m.11 1. The diameter of the pointe d’arręt is between 5.5 mm and 7 mm;
the diameter of the body of the barrel including its exterior
insulation must not be more than 0.3 mm less than that of the pointe
d’arręt.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time SEMI has approved a device that didn't actually conform to the rules.
The picture on the NextGen on their site is a bit small. When my next batch comes in I'll look to see if the FIE08 is on the barrel or only on the tip.
Uh...not necessarily. It IS and FIE rule, isn't it?
So's the shim for foil....it's still on the books, right?
as far as the ID of the test weight...that's never been standardized in the first place...and if it fits over an epee tip, it should fit over a foil one...epees are larger.
Also...14 layers of tape binds up just as well as a narrow weight hole.
There should be a rationale for the rule...there IS a rationale for the 15cm tape rule (15cm is enough to make it very unlikely that bare metal will touch that lame and short out the signal...but longer might leave a non-conductive place to hit).
There's also a clear basis for the dimensions of the epee tip under the insulator...damned if I can remember it off hand, tho.
Remember what Donald says....don't learn the rules...UNDERSTAND them....that's what I'm getting at here.
I see no competitive advantage or disadvantage to the Xtra barrels...I DO see a benefit thanks to the now RARE incidence of smashes screws and dented barrel jams....I think I've seen one of each in the 2 years or so I've been selling the point....compared to practically every week (multiple times) on the old, thinner barrels.
But if you don't understand a rule you still have to follow it!! I don't think that speed limits that were set 100 years ago when cars had terrible brakes, no grip, no impact protection cells and no airbags make much sense but I still have to adhere to them.
For fencing, why the hell are the tabs on Lame jackets so big? It was an arbitrary size chosen by the FIE and in reality it is way bigger than it needs to be but we still all make to that size.
Purple, it seems to me that you are arguing that if you don't understand the rules it is OK not to stick to them...?
But if you don't understand a rule you still have to follow it!! I don't think that speed limits that were set 100 years ago when cars had terrible brakes, no grip, no impact protection cells and no airbags make much sense but I still have to adhere to them.
For fencing, why the hell are the tabs on Lame jackets so big? It was an arbitrary size chosen by the FIE and in reality it is way bigger than it needs to be but we still all make to that size.
Purple, it seems to me that you are arguing that if you don't understand the rules it is OK not to stick to them...?
Alex, I am ashamed of you. You should have checked your own rulebook and told them the tip does not go against M.11.
Remember the U.S. and Great Britain are divided by a common language.
If you look at the French FIE rule book you will see the phrase 'courps du bouton', which is correctly translated in the British rule book as 'body of the button'.
This has nothing to do with the barrel.
Now the reason for the rule.
If the insulation on the tip went out to far it could with a hit from the side insulate the tip from let us say the guard and cause an off-target.
Will someone pass this on to the FOC. I don't believe me suggesting it would go over well.
I should have suggested looking at M.19.1 as that gives a good explanation as it pertains to Epee. Figure 11 is actually on page 52. I am not sure where they got 85.
The rule I believe stems from the attached PDF which shows that the outer diameter of the base must be .3mm smaller than the outer diameter of the point.
The rule I believe stems from the attached PDF which shows that the outer diameter of the base must be .3mm smaller than the outer diameter of the point.
Alex
And that a design is almost 50 years old!!
I'm wondering now if the rule re the barrel you're objecting to WAS relevant with the old pineapple tip the pdf shows, but is no longer relevant to the flat-headed tip we use now...and no one removed the rule.
So from a design standpoint, why would you have to have the barrel be narrower than the tip on the pineapple? The only thing I can think of this early in the morning would be that a wider barrel might make it diffcilt for that last ridge to catch the lame, possibly costing the fencer a point....something which is NOT relevant with a more modern flat-headed tip.
When Peter Brand replaced Ben Zivkovic as coach at Harvard, I helped reorganize things. There were a number of the pineapple points in a storage cabinet.
Wouldn't be surprised if Henry Haroutounian at Yale also has some. He NEVER throws anything out.
With respect to all, anyone can put a logo on something, it isn't proof that it 100% is legal. Shock horror, there are jackets with FIE 800N marked on them being sold at the moment in the USA which are not 800N. But that is another story...
Essentially all of the rules are remenants from years ago, they aren't changed unless there is good reason. The argument "that rule is old" doesn't really wash.
The 0.3mm talked about in the current rules to my mind clearly comes from the 0.3mm on that pdf and is defining the maximum size of the barrel with respect to the point.
Purley from a logic point of view pinapple or otherwise it makes sense to have the point larger than the barrel. If you make the two the same size when tape is added the base becomes wider than the point. It therfore makes sense that if the point ought to be wider than the barrel there should be a rule about how much wider. Hence M11.1 IMOHO.
Originally Posted by brtech 
