Basic Safety

[Inquartata]

The more layers of fabric you put in, the longer it is going to take your jacket to dry after washing ( or, for you epeeists, while fermenting in your bag in the trunk of your car between practices ).

Separate plastrons speed the drying-out process, and it takes long enough as it is.

Hey, I believe that the wheel is also in crying need of reinvention. Knock yourselves out!

[adrianhk]

The reason why is that at practice, most people don't wear plastrons. I don't see how practice is any less dangerous than competition. This would mean that they wear plastrons all the time.

[Inquartata]

Well, let's sew knickers to their jackets, to force them to wear those, too.

I hate that sort of paternalistic "We're going to FORCE you to do it" attitude, man. How about we just refuse to fence anyone who won't wear a plastron, instead of resorting to cumbersome equipment changes?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

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?

You mean like a Skip it?

What would you do for sabre?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

You mean like a Skip it?

What would you do for sabre?

The simplest thing that comes to mind is an electric counter. Hook it up to the two sides of the contact, so that it gets the same voltages as the body wire. Every time there is a voltage spike, the count number is increased by an increment of one. Such a counter could be made sufficiently small so that it easily fits within the bell, without distorting the weight balance.

There are a few limitations:
1. This solution does not take into account hits to non-valid target, which do stress the blade.
2. This solution does not take into account dry practice fencing.
3. This solution does not take into account the fact that hits vary in strength.

However, I am quite sure that any solution which does account for #1-3 would be much more complicated.

Any solution for the problem "how should one predict when a blade is about to brake before it breaks" which relies on some small hardware installed in the individual weapon will be subjected to tampering attempts. Either it has to be made tamper-impervious (too costly) or tamper-obvious (better, but not surefire solution) or the individual fencer who is considering tampering should be provided with some carrot to not do so.

What sort of carrot should this be? My suggestion is the wear/fatigue estimator device (WFED, for short) should be set so that when it warns, it does not warn for imminent breakage with the consequence that the blades has to be retired. That will too often lead to bad blood, and those tasked with enforcing such a rule will too often overlook it. People use old blades for too long since the downside of a broken blade is borne by someone else, while the upside of getting more fencing hours of the blade comes to themselves.

Instead, the WFED should be set so that it warns earlier. Then, the blade should be taken to another testing machine, which gives a better estimate on the expected remaining life of the blade. Since such a testing machine is not property of the individual fencer, it is not so much of a tampering target. Fencers who get warned by the WFED will be more likely to comply if they can keep their blade for the time being.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Well, let's sew knickers to their jackets, to force them to wear those, too.

I hate that sort of paternalistic "We're going to FORCE you to do it" attitude, man. How about we just refuse to fence anyone who won't wear a plastron, instead of resorting to cumbersome equipment changes?

While that - in theory - works for plastrons, you have no way of seeing for sure whether their blade is about to break.

Hate to break it to you, but there are a hell of a lot of paternalistic safety laws around - safety belts, building codes, you name it. They are not going away anytime soon, and they influence the legal environment of fencing (and any other sport, for that matter).

It is not sufficient even if you follow every reasonable safety precaution. You should know full well that any accident in fencing which happens in the USA can lead to all sorts of legal trouble and associated costs, even if the case is eventually won. Even if the accident is in epee, this can affect sabre fencers if their local club, USFA section/region, competition, etc. are forced to pay a boatload of money.

Do not expect the paternalistic rules to be rolled back.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Hate to break it to you, but there are a hell of a lot of paternalistic safety laws around - safety belts, building codes, you name it. They are not going away anytime soon, and they influence the legal environment of fencing

You are arguing that whatever is, is right, and should be continued and extended simply because that's the way it's always been?

I leave it to you to name the logical fallacy there...

That there are "paternalistic laws around" does not justify them, much less making more of them.

What were you thinking?

[erik_blank]

Hi!




The simplest thing that comes to mind is an electric counter. Hook it up to the two sides of the contact, so that it gets the same voltages as the body wire. Every time there is a voltage spike, the count number is increased by an increment of one. Such a counter could be made sufficiently small so that it easily fits within the bell, without distorting the weight balance.

There are a few limitations:
1. This solution does not take into account hits to non-valid target, which do stress the blade.
2. This solution does not take into account dry practice fencing.
3. This solution does not take into account the fact that hits vary in strength.

However, I am quite sure that any solution which does account for #1-3 would be much more complicated.

Any solution for the problem "how should one predict when a blade is about to brake before it breaks" which relies on some small hardware installed in the individual weapon will be subjected to tampering attempts. Either it has to be made tamper-impervious (too costly) or tamper-obvious (better, but not surefire solution) or the individual fencer who is considering tampering should be provided with some carrot to not do so.

What sort of carrot should this be? My suggestion is the wear/fatigue estimator device (WFED, for short) should be set so that when it warns, it does not warn for imminent breakage with the consequence that the blades has to be retired. That will too often lead to bad blood, and those tasked with enforcing such a rule will too often overlook it. People use old blades for too long since the downside of a broken blade is borne by someone else, while the upside of getting more fencing hours of the blade comes to themselves.

Instead, the WFED should be set so that it warns earlier. Then, the blade should be taken to another testing machine, which gives a better estimate on the expected remaining life of the blade. Since such a testing machine is not property of the individual fencer, it is not so much of a tampering target. Fencers who get warned by the WFED will be more likely to comply if they can keep their blade for the time being.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Personally I do not think that any of the above soltions would be all that effective as predictors of imminent failure for any of the blades. From my limited personal experience, I have seen blades in good serviceable use that are over 20 years old (yes, we still have some of the old Scaroni forge practice foils in our club that date back to the late 80's. These are so flexible that I often refer to them as our fly rod foils. I've been known to get them to bend in almost a full semi-circle when playing with them.), and I have seen blades less than a month old that should never be used again because hey have had a 70-80 degree permanent inelastic bend put into them and there are stress marks visible at that point.

This really says to me that a hit counter as proposed by Peter and SS would be an expensive addition that would not really add to the safety of our sport. Instead, hat I think that we should be going for is an inexpensive and easily used testing apparatus that would allow for non-destructive testing of the blades. This should be cheap enough for 90% of the clubs out there to purchase and easy enough for the 'common' fencer out there to use with a good 99.9% accuracy on the serviceability of the blade.

Just my $0.022

[BenTheEMOP]

Well, let's sew knickers to their jackets, to force them to wear those, too.

I hate that sort of paternalistic "We're going to FORCE you to do it" attitude, man. How about we just refuse to fence anyone who won't wear a plastron, instead of resorting to cumbersome equipment changes?

Doesn't getting people to adopt "good" behaviors work better when that is the default option -- like opt out retirement accounts? Maybe the thing to do is to sell the jackets and under-arm protectors always as a set?

Also, the new Leon Paul and Escrime Jackets I bought both have an extra patch of fabric sewn in at the armpit. Does anyone know how much more protection those offer?

In the case that started all this, it sounds like the blade would have traveled underneath the under-arm protector, but I am not sure. Maybe a long-sleeve underarm protector would have protected him? I think it could be good to have, but I am a baby about the hard arm hits.

[Superscribe]

You mean like a Skip it?

What would you do for sabre?

Oh snap, skip its, i forgot about those. Something mechanical like that yet might be interesting. Everytime there was a jolt to the blade, it'd register on a counter.

I think it's interesting to see that some people are interested in more safety, enough to bring them out of the woodwork, but then other people don't have time to dry jackets, and can't be bothered to fence in damp gear to possibly save a life every 2 years.

I guess that's fair.

[tchwojko]

Has anyone shown any correlation whatsoever between blade contact counts and wear on the blade?

I would think the number of variables would be so large as to make a simple counter useless?

[Inquartata]

Doesn't getting people to adopt "good" behaviors work better when that is the default option -- like opt out retirement accounts?

I'm sure. But are we to sacrifice choice on the altar of Efficiency?

[BenTheEMOP]

Fencers can still choose whether or not to wear the underarm protector and you can still choose not to fence them. I was just trying to come up with a middle way that would help get the highest participation and safety based on the discussion.

[Inquartata]

Ah...if the plastron is made an integral part of the jacket...how can anyone "choose" whether or not to wear it? You HAVE to wear it, if you wear the jacket, no?

[BenTheEMOP]

By selling them as a set, I mean to say that instead of just buying a jacket, one would always by a jacket and an underarm protector together, as a set of two items.

[DangerMouse]

So when I need a new FIE jacket, it costs me an extra $100 even though I already have a plastron? That's pretty dumb.

[jeff]

As if they cared much about extra expenditures for each fencer! I'm waiting for the dust to settle with masks and bibs, making it necessary to have different ones for each weapon you fence....

[tchwojko]

Ah...if the plastron is made an integral part of the jacket...how can anyone "choose" whether or not to wear it? You HAVE to wear it, if you wear the jacket, no?

Your choice to go sleeveless is already compromised. No muscle shirts for you!

[Inquartata]

So when I need a new FIE jacket, it costs me an extra $100 even though I already have a plastron? That's pretty dumb.

Or worse, when you need a new plastron you have to buy a jacket, too.

Actually, it's not a bad idea for the sets that vendors sell. But I think most do this already.

Your choice to go sleeveless is already compromised. No muscle shirts for you!

Hey, now, I am not David X.