Body cord tab on lame

[fencerwallet]

My son's Leon Paul lame has passed inspection at NAC's and Nationals. So he recently goes to a RYC and is told his lame won't pass because the tab at the collar to hook up his body cord isn't wide enough. It isn't one inch wide or whatever it is supposed to be, but is this ridiculous nonsense really going to be a new problem?

[passata_sotto]

My boys have Leon Paul also and have not had any problems but, at the NAC in Columbus, I was helping some of our fencers get their PBT sabre lamés checked and was told them same thing - not big enough for FIE but they passed them for the NAC.

[SJCFU#2]

It's amazing how much trouble can be caused by simple flap of conductive fabric.

Rule m.34 includes the following requirement for saber lames:

"The jacket must have a conductive flap, 2 cm x 3 cm in the middle of the back, just below the collar, to which the crocodile clip from the mask can be attached."

This is not a USFA rule - it comes from the FIE - and it's been there for many years. Leon Paul has taken the position that the requirement defines a minimum area for the tab while most others maintain that it defines the minimum dimensions for the tab.

That the lame passed inspection in some events is hardly surprising. Armorers generally have more important things to do with their time than measure the size of each tab (like trying to get to the forty or fifty other people standing in line waiting to have their equipment inspected). However that is no guarantee that it might not come up again.

At least give Leon Paul credit for making it a tab. Another well-known manufacturer was sewing it down on three sides at one point, making it almost impossible to fit the clip from the head cord.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by fencerwallet

My son's Leon Paul lame has passed inspection at NAC's and Nationals. So he recently goes to a RYC and is told his lame won't pass because the tab at the collar to hook up his body cord isn't wide enough. It isn't one inch wide or whatever it is supposed to be, but is this ridiculous nonsense really going to be a new problem?

Not too new. It's approximately 17 years old. The rule came out in 1989.

P.S. I was that Armorer. Would you rather have me not warn you and you show up at the PCC or SRYC and the lame' fail at that time. Now you have time to fix the problem, which is actually quite easy for the Leon Paul.

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

At least give Leon Paul credit for making it a tab. Another well-known manufacturer was sewing it down on three sides at one point, making it almost impossible to fit the clip from the head cord.

If the tab is big enough sewing it down on three sides is a good thing. First on the Leon Paul tab. This is your opponents target area, how would you feel if your opponents target was such that sometime it would work when they were moving and sometime it would not show a touch. But when they were standing still such as testing at the beginning of the bouts.

The Leon Paul tab is one of the best designs to 'adjust the probability of winning'. Clip the clip through the loop so the teeth are not biting into the fabric. Standing still the clip will be touching the clip just from gravity completing the connection. Moving it will sometimes loose connection. Yes it may be rare, but would you like some of your touches not to be able to register.

Don't say that the referee will catch that. It is now the responsibility of the Armorers to check that the breaches and jacket that they have the proper National logos, no illegal advertisement etc. at FIE competitions. This is not the Armorers wish, it is because the referees were not checking this.

[Inquartata]

It's not just Leon Paul that skimps on the tab, either. Every Uhlmann sabre lamé I've ever had came with a tab that was way too narrow. So probably Allstars, too.

[Asprin]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's not just Leon Paul that skimps on the tab, either. Every Uhlmann sabre lamé I've ever had came with a tab that was way too narrow. So probably Allstars, too.

My Allstar lame has a good size tab.

[fencerwallet]

[quote=DHCJr;521302]
P.S. I was that Armorer. Would you rather have me not warn you and you show up at the PCC or SRYC and the lame' fail at that time. Now you have time to fix the problem, which is actually quite easy for the Leon Paul.

[quote]

I recognized you, sans beard. That's why I didn't say, "the %$#*&@!! armorer". It's still something that will have to be dealt with before the JO's. I'd like Leon Paul to weigh in (maybe even send me a 2 cm x 3 cm swatch).

[demon_fencer]

This topic was covered last year (2 years?) ago ... when I got my Leon Paul sabre lame with the too small mask cord tab. As I understand it, LP made changes to their design to comply with the US size rule. Maybe your son's lame pre-dates the change?

[fencerwallet]

Originally Posted by demon_fencer

This topic was covered last year (2 years?) ago ... when I got my Leon Paul sabre lame with the too small mask cord tab. As I understand it, LP made changes to their design to comply with the US size rule. Maybe your son's lame pre-dates the change?

It's about 14 or 15 months old.

[Purple Fencer]

I actually like the idea of teh 3-sided pocket instead of the tab. if you flex the tab enough, you could break the fibers and kill the conection (per a story from Dan at Armorers College).

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by demon_fencer

As I understand it, LP made changes to their design to comply with the US size rule. Maybe your son's lame pre-dates the change?

Hardly a US size rule, as addressed previously by DHC.

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

I actually like the idea of teh 3-sided pocket instead of the tab. if you flex the tab enough, you could break the fibers and kill the conection (per a story from Dan at Armorers College).

Well the armorers should be testing the tab for that issue. :)

-B

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Well the armorers should be testing the tab for that issue.
-B

But do they. There were times this last weekend I wanted to skip the extra step of lifting up the tab and testing it with my finger under it. There are probably lots of Armorers who would test it by just putting the weight on it and maybe flipping it over and testing the backside. The problem is that will not catch what Sam is talking about.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

But do they. There were times this last weekend I wanted to skip the extra step of lifting up the tab and testing it with my finger under it. There are probably lots of Armorers who would test it by just putting the weight on it and maybe flipping it over and testing the backside. The problem is that will not catch what Sam is talking about.

I know.

Just amused me and segued out of your complaint about all of the things armorers are now being required to check.

Perhaps I should have included a smilie. :)

-B

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

I actually like the idea of teh 3-sided pocket instead of the tab. if you flex the tab enough, you could break the fibers and kill the conection (per a story from Dan at Armorers College).

Yes, but if you have the three sided pocket then the teeth of the alligator always bite in the same place and that can cause wear and intermittent contact.

Sometimes, and I have done it myself, you see armorers testing successive Lames by dropping them on the first Lame to which they have connected their second lead. This does not check for the situation where always connecting alligators in the same place has degraded the bottom edge of the Lame. I have run across Lames with that problem.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Yes, but if you have the three sided pocket then the teeth of the alligator always bite in the same place and that can cause wear and intermittent contact.

True....HOWEVER, with a properly sewn down pocket, you;ll always have some conductivity between teh pocket and the rest of the lame...if the teeth have chewed up one spot you can simply move it to another farther up the pocket...with a loose tab, if you break the cosingle connection between the tab and the rest of teh lame, you're still scfrewed.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Sometimes, and I have done it myself, you see armorers testing successive Lames by dropping them on the first Lame to which they have connected their second lead. This does not check for the situation where always connecting alligators in the same place has degraded the bottom edge of the Lame. I have run across Lames with that problem.

I'm not clear on how this is a problem as long as you carefully check the bottom edge of the lame with your first lead? I mean, electrically there's no different between attaching lead 2 to the bottom edge of a lame and running the lead 1 all over it, and attaching the lead 2 to some other part of a lame (or to another lame in contact with the first) and running lead 1 over the edge.

[brtech]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

YSometimes, and I have done it myself, you see armorers testing successive Lames by dropping them on the first Lame to which they have connected their second lead. This does not check for the situation where always connecting alligators in the same place has degraded the bottom edge of the Lame. I have run across Lames with that problem.

When you test one item on top of another, you need to be more sensitive to a CHANGE in resistance as you wipe across the item. If it dips somewhere, you need to see how much, and if it seems like a lot, you remove the stack and test with just the item in question. Although any lame will usually be better on the back than the front, they tend to be fairly uniform unless there is a problem. When you see a problem, you really have to go back to testing one item at a time to get an accurate resistance measurement.

I think that practice will find the problem you are describing. It works best on the lame square or copper/brass plate contact rather than a clip.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by fencerbill

Sometimes, and I have done it myself, you see armorers testing successive Lames by dropping them on the first Lame to which they have connected their second lead. This does not check for the situation where always connecting alligators in the same place has degraded the bottom edge of the Lame. I have run across Lames with that problem.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

I'm not clear on how this is a problem as long as you carefully check the bottom edge of the lame with your first lead? I mean, electrically there's no different between attaching lead 2 to the bottom edge of a lame and running the lead 1 all over it, and attaching the lead 2 to some other part of a lame (or to another lame in contact with the first) and running lead 1 over the edge.

I agree. By this discussion we have perhaps alerted others who have tested Lames that the bottom edge where alligators are clipped is a special area which has to be specifically tested .

Originally Posted by brtech

When you test one item on top of another, you need to be more sensitive to a CHANGE in resistance as you wipe across the item. If it dips somewhere, you need to see how much, and if it seems like a lot, you remove the stack and test with just the item in question. Although any lame will usually be better on the back than the front, they tend to be fairly uniform unless there is a problem. When you see a problem, you really have to go back to testing one item at a time to get an accurate resistance measurement.

I think that practice will find the problem you are describing. It works best on the lame square or copper/brass plate contact rather than a clip.

Well, we all have our quaint ways of accomplishing the same end. These differences are more a question of style than right or wrong.

[twisterfencing]

[quote=fencerwallet;521462][quote=DHCJr;521302]
P.S. I was that Armorer. Would you rather have me not warn you and you show up at the PCC or SRYC and the lame' fail at that time. Now you have time to fix the problem, which is actually quite easy for the Leon Paul.

I recognized you, sans beard. That's why I didn't say, "the %$#*&@!! armorer". It's still something that will have to be dealt with before the JO's. I'd like Leon Paul to weigh in (maybe even send me a 2 cm x 3 cm swatch).

Fencerwallet:

While reading this thread, I ran across your comments and am a little lost?
Help me to understand a little better in regards to your comment: That's why I didn't say, "the %$#*&@!! armorer".

I really hope that you are not implyin cursing Donald nor any other Armorer.

Gary Spruill