Finally!! Foil Mask news...

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by Pescados666

Maybe have something like the self recoiling keychains that the wire goes into and on the center of that has a snap that connects to the lame. It would have to be somewhere inside the lame since a tip could easially rip that off.

Preferably, the wire would come directly from the bib and thus avoid having to run wires through the rest of the mask (since a sabre type system wouldn't work as there is no conductive material above the bib on a foil mask) or problems with an XChange type system.

[Alex_Paul]

Self recoiling chains although neat would be expensive and delicate I suspect.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by GypsyScot

The mask cord if clipped to the bottom of the mask would get knocked off by a foil point, a sabre in a slashing motion will not hit it often enough for it to be a problem.

I've constructed a working prototype mask since Barry sent me his notes,thus far my design won't work with an XChange system easily. My design is sound I think I'll build a better prototype soon...

I apologize for the poor picture. This is from the mask I wore to World Veterans Championships before they required visor masks.

The point I am trying to make is that an alligator clip attached to a loop inside of the mesh of the mask is knocked off much less often than one connected to either the bib or the metal mesh rim. I am not saying it was never knocked off but it was less often by a factor of 10 or better.

This exact configuration is not what I am suggesting. What would probably work is a loop of Lame material just below the elastic band. It would certainly work for conventional masks and probably for X-change as well.

I originally started doing this just to avoid wear on the bib. I have used this type of loop for at least 10 years quite successfully. I have also provided this to other fencers who have used them extensively. Another advantage is that conventional mask cords, including coiled cords, can be used. Any system that uses a snap or other electrical connection means you have to stock another item of fencing equipment and cords might differ for every mask manufacturer.

[Barry Paul]

What ever system you use the mesh must not be able to short to the lame on the bib or the wire from bib to jacket.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

What ever system you use the mesh must not be able to short to the lame on the bib or the wire from bib to jacket.

Certainly. If you use conventional mask cords, you might have to have a nonconductive shroud over most of the alligator. Clear tubing fixed in position with tape perhaps. I do think being able to use conventional articles with minimal adaption is an advantage.

[Purple Fencer]

Or someone could go beat some sense into the FIE and get them to stop messing with things just for the sake of doing so...but that wold actually make sense...

[Barry Paul]

At international level lame bibs will make foil fencing fairer. In 15 hits 1 or 2 hits land on an over large bib which in theory is legal but have been designed to cover the maximum of the target.

[Pescados666]

I made this horrible example of my idea.
[img=http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/181/maskbiblamethingdc2.th.png]

Sorry the picture is so big with white space, paint.net doesn't have a trim option.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

At international level lame bibs will make foil fencing fairer. In 15 hits 1 or 2 hits land on an over large bib which in theory is legal but have been designed to cover the maximum of the target.

Is this the official reasoning behind the rule change? If so, I can accept it. Otherwise, it is silly.

Also, is there any reason to suspect/worry that some strange wording in the rules will mean that the XChange mask won't be legal? I love my XChange mask and would hate to have to stop using it.

[Foilling Around]

The simple fact is that the safety consideration which lead to larger bibs has been hijacked to provide coverage of valid target. As the flick has been reduced in effectiveness this has become more obvious and lead to the rise of the counter-attack as too dominant in foil. This is an attempt to redress the balance.

The next step will be to re-introduce the uppersword arm as target area (as I gather it used to be in the dim and distant past), thus making it even more difficult to hide valid target behind non-valid target and just stick your arm out.

(Typed by a very attacking minded foilist who loses his rag with the "squirm and poke" brigade)

[InFerrumVeritas]

Originally Posted by Foilling Around

The simple fact is that the safety consideration which lead to larger bibs has been hijacked to provide coverage of valid target. As the flick has been reduced in effectiveness this has become more obvious and lead to the rise of the counter-attack as too dominant in foil. This is an attempt to redress the balance.

The next step will be to re-introduce the uppersword arm as target area (as I gather it used to be in the dim and distant past), thus making it even more difficult to hide valid target behind non-valid target and just stick your arm out.

(Typed by a very attacking minded foilist who loses his rag with the "squirm and poke" brigade)

When was the arm target? I seem to have read the opposite, and that the upper arm was constantly "introduced" and then rejected. The bib I can understand, but hitting the arm seems to go against the theory in foil. Also, you'd have tons of conflicting ideas of how much of the arm must be covered. It would be a purchasing nightmare.

[fatfencer]

So sometime in the 20's.

Anyhoo...Barry, whats this about 'overlarge' bibs that you were talking about in an earlier post? Something about fairer on an international level. Who makes masks with overlarge bibs in your opinion?

Finally Pescados has a pretty cool idea. The retractable thing can be found on many key fobs. Many marketing companies that make pens, mugs and office gadgets with companies' names on them have fobs with retractable things on them.

Fatfencer

[rudd]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

Anyhoo...Barry, whats this about 'overlarge' bibs that you were talking about in an earlier post? Something about fairer on an international level. Who makes masks with overlarge bibs in your opinion?
Fatfencer

I would imagine it's all manufacturers. Compare this picture of a foil bib from 1955 and a modern bib. The one of the 50's cover little if any of the valid target. Obviously the larger lame provide more protection. That said I also agree that the main reason for the introduction is to try and reduce the prevalence of the counter attack.

[SJCFU#2]

Originally Posted by rudd

I would imagine it's all manufacturers. Compare this picture of a foil bib from 1955 and a modern bib. The one of the 50's cover little if any of the valid target. Obviously the larger lame provide more protection. That said I also agree that the main reason for the introduction is to try and reduce the prevalence of the counter attack.

Bear in mind that the regulations regarding bib size have changed a bit over the years.

IIRC the rules regarding the foil bib used to say something about not extending below the collarbone. Since the rules regarding épée bibs included a requirement to "extend below the prominences of the collar bones (clavicles)" (a requirement that is still there), the maximum size for a foil bib was smaller than the minimum size for an épée bib. This essentially meant there could be no such thing as a foil/épée mask, not that most people paid much heed at the time.

The rules regarding bib size were changed some time in the 90's to the current "a total height of the order of 10–12 cm." for all weapons. I trust that Barry will correct me if I am wrong on this, but I seem to recall him having posted that Leon Paul chose to size their bibs closer to the minimum. Other manufacturers chose to size their bibs closer to the maximum.

This increase in bib size probably led to the first proposals to make the bib target back to the late 90's, however unintended consequences of the recent timing changes have led to pushes for other changes as well. My understanding is that the Italian federation proposed what they felt was a relatively modest change in part to head off some of the more drastic changes which were floating around.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by rudd

I would imagine it's all manufacturers. Compare this picture of a foil bib from 1955 and a modern bib. The one of the 50's cover little if any of the valid target. Obviously the larger lame provide more protection. That said I also agree that the main reason for the introduction is to try and reduce the prevalence of the counter attack.

I love the hand position there too. Obviously the withdrawn arm is a terrible recent invention .

[Alex_Paul]

Over large bibs are exactly why the rule has come in I am not sure why firming up the rules wouldn't have worked but hey ho...

there is a defined bib length of 10 - 12 cm but no defined area or definition of the shape. Bibs can be v shaped and not cover too much or U shaped and cover more target on either side. At the extreme end some bibs are very wide and cover a lot of target to the left and right of the bib's centre line.

Another problem is that there is no definition of the size of mask that is acceptable, a small person wearing a large mask with lots of padding under the chin can move the whole bib downwards. On a short, petite woman foilist for example a combination of a large mask where the mesh ends well below the chin, a 12cm long bib and a wide bib shape can cover a lot of target.

Lames are getting smaller too, at the WC's someone who shall remain unidentified was pulled up for having a narrow lame that didn't fit on the shoulders and had a high waist and scalloped crotch. When challenged they shrugged and went and got their legal lame out their bag. Having two sets of gear like that is low but people will do it to get themselves an edge.

[fencerbill]

Originally Posted by fatfencer

So sometime in the 20's.

Anyhoo...Barry, whats this about 'overlarge' bibs that you were talking about in an earlier post? Something about fairer on an international level. Who makes masks with overlarge bibs in your opinion?

Finally Pescados has a pretty cool idea. The retractable thing can be found on many key fobs. Many marketing companies that make pens, mugs and office gadgets with companies' names on them have fobs with retractable things on them.

Fatfencer

Retractables that conduct? Not sure that marketing companies have them.

Another nightmare. "It must have been intermittent. I am sure I hit on the conductive Lame."

Be happy there are at least coiled cords.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Alex_Paul

Lames are getting smaller too, at the WC's someone who shall remain unidentified was pulled up for having a narrow lame that didn't fit on the shoulders and had a high waist and scalloped crotch. When challenged they shrugged and went and got their legal lame out their bag. Having two sets of gear like that is low but people will do it to get themselves an edge.

No no no....

This is GOOD gossip! Don't just say "nameless person" tell us who it was!

[Barry Paul]

Originally Posted by SJCFU#2

Bear in mind that the regulations regarding bib size have changed a bit over the years.

I
The rules regarding bib size were changed some time in the 90's to the current "a total height of the order of 10–12 cm." for all weapons. I trust that Barry will correct me if I am wrong on this, but I seem to recall him having posted that Leon Paul chose to size their bibs closer to the minimum. Other manufacturers chose to size their bibs closer to the maximum.

.

When we first made bib to the new rules they come out especially for the small and medium sizes nearer 10 than 12. Unfortunately due to pressure from fencers we have been forced to move towards 12, and moving away from a natural v shape towards a u shape.

[erik_blank]

Bump?