Basic Safety

[foibles]

... 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.

I'm not sure "point for" is what turned the parry-riposte game of the 80's into the attacking style you mentioned. I always kinda thought the marching flick attack did that.

The only real change I recall from the "points for" decision is that you had to plug your reel cords in funny after that.

(But... I was just a collegiate salle-rat in Texas at the time, and there's a lot I didn't see.)

[oiuyt]

The only real change I recall from the "points for" decision is that you had to plug your reel cords in funny after that.

That was when we changed which side the light lit when a touch was recorded on the apparatus.

The touch-against to touch-for change preceded that.

-B

[jeff]

I don't think touches-for vs. touches-against changed the dynamics of fencing - it's purely a bookkeeping thing. And changing the lights just provided a WONDERFUL way of confusing everybody during the transition years. Or, to this very day, if you see a video before the switch.

My first recollection of 'why you where a plastron' was circa 1970 (long before either change) when a very good foilist named Reggie Spooner (Salle Santelli) told me about getting a punctured lung from a broken blade when he fenced without one. From then on: a plastron, always, whether practice or competition.

[Philistine]

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.

???

According to Epidemiology of Sports Injuries, D. Caine, C. Caine, K. Lindner (eds.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 186-195 (1996), since 1938 (until 1996), there have been seven fencing fatalities. Four of them were thoracic penetrations, two before plastrons, two after (and the ones after were using plastrons).

There does not seem to be a drop--and, really how "significant" is any drop when your sample size is five or less over 30 years?

Proper use of safety equipment is important, and advances in technology should be incorporated in making fencing even safer--but it's really not a particularlly dangerous sport compared to, say, the dangers from being killed by a pitched or hit baseball.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

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.

No...no...but there have probably been more people killed by being hit by meteors than in modern fencing accidents.

Perhaps I shall design a steel umbrella to ward off just such a fate.

it pushed the material from my plastron up my shoulder. I have a small scar over my bicept from the blade slicing me thre. The blade then went in my shoulder when the bunched up material wouldn't stretch anymore, just above the bicept,

So, it sounds as though the blade went under the plastron, rather than through it?

If so, it doesn't exactly address the issue of whether this particular kid would be alive had he been wearing one.

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.

Define "reasonable". Then we can all argue over where we should draw the line.

Everything is a trade-off. In this case, it's between safety and comfort/mobility/expense. As it is we have guys who won't wear cups because they're "too uncomfortable". And as we see, who don't wear plastrons because they are uncomfortable or hot.

We might get more protection from penetrating injuries and an increase in heat-exhaustion and -stroke. Maybe not such a good bargain...

[misha]

According to Epidemiology of Sports Injuries, D. Caine, C. Caine, K. Lindner (eds.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 186-195 (1996), since 1938 (until 1996), there have been seven fencing fatalities.
....
--Philistine

I suspect that number of fatalities is much higher that that.
These 7 are the ones that were publicized in American Fencing magazine
and a couple of other sources. I doubt that a lot of local level incidents all over the world were/are getting press coverage in US or FIE literature...


.

[erooMynohtnA]

I suspect that number of fatalities is much higher that that.
These 7 are the ones that were publicized in American Fencing magazine
and a couple of other sources. I doubt that a lot of local level incidents all over the world were/are getting press coverage in US or FIE literature...

I disagree. I think that sort of news makes it to the top rather quickly.

[erooMynohtnA]

Define "reasonable". Then we can all argue over where we should draw the line.

I thought that's what was being argued in between the posts I addressed claiming that any such argument was panic.

[Philistine]

I suspect that number of fatalities is much higher that that.
These 7 are the ones that were publicized in American Fencing magazine
and a couple of other sources. I doubt that a lot of local level incidents all over the world were/are getting press coverage in US or FIE literature...
.

It's certainly quite likely that fencing deaths are underreported--especially those from more than 30 or so years ago.

OTOH, IMHO it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the number is "much" higher.

In any event--isn't it pretty much beyond dispute that your chance of being killed is substantially higher in travelling to/from fencing practice or a tournament than it is in actually fencing?

--Philistine

[Superscribe]

"I thought that's what was being argued in between the posts I addressed claiming that any such argument was panic."

That is, indeed, one of the main points i wanted to address when i started this friggin thing.

[nahouw]

Link or attachment?

http://fie.ch/download/magazines/2004/magazine%2047.pdf

[oiuyt]

http://fie.ch/download/magazines/2004/magazine%2047.pdf

Thanks.

-B

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Relevant info about me: I am a MSc. in mechanical engineering, and have worked a significant amount of time with testing of machine parts and systems thereof with regard to their fatigue and wear properties. This probably sounds snotty, but I consider myself more knowlegeable in these matters than the great majority of f.net members.

What about, rather than look at clothing, we look at the blade? Is it possible to make blades that would not break? Is that technology being developed?

On the possibility:
Short answer: No, not practically speaking.
Longer answer: Unbreakable blades would require one of the following:
1. Much wider cross-sections of the blades, so that the stresses are significantly reduced. However, that would be like fencing with rebar, so the total safety level would not be improved, one would just get different types of injuries.
2. A major redesign of the blade, so that they always fail noticeably before they fail catastrophically. While thinkable, such a redesign would entail either a very complex design or a blade with a significantly changed feel to it, probably both
3. A blade made of an alloy with is drastically different compared to the steels we use today. Such a blade would need a somewhat different cross-section in order to compensate for differences in Young´s modulus (and some other parameters, probably) but it should be able to made so that it matches the feel of present blades. However, this would need a rules change, since the present rules specify to quite tight tolerances what alloys may be used. A downside would be that such blades would cost considerably more than Maraging blades. Superalloys are quite costly, and machining them moreso. On the upside, such blades would never rust, and can be expected to outlive their owner. Of these three options, this last one is the most promising IMO. I have written about it in two previous threads.

Never say never (to altering metal fatigue ...). But I'm a historian!

Unless one keeps the stresses below a given limit for every stress cycle, metal fatigue is pretty much a given. That limit depends on the metal/alloy, the environment of the stressed part, the shape of the stress-time cure in general and the maximum stress in particular, the geometry of the part, the load geometry, and a some other parameters. In many cases, the limit is zero - no matter how lightly you stress the part, it will break, given sufficiently many megacycles of load. That is the case for aluminum, for example. Further complicating matters is the observation that it is commong for two parts (which appear to be indentical) which are tested at the the same time and under the same load cycle can have greatly different life lengths - a factor of 10 is not at all unheard of.

Not every accident has been with a broken blade. RuthAnn Hacking had a sabre blade in a whole lot of her forearm without the blade breaking.
Blades breaking can actually be good. If you push a blade against somethin long and hard enough, either it eventually goes through or breaks. The break often gives a very different feel and many react by stopping dead in their tracks.
The trick is that we don't want blades to break too often, and we want them to break cleanly (and in a flat manner) rather than jagged. There has been research done into both. More can always be done, but this angle of the problem has been looked at.

It is possible to test blades to find out whether they are nearing the end of the life. Such testing does not have to deteriorate the blade, but it is presently quite costly and time-consuming. That may change, though.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

http://fie.ch/download/magazines/2004/magazine%2047.pdf

You don't think an immediate adjustment would be to do anything possible (bodily contortions included) to manage to find a way to put a light on with a horribly out-of-time remise just to nullify a riposte?

If I'm out of position and about to get hit, all I have to do is find a way to put a second light on and I'm safe? And this will lead to better, cleaner fencing?

Easier to explain and more objective, yes. Better? I find it hard to believe.

-B

[Superscribe]

It's certainly quite likely that fencing deaths are underreported--especially those from more than 30 or so years ago.

OTOH, IMHO it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the number is "much" higher.

In any event--isn't it pretty much beyond dispute that your chance of being killed is substantially higher in travelling to/from fencing practice or a tournament than it is in actually fencing?

--Philistine

For the record, that's very disputable. You're comparing statistics from two different populations. You have a big rectangle, and inside that rectangle, you have a small circle. you're taking percentages or absolute numbers from the big rectangle, and comparing them with percentages or absolute numbers from the small circle.

I really hope some manufacturers get some gusto and make things more safe or comfortable on their own, even if it isn't mandated by the FIE. I mean, it's a layer of fabric now. They can't stich in some foam on the chest or arms? Put a puncture resistent coating on some key areas?

I've heard of a Leon Paul stabbing something with a knife. Apparently that knife went through 2 layers of 800N easily. Have Alex or Barry, have you done the same thing with a broken Foil or Epee? I'm curious if EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTURER of competitive fencing clothing doesn't do the same thing with a broken epee or foil, just so they can sleep better at night.

[Superscribe]

Hi!


Relevant info about me: I am a MSc. in mechanical engineering, and have worked a significant amount of time with testing of machine parts and systems thereof with regard to their fatigue and wear properties. This probably sounds snotty, but I consider myself more knowlegeable in these matters than the great majority of f.net members.


On the possibility:
Short answer: No, not practically speaking.
Longer answer: Unbreakable blades would require one of the following:
1. Much wider cross-sections of the blades, so that the stresses are significantly reduced. However, that would be like fencing with rebar, so the total safety level would not be improved, one would just get different types of injuries.
2. A major redesign of the blade, so that they always fail noticeably before they fail catastrophically. While thinkable, such a redesign would entail either a very complex design or a blade with a significantly changed feel to it, probably both
3. A blade made of an alloy with is drastically different compared to the steels we use today. Such a blade would need a somewhat different cross-section in order to compensate for differences in Young´s modulus (and some other parameters, probably) but it should be able to made so that it matches the feel of present blades. However, this would need a rules change, since the present rules specify to quite tight tolerances what alloys may be used. A downside would be that such blades would cost considerably more than Maraging blades. Superalloys are quite costly, and machining them moreso. On the upside, such blades would never rust, and can be expected to outlive their owner. Of these three options, this last one is the most promising IMO. I have written about it in two previous threads.



Unless one keeps the stresses below a given limit for every stress cycle, metal fatigue is pretty much a given. That limit depends on the metal/alloy, the environment of the stressed part, the shape of the stress-time cure in general and the maximum stress in particular, the geometry of the part, the load geometry, and a some other parameters. In many cases, the limit is zero - no matter how lightly you stress the part, it will break, given sufficiently many megacycles of load. That is the case for aluminum, for example. Further complicating matters is the observation that it is commong for two parts (which appear to be indentical) which are tested at the the same time and under the same load cycle can have greatly different life lengths - a factor of 10 is not at all unheard of.



It is possible to test blades to find out whether they are nearing the end of the life. Such testing does not have to deteriorate the blade, but it is presently quite costly and time-consuming. That may change, though.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Oh so we're going to have a discussion are we?

I have similar degrees. One of them is systems engineering. I think about things differently. You mention 3 possibilities. I don't think you give option 2 enough credit. How hard would it to be to develop a counter associated with a blade? Every click of the point can be treated as a cycle. You only get so many cycles before you are advised to give up the blade?

Another point you're not including is testing the blade prior to use. I know how difficult this would to be. It would require some... homogenizing.

Before people get all huffy about coming up with ridiculous ideas and overly complicated solutions, i want to point out that capteurs actually happened. That's right. Nothing is impossible.

[Philistine]

For the record, that's very disputable. You're comparing statistics from two different populations. You have a big rectangle, and inside that rectangle, you have a small circle. you're taking percentages or absolute numbers from the big rectangle, and comparing them with percentages or absolute numbers from the small circle. {snip}

No, I really mean danger to fencers while travelling to/from fencing-related activities.

9 deaths from actually fencing have been reported since 1936 (7 until 1996, one in 2004 and the new one).

In the same time period there have been, at a completley uninclusive, bare minimum, 32 fencers killed travelling to/from competitions (and who knows how many travelling to practices): See here--6 members of the Egyptian National Team in a plane crash in 1958, 24 members of the Cuban National Team in a plane crash in 1976; and here--fencer and coach killed in car crash while travelling to tournament in 2007 in the US.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

I thought that's what was being argued in between the posts I addressed claiming that any such argument was panic.

Very well, then I would like to go on record as declaring that I think the line should be drawn...right about where it is now. Call me change-averse, but I think that undertaking an upgrade in the safety ratings of fencing clothing would cost vastly more than it is worth considering the miniscule chances of death or serious injury at present.

Obviously that doesn't help if you're the one unfortunate fellow out of thousands. But I think that we are really way, way up the diminishing returns curve already...

[erooMynohtnA]

I agree with you, but I would certainly not discourage people if they've thought of easily implementable, affordable, safer options.

Or superalloy blades, because that would be sweet.

[adrianhk]

1. The amount of Newtons a jacket can withstand is measuring the fabric itself. They do not test seams, zippers, ect.

2. Would it be possible to sew a ~4" strip of fabric behind every seam?

3. Our plastrons at our club are twice as thick (two layers of fabric) as our jackets. Anyone else notice this?

4. I agree with the idea of having a built in plastron FIE certified. It would be fairly easy to make. You make a normal plastron/jacket, so the seams would not match, then sew them together.

5. I think that part of the reason that seams are the easiest part to puncture is that they catch on the blade. This could be solved by changing the way the seams are made so the the blade would slide past.

6. Someone mentioned that they had a very hard time taking apart a LP seam. Good. However, imagine trying to take apart the weavings of the actual jacket. Much, much harder, and therefore stronger. That is why they are weaker.

7. What about one piece jackets, without seams, except for the zipper and groin strap? They would make a plastic person, then weave the fabric over it. Then just sew on zipper/groin strap.