Punctured mask at European Jr Championships

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by ladyofshalott99

This topic has me curious about the material used by riot police/military in the transparent visors attached to riot gear helmets. What material do they use for those applications, and how suitable would it be to implement a similar material for fencing?

I think that the biggest issue here is duty cycle and abuse of the material. since it is constantly used, and often struck by points and edges of the blades during use, the material is weakend by the scratches and dings of normal use. Additionally the above referenced thread on the Eng-Tips Forums page has some very telling quotes about the sutibility of Lexan for this kind of application:

patprimmer (Publican)5 Nov 09 18:35
PC failed regularly as face shields for cricket batsmen. This was due to its vulnerability to solvent stress crack. Exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons will send it brittle, especially at areas already stressed even lightly.

Some of these aromatics hydrocarbons are very common in in everyday items like aerosols, insecticides, cosmetics, food, body excretions, sun screen, detergents etc.

My recommendation for a tough RELIABLE reasonably scratch resistant reasonably clear plastic is cellulose propionate. Regards
Pat




Demon3 (Materials)6 Nov 09 5:57
Just to give you some idea. You can add one drop of acetone (nail polish remover) to a piece of polycarbonate and it will instantly form cracks and be ruined. If the pieces was under stress, it can "explode" as the solvent hits. Cleaning fluids, hand lotions and other liquid can do the same albeit perhaps it will take a little longer. So yes, environmental stress cracking is by far the most likely culprit and polycarbonate is famous for it. Put one sticker on a polycarbonate motorcycle helmet and all the impact resistance is gone. Chris DeArmitt

the quote about Acetone is especially troubling. Does anyone know if the plates of the mask are required to have a chemical resistance coating?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

the quote about Acetone is especially troubling. Does anyone know if the plates of the mask are required to have a chemical resistance coating?

Doesn't every manufacturer provide guidance that, amongst other things, says DO NOT USE ACETONE on it?

What I find interesting is the recommendation to use a different material. Maybe the manufacturers could take a look at the alternative mentioned?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Gav

Doesn't every manufacturer provide guidance that, amongst other things, says DO NOT USE ACETONE on it?

Why am I getting visions of the "Crunchy Frog" Python skit in my head?

Craig

[erik_blank]

Perhaps the "Spring Surprise" confection would be more appropriate for this instance....

[foibles]

Do not taunt happy fun ball.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by foibles

I don't think there are a lot of new ideas floating around that haven't been tried... but the blinking mask lights, wireless strips and visor mask ARE something new. Couple those with allowing color on uniforms and lames and the image of the sport may well favorably change a bit. At least they're trying something.

Maybe these changes won't help. But it's an interesting experiment. I think so anyway.

As someone who shows World Cup fencing matches weekly to people who have never seen fencing before it's interesting I have noticed a few elements that have made it exciting for that particular audience.

1) Oddly enough... those flashing masks. They notice wireless fencing after seeing wired fencing video and vice versa.
2) Bursts of fencing action. I play the compilation type fencing videos from you tube while the group is being seated... it's amazing how most people are transfixed by it.
3) Anything different. Coloured masks, etc... I admit that one person in a sea of white is interesting. But if everyone had something weird and flashy going on... would be tacky and take away from the sport.
4) This includes lexan masks. Non-fencers react. Whether it's because it's different or because they like seeing the faces and it's less impersonal.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Not the same way you do with a TV remote....a push of a single button and just flipping channels. on the net you have to go specifically looking for something...at least by plugging a parameter into a search box.

No, but very similar. I will often video-surf. I'm looking at one video and spot another that looks interesting, then see another... I think anyone who's on a video site does it.

If you're making an argument for likelihood of stumbling upon something.... Hard to say. Fencing on TV is going to get the worse time slots and be very infrequent. I'm also finding myself more and more watching my TV via the Internet. I can't help but wonder if that's going to be more common means of access. Shows on demand. The Internet has taken on a follow-your-nose direction.

Since it's about people choosing what they want, rather than having it decide for you (such as with TV networks) things that are not mainstream (such as fencing, cutting edge music, etc...) have flourished on the Internet. Many bands exist solely because they developed an audience via the Internet and offered free downloads.

Besides... fencing seems to attract a lots of geeks. The geeks are more likely sitting on the Internet than channel surfing at 2pm on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

If you're making an argument for likelihood of stumbling upon something.... Hard to say. Fencing on TV is going to get the worse time slots and be very infrequent.

Which runs counter to what the lexan masks were SUPPOSED to do re exposure for the sport.

Besides... fencing seems to attract a lots of geeks. The geeks are more likely sitting on the Internet than channel surfing at 2pm on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

When they're not surfing porn, of course!

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Which runs counter to what the lexan masks were SUPPOSED to do re exposure for the sport.

As stated, my understanding is that it was a concession for the Olympic Committee. I don't think there were any TV networks requesting it. The change wasn't made with the promise that NOW TV networks would be clambering to show fencing, but to allow it to remain in the Olympics.

The Olympics make money off of selling the distribution rights to networks. They are trying to offer the best "collection of sports" to the networks to justify the high price they charge for their "product". That means pulling some sports and replacing it with things like... <eyeroll> beach volleyball.

The TV networks don't give a damn what we do, they'll just continue to ignore the sport (until of course we do it in bikinis & speedos).

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

The TV networks don't give a damn what we do, they'll just continue to ignore the sport (until of course we do it in bikinis & speedos).

Mariel in a bikini fine....Moorehouse in one...no

[touchefriend]

Bikinis? People tend to watch martial arts to see a little blood, auto racing to see wrecks, etc. This is sometimes detrimental to the participants of course. Using visor masks has contributited very little to our sport IMO. Using much thicker lexan, or a more suitable plastic or possibly LP's method may be the answer if the FIE wants to continue forcing fencers to wear the masks.

[Fencergrl]

Originally Posted by touchefriend

Using much thicker lexan, or a more suitable plastic or possibly LP's method may be the answer if the FIE wants to continue forcing fencers to wear the masks.

Or thinner masks.

Originally Posted by touchefriend

People tend to watch martial arts to see a little blood,

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Same could be said about the porn industry but I don't see them in the Olympics....yet.

I maintain that this is a shameful omission, particularly when TV ratings are a key consideration in determining what events should be included.

[I_luv_saber]

I really don't understand why no other manufactures other than us (Leon Paul) has a outer replaceable scratch layer, it certainly cannot do any harm, is inexpensive and in my view makes failures such as these virtually impossible.

For serious! I would never buy a visor mask without a scratch layer. Even with iPhones and things with touch screens, I always always always make sure there is a scratch protection layer, either standard or at least something after-market.

$20-$50 replacement, or $200-$300 dollar replacement (electronics screens). Clear winner.

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

Not the same way you do with a TV remote....a push of a single button and just flipping channels. on the net you have to go specifically looking for something...at least by plugging a parameter into a search box.

I think that element is still clinging on, but that's vastly changing very quickly. Many households do not even use a TV at all (like mine), or the TV is just an extension of the internet.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. There is no whiteing of the remaining Lexan. In a previous thread, I told about when a former collague had stress tested Lexan windows with sladge hammers and axes. He reported that the Lexan went white at the impact area when it was hit sufficiently hard, long before it broke.

2. There is no sag in the remaining Lexan. My former collague reported that the Lexan windows that they tested sagged before it was finally penetrated, in the visor seen in the picture the remaining Lexan appears to retain its pre-failure shape.

Yes, but unfortunately things happen which often cannot be reproduced by backyard experimentation.

For instance, after a discussion, in a recent thread, of the utility of plastrons, I dug out an old, old Santelli cotton duck one that I no longer use ( because the seams keep coming apart ).

I laid it over an old pillow and proceeded to try to penetrate it with a broken epee blade. ( The break was near the tip, so the surface was both small and about as sharp as these breaks usually get. )

Couldn't do it. Even holding the blade in two hands and striking downward bayonet-style with all my weight I couldn't get it anywhere close to piercing even the outermost layer.

But plastrons have been pierced in actual fencing, so if it happens it must be possible, the results of my experiment notwithstanding.

Yes, plastrons too differ in material specs, but unless a 20+year-old cotton one is actually stronger than a new FIE one somehow---well, I ain't no engineer, but I'm dubious.

Probably the same with these stupid Lexan masks. A few whacks with a sledgehammer aren't comparable to repeated ticks with a small, fast-moving point, and I don't see why every failure should display the same visible characteristics every time.

Originally Posted by pillow

1. Most of these posts are well intentioned but worthless speculation without scientific analysis by the exact manufacturer of that piece of Lexan combined with photos and video.

Which will however be much less fun than the uninformed speculation.

2. Lexan masks should have been eliminated for stupidity reasons long before the few reported failures, as they nothing to the sport.

QFT, as the kids say.

Originally Posted by fdad

I almost everycase where I've seen fencing on TV, the camera was place beside the strip and the fencers were seen in profile. You see the lexan, but very little of the face behind it. I really don't think it adds anything positive to the viewing experience, at least not for me.

Me, either.

The only time I really see the faces is when the camera does a close-up of the mask during between-phrase breaks. Even then most of the time I can't tell who the occupant is by that alone. ( And maybe if the cameramen weren't trying for those close-ups they'd have more time to film stuff someone actually wants to watch---like the fencing?

Originally Posted by kalivor

My impression was that the lexan masks were introduced to try to make the sport appear more telegenic to TV executives, thereby ensuring that fencing avoided being cut from the Olympics.

I thought they were to cozen TV executives into showing more fencing on live TV. I never heard it had anything to do with the Olympic retention efforts, which I thought were a separate issue. If anything, my impression was that Roch et al. sought more TV coverage in pursuit of sponsorship money. ( Sound familiar to anyone? ) The masks were a sacrificial offering to Mammon...

Originally Posted by erik_blank

I think that the biggest issue here is duty cycle and abuse of the material. since it is constantly used, and often struck by points and edges of the blades during use, the material is weakend by the scratches and dings of normal use.

This was my first thought. Long-term fatigue, and the death of a thousand small taps rather than of one mighty blow...

[pkt]

Originally Posted by edew

Ow, that's gotta hurt (getting hit in the worm's beard).

I was told that the injury was sustained not by the blade but when a bit of the lexan chipped off.

That's ironical, isn't it?

[eac]

About the wireless and TV thing, I seem to recall someone saying that TV people or other video people complained a lot about hearing the reel wire whack repeatedly and unpredictably against the piste when you tried to position microphones near the action, so wireless may have helped some with that.

[pkt]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The only time I really see the faces is when the camera does a close-up of the mask during between-phrase breaks.

Inq,

Try these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kashmera/4074358650/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kashmer...57622728669354
this is one instance when still fotos show the face better.

[esgrima]

With all this talk about tv coverage did we forget about the bottom line and transparent masks? The manufactures were to pay the FIE a part of the sales of each mask. Maybe that's why we have them.

[jspierre]

I've got a club mate who wears a lexan mask while fencing epee.

Can someone remind me, does the FIE allow lexan masks in intl epee tournaments? Has US Fencing any policy w/r/t wearing these masks in epee bouts?