Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

PeterGustafsson · 11-06-2005, 03:29 AM

Hi!

I recently saw an epee being failed for the 1.5mm test, it would probably have passed a 1.45mm shim, though. That epee had passed the 750 g and 0.5mm test immediately before checking with the 1.5mm shim.

My question is: What is the motivation for the 1.5mm rule? If a weapon passes both other tip tests, it should be too easy to depress. Foil only has one shim regulation, so it seems to work for another weapon.

What gives?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

DHCJr · 11-06-2005, 03:54 AM

The 0.5 is only half the test. What you are testing is not that it passes the 0.5 test, but that it has TRAVELED at least 1.0 mm. You could just as easily use a 1.2 and a 0.2 shim and it would be just as valid. The 1.5 along with the 0.5 were an arbritrary decision in the beginning.

Suppose you had an Epee that would not set off the lights using the 0.5 shim, but the gap at rest was only 0.55. The fencer would only have to depress the tip around 0.05 mm to get a touch. Might as well do Foil.

To summarize, you are testing that the tip is required to travel AT LEAST 1.0 mm before it can get a touch. Only 1 shim can not test that.

PeterGustafsson · 11-06-2005, 10:35 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

The 0.5 is only half the test. What you are testing is not that it passes the 0.5 test, but that it has TRAVELED at least 1.0 mm. You could just as easily use a 1.2 and a 0.2 shim and it would be just as valid. The 1.5 along with the 0.5 were an arbritrary decision in the beginning.

But why is it OK with only one shim in foil?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

Suppose you had an Epee that would not set off the lights using the 0.5 shim, but the gap at rest was only 0.55. The fencer would only have to depress the tip around 0.05 mm to get a touch. Might as well do Foil.

To summarize, you are testing that the tip is required to travel AT LEAST 1.0 mm before it can get a touch. Only 1 shim can not test that.

If the shim tests are there to take away too weak hits, then why is the 750g test not sufficient?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PeterGustafsson · 11-06-2005, 10:38 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DHCJr

The 0.5 is only half the test. What you are testing is not that it passes the 0.5 test, but that it has TRAVELED at least 1.0 mm. You could just as easily use a 1.2 and a 0.2 shim and it would be just as valid. The 1.5 along with the 0.5 were an arbritrary decision in the beginning.

So, if one presents an epee which has 1.4 mm of resting gap, and lights up first at 0.3 mm, then it would fit the intent of the law, if not the letter?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

DHCJr · 11-06-2005, 11:07 AM

You got the idea. The trouble is who would carry enough shims to test every possibility. Also consider this, SEMI by a vote of 1 to 8 a few years ago, eliminated the requirement for Control to test Weight and Shims because it took to long. That was a stupid vote. Considering the weapon that takes the most time to test because of the lame', Sabre, this saves no time. Considering the weapon that takes the 2nd to the most time again because of the lame', Foil, you still have to plug in the weapon and push down the tip to test that the weapon works and has low enough resistance. How much time do you save using your finger over a weight. You do have to do a little more work for Epee, but that takes the least time as it is.

The fencers should be upset over this. If they can't get it right when they have time and are not between bouts, wouldn't they like to know before they get that Yellow or Red card, when they don't have time to fix it.

ReverseLunge · 11-06-2005, 12:04 PM

Most of the shims at the tournaments have been worn down a lot.

Mergs · 11-06-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Most of the shims at the tournaments have been worn down a lot.

And your point? BFD that they are worn down. Replace them!

"Oh, gee whiz, just because it is an old weight and really isn't 500/750 grams, use it anyway"

Oh, it's an old chain and has stretched so it's now 10 yards, 3", so go ahead and use it on a 4th down measurement in the Superbowl, BCS championship, 1-A, State, Regional, District........Etc. game, nobody'd care.

Yeah, right.

Oh, and while we're at it, make each strip at the event a different size, and let's not all use the same times or stop watches, or even let guys wear REALLY small lame`s, ad nauseum.

fencerbill · 11-06-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Most of the shims at the tournaments have been worn down a lot.

Not so. We should get Tim Loomis in on this. When he was coming to NAC's, he was measuring all the shims used. It is my understanding that most were within 0.01 mm much less than the allowed range of 0.45 to 0.55 mm that is within the FIE rules.

I have sanded down a shim to 0.44 mm that I use in adjusting tips after rewiring and before competitions. It took quite a bit. I know the tips will pass any shim they encounter at competitions.

Mr Epee · 11-06-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Most of the shims at the tournaments have been worn down a lot.

This is a good point.

Even if they are routinely checked at NAC's - which I doubt, that is still a minority of events fenced, and many referees carry their own shims.

Many times I've seen the situation of a fencer checking their point, submiting it for shim/weight test, and then failing the "official measures."

MHS Fencer · 11-06-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

This is a good point.

Even if they are routinely checked at NAC's - which I doubt, that is still a minority of events fenced, and many referees carry their own shims.

Many times I've seen the situation of a fencer checking their point, submiting it for shim/weight test, and then failing the "official measures."

This is why it's not a bad idea to lend your weight/shim to the director if they're missing them. With your stuff, you know you're safe. Instead of making them run all the way to the B.C. to get a set, just politely offer yours (it also doesn't hurt to be on the director's good side).

KD5MDK · 11-06-2005, 11:55 PM

At a competition this weekend we found that the PBT shims were consistantly failing weapons that the other shims passed. I'm going to ask the fellow testing more about this if I get the opportunity.

SJCFU#2 · 11-07-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!
But why is it OK with only one shim in foil?

Because unlike epee, where the requirement is for a minimum 1mm travel, foil only requires enough travel to break the circuit, which can be "infinitesimal".

SJCFU#2 · 11-07-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

At a competition this weekend we found that the PBT shims were consistantly failing weapons that the other shims passed. I'm going to ask the fellow testing more about this if I get the opportunity.

You may find that those shims are still perfectly legal.

Over the years I have seen a number epees pass with one set of shims, yet fail with another. Upon measuring I found that both sets of shims were within the tolerance called for in the rules (+/-0.05mm is actually quite large).

PeterGustafsson · 11-07-2005, 10:44 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

Because unlike epee, where the requirement is for a minimum 1mm travel, foil only requires enough travel to break the circuit, which can be "infinitesimal".

I should rephrase the question.

I know that only a infinitesimal travel may be enough to break the circuit in a foil. However, what is it in the game of foil that makes it unnecessary to have a travel requirement for foil, while one is deemed necessary for epee, if both weapons pass the weight test? In what way would the sport of epee be damaged by only having a gap and weight, or even only weight test?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PeterGustafsson · 11-07-2005, 10:48 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mergs

And your point? BFD that they are worn down. Replace them!

"Oh, gee whiz, just because it is an old weight and really isn't 500/750 grams, use it anyway"

How much does a test weight wear down? How many uses does it take to wear it out of specificated range? I am guessing that it is so many times so that they can for all events and purposes be seen as having a practically eternal use life.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

SJCFU#2 · 11-07-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

How much does a test weight wear down? How many uses does it take to wear it out of specificated range? I am guessing that it is so many times so that they can for all events and purposes be seen as having a practically eternal use life.

It depends on what the weight is made from, how it is cared for, and how accurately it was to begin with.

A good quality nickel-plated or stainless steel weight will probably last for decades (assuming you don't store it in salt water with an electric current through it). A brass weight will be softer and likely to wear, and it will probably corrode more (perhaps this is why brass isn't used for precision calibration weights).

Unfotunately some weights are out of spec even when they were brand new.

SJCFU#2 · 11-07-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!
...what is it in the game of foil that makes it unnecessary to have a travel requirement for foil, while one is deemed necessary for epee...

I suspect it was dictated by the technology available when electric foil was first being developed - otherwise foil probably would have a minimum travel requirement similar to epee.

My guess is that they couldn't figure out how to make electric foil work using an epee-like tip while maintaining compatability with the existing sytem that had been developed for epee. Rather than require everyone buy new reels with a fourth conductor to allow distinction between valid and in-valid touches, the decision was made to build electric foil around a normally-closed circuit and throw out any meaningful travel requirement.

Of course this is all speculation - perhaps someone like Joe Byrnes would know more about what drove those choices many decades ago.

Mr Epee · 11-07-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MHS Fencer

This is why it's not a bad idea to lend your weight/shim to the director if they're missing them. With your stuff, you know you're safe. Instead of making them run all the way to the B.C. to get a set, just politely offer yours (it also doesn't hurt to be on the director's good side).

If you find a referee willing to use your personal weight/shims... you will find a referee who probably shouldn't be there in the first place.

Bad form for the official.

yeoldearmourer · 11-07-2005, 01:05 PM

When I was controlled the weights and shims for the nacs all were within the rules and would be check before each NAC and if fail they were replace. I would also check and certify referee personnal weights and shim.

larkmaj · 11-07-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

I suspect it was dictated by the technology available when electric foil was first being developed - otherwise foil probably would have a minimum travel requirement similar to epee.

the only way i can imagine implementing a minimum travel distance in foil would require a far more complicated tip than an epee. a contact spring would be necessary and it is a lot easier to do it to making a connection in epee rather than breaking a connection in foil.