking about was given to me in passing by Dan DeChaine with few details. It was not a Zivcovic mask and it did not involve the lexan, but the connection between the mesh and the frame holding the lexan. He is off to another tournament. Next week, I will try and get some specifics. Also, the part about changing the lexan came from Dan also.
His argument was the manufacturers submit 3 masks to SEMI. 2 are used for various testing and the 3rd is kept at the headquarter to act as a control for what has been approved. If a change is made it is no longer matches what was approved.
I have not seen any mark on the lexan, but I haven't been looking. I will be looking. What if I don't find any.
You stated there are incidences of wire masks injuries. Are these FIE masks? Do you have some articles also. Also, as been stated before, except for the obvious that I talked about, how can I check the visor part of a lexan mask?
__________________
Donald Hollis Clinton, Jr. DHCJr@juno.com
To Teach is to Learn (Japanese Proverb)
Knowing the rule book by heart means nothing, if you don't understand the rules.
Hi all, I have been quietly reading this thread without posting but I think it is probably time for my two pence/cents worth.
I can clearly see where you are coming from here DHCJr there is no way other than a visual inspection that you can check the lexan part of the mask. I can see why this may be a problem because you are used to the punch test in the states in order to verify that a mask is unsafe. In the UK armourers never use the punch test, if they see a mask and they think it is unsafe than they confiscate it until the end of the comp, can american armourers do the same? I assume so.
I would suggest that if you get a mask and the visor is covered in scratches then confiscate it untill the end of the tournament and tell the person to buy a new visor.
On LP masks there should be no problem doing an inspection as the lexan has a second scratch layer that prevents the main 3mm lexan sheet getting scratched at all. At LP we suggest that if somehow a scratch gets all the way through the sacrificial scratch layer and puts a scratch on the lexan the lexan is replaced immediately as you have no way to tell how much the lexan layer has been affected. If you get an LP mask to check and there is any mark in the Lexan then I would fail it.
Regarding the chaniging of the visor test houses do keep a "controll" mask but provided the new visor is fitted according to the instructions the mask will be exactly as it was when it left the factory.
I can clearly see where you are coming from here DHCJr there is no way other than a visual inspection that you can check the lexan part of the mask. I can see why this may be a problem because you are used to the punch test in the states in order to verify that a mask is unsafe. In the UK armourers never use the punch test, if they see a mask and they think it is unsafe than they confiscate it until the end of the comp, can american armourers do the same? I assume so.
Yep...we may not test lames, body cords, or weapons as part of the check-in process at the local tournament level like we do at the sectional or national level....but we ALWAYS punch the mask, FIE or not (in fact, I failed an FIE mask this weekend because it was missing the trim around the back side, exposing the edge of the mesh, which was very ragged).
If a mask fails, we'll write "FAILED" in nice, big, fat letters on the big with a marker pen....and keep the mask until the end of the event.
I'm with Donald on these masks, tho....I wan't some way to test the lexan just like the steel mesh....particularly since the lexan's in front of the eyes. I'd rather not have another Smirnov, thank you.
If both the medical and SEMI commissions recommended lexan masks NOT be approved, but Roch pushed it through on his own, how does that serve the fencing community? The only parties served are the manufacturers, not the fencers.
Linear Mode
