Minimum Standards for Equipment used In the USA.

[Barry Paul]

I have continued concerns regarding the lack of regulations regarding the strength of fencing equipment used in the USA.

After a lot of discussions the British fencing association has imposed rules which finnally come into force after a five year introduction period beginning Jan 1 st 2006. Is it time the USA followed the rest of the grown up fencing world?

I will be at the USA Championship for the first three days and would welcome discussions with any interested parties.

[sabrema'am]

Interesting that this is being rasied by an equipment manufacturer with an obvious stake in the matter. Raises some questions about objectivity.

And for the record, I wear full FIE 800 gear

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by sabrema'am

Interesting that this is being rasied by an equipment manufacturer with an obvious stake in the matter. Raises some questions about objectivity.

And for the record, I wear full FIE 800 gear

I'd say your internal organs also have an obvious stake in the matter

The US standards do seem to be fairly lax. A 350 N competition standard would not IMHO be unreasonable.

I also wear FIE gear.

[Barry Paul]

Originally Posted by sabrema'am

Interesting that this is being rasied by an equipment manufacturer with an obvious stake in the matter. Raises some questions about objectivity.

And for the record, I wear full FIE 800 gear

Three points.

1. We only sell equipment which passes the E.C. level 1 performance standard.

This is equivalent to a 350 Newton clothing strength.

2. It will do no good to any manufacturer or supplier if due to lack of minimum standards some one is sued in the U.S.

3. 35 years ago a friend and team mate was killed in South Africa fencing with a light weight jacket and no plastron. If he had been wearing clothing made to todays standard he would still be alive. Barry Paul

[DHCJr]

I agree with Barry. U.S. Fencers are notorious for buying whatever is cheapest. I cringe when I see the uniforms, as well as the masks and body cords the fencers bring. It might even save money for fencers having a minimum standard. The equipment may last longer. Also, the fencers in paying more might take care of it better.

[nylebuss]

Yes, American fencers buy what is cheapest, because not all of us can afford the price of FIE clothing, most of which is imported from Europe which drives up the price even more. As far as a lot of people are concerned a $46 jacket from BG is more worthwhile than a $124 jacket from LPUSA or a $135 jacket from DuellistUSA. If American's could get quality FIE range equipment that wasn't so much more expensive than in Europe there would definitely be more people buying it, and more people supporting the need for a minimum standard. But not everybody is willing to shell out a huge amount of money just to compete in their favorite sport.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

if someone started a production plant in the US, and could produce a quality FIE jacket and sell it for $125 or less, it would be nice. Unfortuneatly, any FIE equipment is imported ****. For a startex jacket, you have to pay a solid $300. Thats a pay check down the drain. After paying the bills and feeding the family, there usually isnt a whole lotta money left to go around. Often, you make a choice between fencing or FIE gear.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by nylebuss

Yes, American fencers buy what is cheapest, because not all of us can afford the price of FIE clothing, most of which is imported from Europe which drives up the price even more. As far as a lot of people are concerned a $46 jacket from BG is more worthwhile than a $124 jacket from LPUSA or a $135 jacket from DuellistUSA. If American's could get quality FIE range equipment that wasn't so much more expensive than in Europe there would definitely be more people buying it, and more people supporting the need for a minimum standard. But not everybody is willing to shell out a huge amount of money just to compete in their favorite sport.

If the argument was "we will make you buy FIE gear", I would agree with you, but that is not what is being said. What is actually needed is a numeric definition of "Sufficiently Robust". This will make for both a safer sport and a better legal shield.

[keith]

no one is talking about FIE 800N kit - not that I want to hinder the spleen venting.

The arguement is whether there is;

An authority (USFA?) which could demand a minimum standard of equipment.

Whether the USFA would be required (under US law) to devise and run its own testing (rather than accepting the EU standard)?

[broncofencer]

I agree a minimum should be set. I had always thought there was one but obviously I was wrong on this. I think it would cut down on some of the crap equipment you se being sold now. I do think it needs to be around 350 newtons though not at fie standards otherwise the USFA has to go all FIE and we would lose a lot of fencers due to the price of FIE gear.

[Goofy]

Based on some of the threadbare and/or aged equipment I've seen, especially at local events, there most definitely needs to be a minimum competition standard for US fencing apparel.

Because fencing has an international governing body I believe that any minimum should be set by that body and be the same for all participating countries. No, I am not advocating FIE 800N clothing/1600N mask bib across the board, but instead am suggesting that the FIE be responsible for setting a standard for non-World Cup/World Championship events, and making the national governing bodies responsible for enforcing the standard.

A couple of messages have used 350N as an example of a minimum, and this would be a good place to start for the jacket, breeches, and plastron- what is the basic EC level for the bib on the mask?

And as for cost, once a safety level is set you should be willing to meet the cost in order to continue your participation in competition.

[Mergs]

Originally Posted by keith

no one is talking about FIE 800N kit - not that I want to hinder the spleen venting.

The arguement is whether there is;

An authority (USFA?) which could demand a minimum standard of equipment.

Whether the USFA would be required (under US law) to devise and run its own testing (rather than accepting the EU standard)?

Read the Technical section of the USFA rules. It is the standard for minimally acceptable equipment for use at USFA sanctioned events. That's not going to prevent schlock from being manufactured and sold. However, if you, as a member organization of the USFA are going to hold an event and allow non-conforming equipment to used (sweat-pants instead of knickers, etc), you are now liable in the event that use of that equipment results in bodily injury. If EU standards are acceptable for the majority of the world, why wouldn't it be acceptable in the US (NIH syndrome notwithstanding), unless the US standards are higher?

Welcome to the free-market, where the individual is also responsible for their own safety, not just the manufacturer.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Mergs

Read the Technical section of the USFA rules. It is the standard for minimally acceptable equipment for use at USFA sanctioned events. That's not going to prevent schlock from being manufactured and sold. However, if you, as a member organization of the USFA are going to hold an event and allow non-conforming equipment to used (sweat-pants instead of knickers, etc), you are now liable in the event that use of that equipment results in bodily injury. If EU standards are acceptable for the majority of the world, why wouldn't it be acceptable in the US (NIH syndrome notwithstanding), unless the US standards are higher?

I would think the EU rules are a good idea if they can be followed, but it would favour the European kit makers - how much would it cost for some of these other suppliers to have there kit tested to these standards. Are there rules that affect what the EU will certify (probably).

Just pointing out that 'following the EU' rules may not be straight forward, easy or even possible. Also it is probably not that fair to US suppliers; a separate issue of course.

Originally Posted by Mergs

Welcome to the free-market, where the individual is also responsible for their own safety, not just the manufacturer.

on the other hand if a parent reads the USFA guidlines the implication is that any item of equipment made of heavy cotton (or even just for sale on a fencing supply website) is safe. Most people happily confuse safe with approved - and in the case of the USFA rules I wouldn't want to wear much of the kit that is approved.

It is a sad thing but natural selection ain't what it used to be.

[Barry Paul]

For manufacturers in E.C. life has been made easier/safer. We can only legally sell fencing equipment made to the minimum standard. In the event of an accident we only have to show that the equipment is made to that standard.

What I am suggesting is that the usa moves to standard which are quantifyable and every one can manufacture too.

In th U.K. we have had 5 years to move to a standard of 350 newton jacket and underplastron for all non electric fencing and fencing with size three or smaller blades. For all electric fencing by 2006 fenecers, to comply with BFA regulations and be covered by BFA membership insurance, must wear 350 jacket and nickers with 800 newton plastron. They must also use a level 1 (350 Newton bib plus other requirements) mask.

This requirement would not cause the colapse of USA fencing, could be phased in over three years and USA fencing could be in a defendable position in the event of an accident.

[howtobrew]

I wholehearted agree that a measurable, inspectable standard for fencing clothing should be established for competitive fencing in the USA.

Okay, next step. What test do we use and how shall it be regulated?

A couple tournements ago, an opponents point went thru my friends jacket, in and out, in the shoulder area. Don't recall what brand it was, but he takes his fencing equipment seriously.

[broncofencer]

The only problem is most of these are tested against blut force so the US would also have to do away with all non-FIE blades since they are not maraging steel and usually break into a point. This is where some of canvas type jackets fair a little better in the safety. So in essence we have to set standards for all equipment not just the safety equipment, In order to insure that it is truely a "safe" standard.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by broncofencer

The only problem is most of these are tested against blut force so the US would also have to do away with all non-FIE blades since they are not maraging steel and usually break into a point. This is where some of canvas type jackets fair a little better in the safety. So in essence we have to set standards for all equipment not just the safety equipment, In order to insure that it is truely a "safe" standard.

For the last time, FIE blades do not break any more or less pointy than non-FIE, they just break less often!

[Mergs]

Originally Posted by broncofencer

The only problem is most of these are tested against blut force so the US would also have to do away with all non-FIE blades since they are not maraging steel and usually break into a point. This is where some of canvas type jackets fair a little better in the safety. So in essence we have to set standards for all equipment not just the safety equipment, In order to insure that it is truely a "safe" standard.

Not true on two counts. First, it is a myth that FIE/maraging blades 'break cleanly'. The blades exhibit the same fracture characteristics as carbon-steel blades, i.e. the fracture can result in a 'point' or even traverse the blade, and then go along the groove and exit at a point at a significant distance from the point of origin (a nice little 'point' if ever there was one!). Their advantage is that they are tougher and don't break as frequently.

Secondly, the puncture tests for material are standardized for the textile industry. And they have varying kinds of probes, not all 'blut (sic)' (I think you meant 'blunt'), but in cases where material is supposed to be puncture resistant (not proof, or else you couldn't sew the stuff! And KEVLAR cloth fits in this category) the probes are quite 'pointy'. The problem with the heavy canvas jackets is that the material used is not designed to be puncture resistant, but conforming to the 'sufficiently robust' requirement outlined by the USFA.

Now, having said that, do I think that there needs to be a standard strength for jackets and knickers? For competitions, yes, just as there is for masks. Do competitions all enforce the standards? No. But they do so at risk. Again, I go back to my original assertion, that the individual has a responsibility for their own safety, and that includes using equipment that of sufficient quality that mitigates the risk taken by participating in a certain level of dangerous activity.

[oiuyt]

I think it should be relatively clear that if the USFA were to enact standards for the clothing that they would have to be done in coordination with the various standards that are already being used in fencing. The same type of probes that are currently used and likely 350N, 800N, or some combination thereof. No reason to create new testing "standards" (while making sure that they aren't) and systems when you can piggyback on what already exists. Meanwhile there are so few manufacturers anyway that you wouldn't want to further fracture the market and make them either choose to test to multiple standards bodies or limit the utility of top-of-the-line equipment in this country (when they refuse and continue to only be certified the way they currently are).

If minimums are enacted they will follow the guidelines already used in the sport.

-B :)

[Mr Epee]

If the USFA institutes a standard for equipment, then do they inherit liability when someone is injured wearing equipment of that standard?

With the exception of a few brands skimping on the jacket overlaps, I think that todays low-end jacket is much much better than anything in the past... every once in a while I'll come across an old Castello or Santelli jacket. Those things were not safe, period. Today is better.

And I too would appreciate it if this subject wasn't brought up by a manufactuer who is claiming to have a superior product.