Safety Notice

**JEC** · 08-07-2002 08:12 PM

Armourers would look at the physical integrity of the mask. Evaluate the bib attachment. If there were spots that are dented or banged, typically that would be one of the areas of potentially less resistance to impact. Thus, the armourers would use the manual 12Kg punch tester in about 4-5 places including the dent. The next competition, the next armourers would apply the punch tester in 4-5 places including the same dented spot. Over several competitions, the dented spot would receive cumulative impacts beyond its expected resistance. (Steel fatigues!!) That is why one should regularly evaluate the threading, dents, and bib attachment. If you get a dent, take it to your armourer.

[ 08-08-2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**damianip** · 08-08-2002 03:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JEC:
Armourers would look at the physical integrity of the mask. Evaluate the bib attachment. If there were spots that are dented or banged, typically that would be one of the areas of potentially less resistance to impact. Thus, the armourers would use the manual 12Kg punch tester in about 4-5 places including the dent. The next competition, the next armourers would apply the punch tester in 4-5 places including the same dented spot. Over several competitions, the dented spot would receive cumulative impacts beyond its expected resistance. (Steel fatigues!!) That is why one should regularly evaluate the threading, dents, and bib attachment. If you get a dent, take it to your armourer.<hr /></blockquote>For the record, fatigue has nothing to do with mask failure. It's actually work hardening and the resulting lack of ductility which compromises the mask mesh.

Fatigue occurs after many, many cycles below the yield point (read no dent, no deformation) of the material. This is why fatigue is so insidious. You think you're safe, but you're not.

It is also why it doesn't happen in masks. In most cases, the failure is the result of previous gross damage.

Paolo

**JEC** · 08-08-2002 04:19 AM

It may be so, but if you keep punching in the same place, the thread eventually fails/separates.

[ 08-08-2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**damianip** · 08-08-2002 04:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JEC:
It may be so, but if you keep punching in the same place, the thread eventually fails/separates.<hr /></blockquote>NSS, but it's not fatigue.

It's workhardening, and it's akin to bending a paper clip back and forth until it breaks.

Never said it wouldn't cause a failure. In fact, I stated earlier that repeated punch testing is bad for the mask...

Paolo

**JEC** · 08-08-2002 06:22 AM

Hey, my arm looks like yours today. An A epeeist kept practicing on me yesterday. It's always a great experience.

**damianip** · 08-08-2002 08:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JEC:
Hey, my arm looks like yours today. An A epeeist kept practicing on me yesterday. It's always a great experience.

<hr /></blockquote>Isn't it great to be someone's fencing dummy?

That picture was taken a couple of days after a night of bouting with a bunch of "A"s and "B"s. On the plus side, it has never looked as bad since, and I've fenced that bunch since.

The bruises are now less in number and a bit more random. As you can see in the picture, they really had me figured out for a counter-sixte take and touch to the bicep.

I was just too slow to figure out how to effectively counter at the speed they executed. (Distance, distance)

Paolo.

**DamedEscrime** · 08-08-2002 02:59 PM

Now, I was under the impression that it was required to punch test all maskes before ANY tourny. But, I have been to some local tournies in the midwest where it has not been done. I always ask about it and sometimes it seems that the people/clubs putting on the event just are choosing to not do it.

I also heard that the mask in question was used in a local tourny the week before it failed. The maskes were not tested at that tourny. Could that have prevented the accident?? Guess we'll never know now.

**Purple Fencer** · 08-08-2002 07:50 PM

In SoCal we ALWAYS test the masks, period.

As far as gross impact damaging a mask...that;s not ALWAYS the case...once I saws a brande new mask -- still in the plastic and the original shipping box, fail the test on the first try. Obviously, poor manufacture was the prime cause.

Then again...it WAS a France-Lames mask!

**damianip** · 08-09-2002 04:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Purple Fencer:
In SoCal we ALWAYS test the masks, period.

As far as gross impact damaging a mask...that;s not ALWAYS the case...once I saws a brande new mask -- still in the plastic and the original shipping box, fail the test on the first try. Obviously, poor manufacture was the prime cause.

Then again...it WAS a France-Lames mask!<hr /></blockquote>Which is what I said. I never said that it was the only mode of failure.

Again, unless we find a way to non-destructively test every square inch of a mask, then everything comes down to probabilities.

So, the best thing you can do is to make choices which weigh the probabilities in your favor i.e. FIE mask from a reputable vendor, frequent examination, proper care, etc.

There is no guarantee that during my first bout with a brand new FIE Allstar mask that I won't get "Smirnov'd" on the first mask touch.
However, the probabilities should be lower than if I used the ancient, beat, non-FIE Negrini in the picture which started this discussion.

Paolo

**oiuyt** · 08-09-2002 01:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't understand the weakening theory as it applies to the FIE mask as a reason to bypass it.<hr /></blockquote>FIE masks are made with a double crimp at each intersection of wire in the mesh. The steel used doesn't take solder so this is the best way to hold the mesh together. The problem comes when a punch test is applied. The tester can shift the wires, effectively uncrimping them. They may or may not fall back into the crimp. When uncrimped that part of the mask is unsafe.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />BTW, oiuyt, how was the Armorer's course? My source(s) there said Dan was like a kid in a candy store! Wish I could have been there. Will definately be there next year (provided Uncle Sugar doesn't extend me for another year!).<hr /></blockquote>I was there for Foil II and Saber II. Dan both runs a talk for people who already have CPR/First Aid certification and is always floating around and loves to be drawn into talks about the hows or whys of anything relating to the equipment any time during the week.

Especially during the first week the armorers seemed to have a blast (including asking Dan whether or not they could make an official request to have cots moved to the building where they were playing with the equipment). Dan seemed VERY pleased with how well the college turned out. I plan to continue with my coaching certifications next year but at some point plan to take the armoring class as well. It seems to be well worth the time.

As a side note, while I have yet to have my mask not punch tested at a national event, a visual and conductivity test was all that was done at the several international competitions I've been to (Peabody twice, a satellite WC in England once).

-B

**arcon** · 08-12-2002 01:27 PM

Sources do indicate that the mask in question (Was)in a tournament(CLFC)tournament to be exact
a few weeks before failure. Only a visible mask
check was performed.

Arcon

Sources also indicate the fencer who owns the mask
has an identical mask purchased at the same time but does not plan to use it.

[ 08-12-2002, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: arcon ]

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: Safety Notice

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Equipment Safety?

A Safety Issue

Posting Permissions