Basic Safety

[chinbeard]

Maybe we can talk him into breaking an epee blade and flecheing into another pig? (And of course, posting the video of this on YouTube.)

[foibles]

I don't think that affixing an "expiration date" to a jacket is going to provide additional safety.

You can increase compliance through a system of planned degradation that forces a competitive fencer to discard gear years before the gear quality is actually compromised... like sticking a piece of lame material on a bib, for example.

[oiuyt]

Note that the FIE used to have a policy of enforced "expiration dates" on blades. Eventually they decided, pretty much for the reasons that Allen outlines with regards to the lifetime of clothing vs. real-world time, that the policy didn't make much sense and removed the rule.

On the other hand, the FIE does currently have an "expiration date" policy for the lexan shields in lexan masks.

The FIE has used the mechanism in the past and is using it currently. It's not a new suggestion, although I have to say I don't think it's a very good or appropriate one for clothing.

-B

[vivoescrimare]

I also made a point in the previous thread - one which I still stand by :

Your safety is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. I'm sure there are extremists who think that wearing a plastron is useless, much like many people insist that wearing a seatbelt actually means you are MORE likely to be injured. Either could be right, most likely both are wrong (Except in fluke, one in a million out of the already one in a million situations where a blade breaks and gets shoved into a fencer.)

There are rules in place - if those rules are observed MOST (not all, because there is virtually nothing that can be done to keep potentially dangerous accidents from happening in a full-contact COMBATIVE sport) accidents can be averted without crisis. If the LETTER of those rules is obeyed while the SPIRIT of the rules is flouted (Wearing a plastron with the sleeve torn off, wearing a jacket that IS FIE and technically meets FIE standards but is so outdated as to be useless) people can (and will get hurt.)

I feel time and energy can be better served 1.) Endorsing safety precautions and encouraging people to follow them, even in practice, and 2.) For those of us knowledgeable and qualified enough to do so, engineering better, safer protective gear and weapons.

[gladius]

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.

Nearly 20 years ago I suffered a very similar accident. I was wearing my plastron and it didn't do squat.

(emphasis mine)

Thank you for sharing your experience. I took the liberty to send what you wrote to Dr. Antonio Fiore for his discussions inside the FIE medical commission. Hopefully things like these will not happen again...

It is sad to realize that in 20 years since your brush with death, not much has changed.

If anyone has had an incident or is aware of one, please share it. Now there is someone at least willing to listen and do something about it, AND let us know about it. See, there is some progress, after all...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


OK, I am donning engineer hat here:

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.

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:

It is too much to ask of people - except the most exacting of us - to count # of fencing hours and # washes so that one knows when to ditch a garment before it can be expected to go bad.

However, the counting process can be automated. Imagine a pair of small cloth panels affixed to the inside of the garment. See too it that both panels have the same color type, but differing color intensity. The color should be noticeably different from the usual white. The first panel is a lighter shade of the color, and it has been dyed with an extremely fading-resistant coloration. The second panel has been dyed to a more saturade shade, but with a dye which bleeds out a little when exposed to sweat or washing.

At first, the 2nd panel is more strongly colored than the 1st, but with use and recurrent washing their shades get closer. Once they appear to have the same shade, the garment is considered aged-out and is to thrown away, or confiscated by competition authorities.

The pros of this solution are threefold: it does not require any bookkeeping, it takes into account varying intensities of garment use, and inspection is easy.

There will be some bugs to sort out, but nothing that can not be solved.

There are also somewhat more complex solutions, which are based on small electronic things being sewn into the cloth. Those can then be interrogated with specialized equipment. Such systems are now in the late stages of prototyping for other uses, and unit costs are predicted to be quite reasonable - a few bucks or so.

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.

A potential problem with any type of punch test is that one does not know if one is testing on a bad or good patch of the cloth, unless one tests every spot on the garment, which is prohibitively time-consuming. The colored panels solution that I outlined above does not have that limitation.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[foibles]

And... there we have it.

[Superscribe]

Hi!


OK, I am donning engineer hat here:




It is too much to ask of people - except the most exacting of us - to count # of fencing hours and # washes so that one knows when to ditch a garment before it can be expected to go bad.

However, the counting process can be automated. Imagine a pair of small cloth panels affixed to the inside of the garment. See too it that both panels have the same color type, but differing color intensity. The color should be noticeably different from the usual white. The first panel is a lighter shade of the color, and it has been dyed with an extremely fading-resistant coloration. The second panel has been dyed to a more saturade shade, but with a dye which bleeds out a little when exposed to sweat or washing.

At first, the 2nd panel is more strongly colored than the 1st, but with use and recurrent washing their shades get closer. Once they appear to have the same shade, the garment is considered aged-out and is to thrown away, or confiscated by competition authorities.

The pros of this solution are threefold: it does not require any bookkeeping, it takes into account varying intensities of garment use, and inspection is easy.

There will be some bugs to sort out, but nothing that can not be solved.

There are also somewhat more complex solutions, which are based on small electronic things being sewn into the cloth. Those can then be interrogated with specialized equipment. Such systems are now in the late stages of prototyping for other uses, and unit costs are predicted to be quite reasonable - a few bucks or so.



A potential problem with any type of punch test is that one does not know if one is testing on a bad or good patch of the cloth, unless one tests every spot on the garment, which is prohibitively time-consuming. The colored panels solution that I outlined above does not have that limitation.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

I think what you would have is a patent infringement on technology used by oral-B. But that's the kind of thing i'm talking about.

[Purple Fencer]

What would the mobility of a 1600 N (or 1800, or 2000 N) jacket be like?

Dan DeChaine told us about that exact thing at Armorer's College...the test guy could barely move.

[Superscribe]

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).

Yes I do ride motorcycles very fast, and yes I am stil worried about the adequacy of standards for fencign uniforms.

I have a good understanding of the technology designed for safety in motorcycles. I see the benefits, and their shortcomings. I accept them.

I have some understanding of the technology designed for fencing. I see their benefits, and their shortcomings. I don't accept them.

When i buy a bolt designed to hold 200 lb for a 10 lb swinging chair, and my 190 lb friend sits on it, i expect the bolt to hold, and not rip in half. I don't expect the manufacturer of the bolt to tell me, "oh well didn't actually test to see if the 200 lb bolt would withstand 200lb the way it would be used 99% of the time. We tested it in a completely different way that was not-relevent to it's actual usage. We decided this was sufficient. Sorry your friend broke his wrist from the fall. Wait a second, you race motorcycles. Why are you worried about a little broken wrist anyway?"

If you told me that, you had better be over a phone or a computer screen, because i'd go wayne brady and start choking.

That's the kind of asinine response i'd expect only from the idiots who concieved the tremendous disaster that was the Maginot Line. Oh wait. How about that?

[misha]

Nearly 20 years ago I suffered a very similar accident. I was wearing my plastron and it didn't do squat.

20 years ago.... was it 800 N plastron & 800 N Jacket?

Just curious


Another thought: 800 + 800 = 1600 (Mask Bib requirement)
Which seems to be logical and points out that 1600 total is required for most vulnerable areas

.

[oiuyt]

20 years ago.... was it 800 N plastron & 800 N Jacket?

Probably an 800/350N Jacket if it was FIE.

For those not familiar, 800N on the torso, 350N for limbs was the FIE standard prior to 800N everywhere.

-B

[snarsdale]

It has always seemed somewhat ridiculous to me that jackets AND plastrons are required (and made). Did the sport start with jackets, and later add the requirement for plastrons?
The real question is: Since BOTH are required, why are jackets not designed with plastrons being integral in their construction? That way, at least, human nature would not lead you to wear one without the other.

[erooMynohtnA]

Leon Paul does make a jacket with plastron in it. As I recall it's just a club practice jacket. It's also an innovation that would prevent me from buying that jacket for myself.

[SJCFU#2]

Did the sport start with jackets, and later add the requirement for plastrons?

I believe that's exactly what happened. IIRC about fifty years ago someone noticed that the majority of the fatalities listed in the FIE records involved chest wounds. Since then the number of officially recorded fatalities involving chest wounds has dropped significantly.

[nahouw]

It has always seemed somewhat ridiculous to me that jackets AND plastrons are required (and made). Did the sport start with jackets, and later add the requirement for plastrons?

Yes. The problem with injuries and the protective equipment required is part of the evolution of the sport and the quest for countries quest for medals -- remember, fencing is the art of defence -- in the interest of spectators understanding the sport, the change of scoring from "points against" to "points for" fostered a more aggressive attacking style, with disregard for the opponent, disregard for the actions you would take if the weapons were sharp, disregard for the martial arts aspect of the sport. You can read an article I wrote in the FIE magazine several years ago where I discussed this and how to rectify the situation and make our sport more understandable to the public.

[oiuyt]

You can read an article I wrote in the FIE magazine several years ago where I discussed this and how to rectify the situation and make our sport more understandable to the public.

Link or attachment?

-B

[KD5MDK]

I asked Dan about the 800N number in Portland. He said they did tests and determined 350N would stop 95%* of broken blades. Then they doubled that number and added another 100N for good measure.



* Or maybe it was 99 or something, I misremember. A very high % in any case.

[Purple Fencer]

I asked Dan about the 800N number in Portland. He said they did tests and determined 350N would stop 95%* of broken blades. Then they doubled that number and added another 100N for good measure.



* Or maybe it was 99 or something, I misremember. A very high % in any case.

And sometimes the material actually tests higher than 800N....I had a sample of Dyneema once that tested around the 860 mark...

[pinkelephant]

Yes. The problem with injuries and the protective equipment required is part of the evolution of the sport and the quest for countries quest for medals -- remember, fencing is the art of defence -- in the interest of spectators understanding the sport, the change of scoring from "points against" to "points for" fostered a more aggressive attacking style, with disregard for the opponent, disregard for the actions you would take if the weapons were sharp, disregard for the martial arts aspect of the sport. You can read an article I wrote in the FIE magazine several years ago where I discussed this and how to rectify the situation and make our sport more understandable to the public.

The majority of fatalities, including that of Vincent Bonfil which initiated the development of the plastron, occurred well before the change from "hits against" to "hits for". The change of scoring was simply to make fencing easier to understand for the spectators. I started fencing in the mid-60s and I can't say there has been any step-change in attacking style except for the increased defensiveness at foil caused by the new timings. The time for a pool bout used to be much longer.