Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

telkanuru · 08-07-2005, 09:53 PM

For several months now, I have been hearing panic and angst about such FIE mandates as full body lame for epee, in order to make it wireless. I have had news to the contrary, but I have been under an NDA from my coach (I tell, I get no lessons. Ever.) until today! Rejoice, for no such absurdity shall happen! It is done.

Zivkovic has created a wireless epee system that involves no substantial modifications to the current equipment set. It has been tested by myself and others at my club (Prise de Fer) over the past ~6 months to work out bugs, etc. and is finally being submitted for SEMI approval in September.

Some details: The only modification to a weapon to make it wireless is a small piece of plastic inserted between the bell guard and the blade to electrically insulate each, and a special body cord. The latter may be modified to a normal body cord in time. Plans are to turn it into a 3-weapon device in the near future. It can be used with any make or model of fencing box.

That's about all, but a big shout of thanks to Zivkovic for not making me buy conductive socks...

You may now shower me with praise for bringing good tidings. Also, Zivkovic should give me free stuff

CvilleFencer · 08-07-2005, 10:03 PM

Wow, that is really awesome, although unless Ziv is willing to cut Roach in on th eprofits I would not feel 100% safe that he will not do something stupid just for stupids sake...

I would love to hear some more details about how this works. I can't quite get a picture of it in my mind if all there is to it is a body cord change and an insert around/between the tang/grip/guard. Please tell us more!

Katman · 08-07-2005, 10:37 PM

Hooray! I'll shower you with incontinent kittens.

I'm happy they plan to make this reel-less set up function with all three weapons. You were only talking about epee though right? Know what they have in mind for foil? I agree with Cville: tell us more!

telkanuru · 08-07-2005, 10:47 PM

According to Ben, the device was built for epee, but can be "easily modified" to work with the other two weapons.

The plastic insert is a $0.05 piece of plastic that goes in the tang hole on the guard to separate the blade from the guard. There were some problems with sweaty people grounding out in the beta stage.

It uses a standard 3-prong connector, but the end that would plug into the reel has a whackey serial-like connector. This may or may not change.

I have guesses to how it works internally, but I have no idea how they did the double touch lock-out, and they wouldn't tell me. Trade secrets, I guess.

mrbiggs · 08-07-2005, 11:22 PM

This is interesting!

I don't know if you'd know, but I might as well ask. How much will these devices cost? In other words, are we looking at the $1000 per fencer or whatever that the wireless sabre costs?

In still other words, will it be accessable to local fencers, or will it be for international competitions only?

DHCJr · 08-07-2005, 11:36 PM

I am also very skepical for the very reason stated above, timing. How does this transmit a touch as arrived from one side to block out the other side. I do know of a way, but it is illegal, so I am sure it is not that.

telkanuru · 08-07-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I am also very skepical for the very reason stated above, timing. How does this transmit a touch as arrived from one side to block out the other side. I do know of a way, but it is illegal, so I am sure it is not that.

This is the part I could not figure out. I do know it does not involve radio transmission. I guess you'll just have to get details from the SEMI people in September!

And right now, I'd say international level only, with the aim of making it a medium-high end club box. But that's just my guess, not fact based on much/anything.

DHCJr · 08-07-2005, 11:50 PM

I wonder if it adheres to M.45 specifically. "Only electrical apparatus designed with WIRES CONNECTING THE FENCERS TO THE CENTRAL APPARATUS and registering touches by light signals with auxiliary sound signals are authorized: THIS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES APPARATUS BASED ON WIRELESS WAVES and those which register sound signals only.

This does not say just radio waves, it is any wireless waves, which includes IR also as well as others. Considering how rules have been changed in the past for other products to let them in. It will take a rule change to make this legal. That is my opinion.

telkanuru · 08-07-2005, 11:51 PM

I'm sorry, when I said radio, I ment any air-based EM. There is, as I understand it, a transmission from the fencer to the box because the version we were using has not encorperated the mask lights yet.

Welted 24/7 · 08-08-2005, 12:00 AM

When you guys says full-body lame, do you actually mean EVERYTHING made out of conductive material? Knickers? Socks? SHOES? If it did happen like that, epee would probably die off due to people simply not having the money to buy a full conductive uniform. And it would look really stupid to boot.

Edit- oooooh, glad nobody caught THAT one...

DHCJr · 08-08-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I'm sorry, when I said radio, I ment any air-based EM. There is, as I understand it, a transmission from the fencer to the box because the version we were using has not encorperated the mask lights yet.

As far as the FIE is concerned, that is the same thing. If it is not over wires, you can't have a wireless box. Doesn't that sound like an Oxymoron, but that is what the FIE requires. Wireless boxes must transmit all signals by wires.

Welted, yes that what it means, from the sole of the foot to the mask, except off course the visor.

Sciurus-Rex · 08-08-2005, 07:58 AM

My best guess is elves or pixies. The li'l buggers move incredibly fast, so it's possible for two fairies to wing it over to the scoring box and register double touches or lock-out touches with a high degree of confidence that everything's OK. Only very rarely do two of the wee folk actually get into fisticuffs over some imagined clan issue.

Inquartata · 08-08-2005, 03:12 PM

Don, which rule change made the visor mask legal in sabre? I can't find any mention of it.

PalmFrond · 08-08-2005, 03:39 PM

Forgive my ignorance of the technical ins and outs, but I thought that the reason for the full body lame was because Roch wanted to get rid of expensive metal pistes (and thus had to find some way of stopping floor hits from registering). How does the development that Telk is talking about address this?

CvilleFencer · 08-08-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Don, which rule change made the visor mask legal in sabre? I can't find any mention of it.

Probably right there with the one that let the FIE use a sole source vendor (StM) and require the use of patented/proprietary technology (reelless fencing & mask lights) for saber events...

DHCJr · 08-08-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Don, which rule change made the visor mask legal in sabre? I can't find any mention of it.

Actually, I wasn't refering to the visor mask specifically. I was actually thinking of the Tolbom point and the requirement for wireless that the fencer would not have to buy any extra equipment to use it.

In answer your question, if you look at the latest rule book, you will see that there are new rules for Visor masks in Appendix A. When visor masks were first used they did not follow the then current rules specifically 4.1 which stated there not be an opening greater than 2.1 mm.

To note the most current rulebook can not be found on the USFA web site. Where you should go is the Fencing Officials web site http://www.fencingofficials.org/Rule...FA%20Rules.pdf

It is also interesting to note, if you see someone with a design on their face, you might mention 3.1.2 in Appendix A.

mfp · 08-08-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

It is also interesting to note, if you see someone with a design on their face, you might mention 3.1.2 in Appendix A.

How about 2.1.3 instead (not 3.1.2) in Appendix A?

1 covers blades. 2 is masks. 3 is clothing.

DHCJr · 08-08-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfp

How about 2.1.3 instead (not 3.1.2) in Appendix A?

1 covers blades. 2 is masks. 3 is clothing.

Yes, thank you for catching that. I sometimes get rushed and do things backwards. It is 2.1.3.

CvilleFencer · 08-08-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

It is also interesting to note, if you see someone with a design on their face, you might mention 3.1.2 in Appendix A.

I don't get it. What does the notation for the metals used and their percentages have to do with the coating of the finished wire, what color or design it is, or what design a fencer may chose to add once it has become a mask. If you are implying that any mask that does not conform to the exact chemical specs at any time is out of regulation they better start making one use steril masks!

I am thinking I may have misunderstood your point. It seemed that you were saying this rule had something to do with colored masks or masks with designs on them...

DHCJr · 08-08-2005, 09:26 PM

You did not read all of the posts. See above, it is 2.1.3.