Basic Safety

[Rockstar44]

The uniform was Allstar 800 N and the blade was manufactured in 1996 but broke without shard. In other words the material was as required.

As to the point of penetration it appears that it was through the material since the Polish delegate did not make any reference to seams. The entry point was just above the elbow crease at the biceps. The epee stump did slide along the inside of the arm and penetrated in the armpit area.

Dr. Fiore's supposition is that the only possible cause of death was a damage to the armpit artery and consequent hemorrhage.

This is what I was looking for. Thank you.

[I_luv_saber]

Moral of the story: Fencing in dangerous, you can wear all the appropriate clothing, fencing properly with control, and still get killed. Unless you had magic eyes that could detect a carbon flaw in the tip of your opponents weapon, there was no prior warning of what happened.

So don't blame this poor dead kid for what happened, fencing is dangerous.

No more dangerous than any other sport and the risks associated with them.

The point is, if you are wearing all of your safety equipment and are conscientious about your gear and safety in general, you are vastly minimizing your risks and are far less likely to suffer an accident. This isn't simply with fencing, it's true with everything that has an element of risk.

Just because I could die in a plane crash doesn't mean that flying is dangerous (implication being it is MORE dangerous than, say, driving), and doesn't mean a pre-flight is futile. You'd be surprised how often a pre-flight really does save lives, and I'm sure this is the case with a plastron as well. Truth is, we can never know for sure... there's always a "what if" element. But better safe than sorry, IMO.

I don't think anyone is blaming the kid for what happened per se. Indeed, a plastron STILL may not have saved him. But it doesn't mean it wouldn't have, and I would wager that in most situations it actually does it's job. The moral of the story still stands: Always wear your gear, and wear it properly. No, there's no 100% safety zone... hell, there's not even that sitting at home typing on my computer! It's all about bringing the risks to a minimum where we feel they are somewhat negligible.

$.02

[chinbeard]

So I need to look into getting a long-sleeved plastron...

[Superscribe]

1) Fencing can be DANGEROUS.
2) plastrons are IMPORTANT.

I made these points in the last thread that ended up on a trainwreck. I think i was the only person there to do that. I maintain these two points are the take aways from the incident.

Let's assume these are a given though. Lets explore some other non-obvious points.

First, why is the number 800N for the jacket? This number obviously isn't enough, unless the jacket was meant to be paired with a plastron by design. I don't think that's the case. I think the plastron was added for redundency. This is different from factory of safety. One means, having two engines on a plane because if one fails, you can still fly. The other means, making sure your engine doesn't fail from normal use.

I bring this up because aside from a number stamped on a jacket, maybe some other qualifers should be included, like maximum lifetime. Maybe 800N should be boosted up enough, because it doesn't seem to be enough. I mean this wasn't a freak accident. This wasn't an extreme, with two goliaths charging at each other with pointed weapons. This was exactly what fencing jackets were designed to stop.

[Allen Evans]

If I wear a jacket once a year, for 4-5 bouts, what's the lifetime of my jacket? If I wear a jacket every day, for 15-20 bouts, what's the lifetime of my jacket? Unless we go to an airplane-style log of uses and washes, I don't think that affixing an "expiration date" to a jacket is going to provide additional safety.

What would the mobility of a 1600 N (or 1800, or 2000 N) jacket be like? At a certain point, no matter how high tech, increased protection is going to limit mobility. (I have no information on the decision to rate the jacket at 800N. It seems on odd number not to be based on a mixture of science and compromise).

[Pieter]

Sorry Scribe, I really can't agree with number 1. Because saying fencing can be dangerous is like saying that pool can be dangerous, cooking can be dangerous, or woodshop can be dangerous.

Yes, there's the occasional wild factor that can lead to imminent death, but I'll be damned if I think that there is any 'equipment' at fault here. I would feel user error is more at risk, because I do agree with your point #2, something he disregarded.

[erooMynohtnA]

So I need to look into getting a long-sleeved plastron...

Yes. It's called a jacket.

Just so you will feel safe, I will throw out some fake information for you. The jacket was 350 N, and the blade penetrated an already existing hole from a cigarette burn. The blade had also been sharpened to a needle point by the break.

So now you can wear your FIE jacket and feel really good, because nothing bad can possibly happen to you, because nothing bad can possibly ever happen to anyone wearing FIE stuff. Just make sure you wear your socks, because we all know that's wear the real safety happens.

[Pieter]

Fencing has one death once in a blue moon, and people panic?

My god people, this is the kind of panic and unfounded outrage that's wrong with the world.

[Alexander Kai]

I bring this up because aside from a number stamped on a jacket, maybe some other qualifers should be included, like maximum lifetime. Maybe 800N should be boosted up enough, because it doesn't seem to be enough. I mean this wasn't a freak accident. This wasn't an extreme, with two goliaths charging at each other with pointed weapons. This was exactly what fencing jackets were designed to stop.

As Allen Evans also mentioned, it can be hard to determine a jacket's lifetime based on the number of uses, but perhaps a guideline should be placed with the equipment... something like "If used competitively this jacket's life should be approximately 5 years." Or something to that affect.

[cbcarey]

The entry point was just above the elbow crease at the biceps. The epee stump did slide along the inside of the arm and penetrated in the armpit area.

I agree with fencing with full protection. In this particular case, with that entry location, I do not think the plastron would have made a difference. My FIE plastron goes down the arm, but it ends before the elbow. If he had been penetrated at this location, the epee would already be into the skin and therefore would have bypassed the protection of the plastron.

[Superscribe]

If I wear a jacket once a year, for 4-5 bouts, what's the lifetime of my jacket? If I wear a jacket every day, for 15-20 bouts, what's the lifetime of my jacket? Unless we go to an airplane-style log of uses and washes, I don't think that affixing an "expiration date" to a jacket is going to provide additional safety.

What would the mobility of a 1600 N (or 1800, or 2000 N) jacket be like? At a certain point, no matter how high tech, increased protection is going to limit mobility. (I have no information on the decision to rate the jacket at 800N. It seems on odd number not to be based on a mixture of science and compromise).

I won't say that it is simple to track the wear and tear of a jacket. I'm only curious if it's worth it. Like i mentioned in an earlier post, I've recently decided I'm going to work paintball into as many posts as I can:

In paintball there are compressed air tanks to shoot paintballs. Everyone serious about paintball uses compressed air (HPA). They hold up to about 4500psi in pressure. That's a lot. If the tanks leak or fail, fatality is a possibility. It's understood that loading and unloading these high pressure tanks results in wear, and these tanks won't last forever. As a result, they test them, and then certify them for a period of time. They struck a compromise and didn't care about how many times you use it, under what conditions you use it, etc. but they still do the test. Here is a real life example of how affixing an expiration date provides additional safety in the minds of an organization other than the FIE. Think to yourself if washing your uniform in an approved specified signicantly affects the ability of your jacket to withstand puncture.



Also, maybe instead of a simple tensile test (which is what we use now?) maybe we do a different test. Maybe we do a modification of a punch test.

I ride motorcycles, and race them in an organization. We used to have helmets tested to pass a SNELL rating. SNELL was like THE test to pass. It turns out that in obtaining a SNELL certification, manufacturers had to make helmets very rigid. TOO rigid. There were questions about the the benefits of having a helmet too rigid. A new form of certification came out with a completely different test to(ECE). These helmets were softer, and absorbed energy better. The method for testing to obtain ECE certifaction and SNELL certification was published, analyzed, and lots of people started going with helmets that passed ECE certification, instead of SNELL. Not just recreational riders, but kneedragging track racers have gone to ECE rated helmets instead of SNELL rated helmets.

[Superscribe]

Fencing has one death once in a blue moon, and people panic?

My god people, this is the kind of panic and unfounded outrage that's wrong with the world.

This is not panic and unfounded outrage. That's not a good assessment of the discussion i'm trying to have. I'm still fencing for about 3 hours a day. I don't think anybody has stopped fencing because of this. I still wear my allstar uniform. I don't plan on making any ridiculous lawsuit against allstar.

What's happening is people are remembering to use their equipment like it was designed. Further, I'm hoping people are thinking about if there should be a new way of doing things, because this new way might not cost more, might result in more comfortable clothing, and that clothing might be safer.

It's called progress.

As for my original points 1 and 2, they were designed to be obvious and trivial, simply because that particular thread was derailing, i thought it would be funny to state the obvious and trivial.

[DangerMouse]

I have no information on the decision to rate the jacket at 800N. It seems on odd number not to be based on a mixture of science and compromise.

I also don't know for sure, but from what I've heard about the FIE homologation process, I suspect 800NW is consistent with the existing European (CEN) standards for personal protective equipment.

[dekko]

Don't assume a plastron would have helped. Sure, wear your plastron, but honestly, this sport isn't 100% safe even if you do everything properly.

There is no question what happened was horrible and tragic. There have been lots of posts about the jacket and blade and how the plastron should have been worn andthe like. If anyone really thinks that a broken blade headed towards a fencer that has enough force to go through the jacket then the into to body would really be slowed down or stopped by a plastron, probably not. If a broken blade has enough force to go through a balistic nylon, or like material, jacket then enter the body it's not likely to either be stopped cold and deflected or even slowed down enough prevent a potentially fatal injury.

I would be very interested in seeing one of the equipment suppliers run a test where a swatch of this material is subject to a fencer with a strong advance lunge or fleche straight at the materail and see how far it goes through, if it does. Then try the same test with the swatch, then another right behind it(plastron) and see if it goes through and how far. I suspect that if the blade goes through the first swtach it will go through the second and the amount of blade on the other side of the swatches is not significaltly affected.

Badpenny is right, the supposition that a plastron in this case would have prevented this death is incorrect. Now, don't misunderstand, I am all for wearing a plastron and personally own the FIE version hoping it will help but I do know that if a broken blade ever pierced my jacket the plastron is likely to have little effect and a serious injury will happen. This sport, like all others, has it's dangers and until a plaston with some metal reinforcement can be developed that does not weigh too much or hinder the actions of a fencer, this sort of situation will happen again. Blades basically do 3 things, poke people, hit people and break. We all just hope when they break, because they will, we are not seriously injured in the aftermath.

[SJCFU#2]

I also don't know for sure, but from what I've heard about the FIE homologation process, I suspect 800NW is consistent with the existing European (CEN) standards for personal protective equipment.

More likely 800N was written into the European standard in order to be consistent with existing FIE requirements, given that the FIE stared specifying minimum strength for uniforms back in the 80's and the current version of EN 13567 wasn't issued until 2002.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I would be very interested in seeing one of the equipment suppliers run a test where a swatch of this material is subject to a fencer with a strong advance lunge or fleche straight at the materail and see how far it goes through, if it does. Then try the same test with the swatch, then another right behind it(plastron) and see if it goes through and how far. {snip}

This thread suggests that may have been done, though the specifics discussed were using a knife on a pig carcass protected by various things.

--Philistine

[NGV]

I ride motorcycles, and race them in an organization.

Wait - you ride motorcycles (a highly and unavoidably dangerous activity), and yet you're worried about the adequacy of standards for fencing uniforms based on a single incident? That seems strange.

Even fencing in outdated, dilapidated equipment is almost certainly much more safe than riding a motorcycle (let alone racing them).

[erooMynohtnA]

Superscribe is not just having a freakout here, guys. He's not "worried" about his safety. He's asking questions to determine whether fencing is as safe as it can reasonably be, and if the safety protocols could be easily modified to yield benefits.

He's not asking these questions out of paranoia, he's asking them as an engineering problem.

For instance, 800 Newtons might be too much protection. 800 N fabric might not outperform 600 N in any meaningful way. However, 870 N might be the exact threshhold at which a fencer becomes nearly impervious to broken blades. Then the question is why 800 and not 600? Why not 870?

[chinbeard]

He's not the only worried party. I believe the WHO declared fencing accidents to be a bigger problem than swine flu.

According to Alex Paul, he could penetrate 2 layers of 800n material, but not 3. So why not wear 2 plastrons? Or maybe use some of that ultra-thin stuff that Absolute has and make a 2-layer jacket? I don't think that would hinder movement any more than some of the jackets out there.

[Philistine]

{snip}According to Alex Paul, he could penetrate 2 layers of 800n material, but not 3.
{snip}

With a knife!

While I'm certainly in favor of basing standards on actual testing and the types of dangers actually expected, rather than just arbitrarily picking a number out of thin air--there are competing issues such cost, ease of movement, cleanability, etc. in increasing the protection.

--Philistine