Punctured mask at European Jr Championships

[pkt]

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.

On DSLR cameras with a plastic viewscreen protector, the cover always falls off. One can get a "self-adhesive" film screen protector and remove the plastic cover. This way you won't bump off the plastic cover, which I have done many times.
Then I discovered that if I tape down the edged of the film protector...

I've now put that film on my digital watch's screen, my $17 name badge... i should have put one on my Berry, but then the gov't owns it...then I scratched it, so it's too late.

[Fiat Slug]

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.

This is interesting. Do manufacturers pay FIE for the sale of mesh masks? Is this payment documented somewhere?

[pkt]

This was in the European Junior Championships, where it is probably not getting the attention it deserves:

Anybody have an English-language first-hand version of what happened?

Here's the original FIE Urgent Letter 15-09
5 November 2009
Transparent visor mask
http://www.fencing.ca/hiperf_news/20...letter_eng.pdf

[pinkelephant]

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?

Allowed but not required in FIE epee events.

[Purple Fencer]

From Don Clinton (who still can't log on)

"A flickier blade is more dangerous and powerful than a stiff blade. You can get more force through momentum. I have been the Armorer at a tournament that had two mask failures on the strip. The same fencer who ONLY attacked with the flick punctured both. This was a number of years ago and one reason why they changed the rules to stop the flick. Remember the tip that was supposed to stop the flick.

I agree that temporarily banning the visor temporarily is bad. Many of the International Sabrists do not have a mesh mask. To have to buy one and then have the FIE reinstate the requirement would be bad.

Here is one of the items that I think the FIE is looking at. In the addendum for mesh mask they have requirements for the type of steel, it's composition, how it needs to be treated. The FIE never made any requirements for the visor, except it’s thickness, no holes and formed hot.

There are many versions and grades of polycarbonate, including Lexan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexan

They have never specified the composition and I think they are regretting that. I think they are looking at other items also, but having no specifications can have manufacturers and vendors cut corners. I have seen nothing in the rules that the visor that is replace must come from the manufacturer of the mask. It may be in something else.

There is also 2.1.2.3 of the Appendix. All the FIE requires is Month and Year. A fencer or vendor or manufacturer could obtain replacement visors from somewhere else that is cheaper. Who would know?"

[Gav]

I agree that temporarily banning the visor temporarily is bad. Many of the International Sabrists do not have a mesh mask. To have to buy one and then have the FIE reinstate the requirement would be bad.

The urgent letter states that the requirement is suspended for Foil. Why are you talking about Sabre?

[Mergs]

From Don Clinton (who still can't log on)

"A flickier blade is more dangerous and powerful than a stiff blade. You can get more force through momentum.

Actually, the force is a result of the increased speed at which the tip hits, which IIRC is about 4 - 5 times faster than a straight attack. That is unless the tip is still accelerating at the time of impact.

[Purple Fencer]

The urgent letter states that the requirement is suspended for Foil. Why are you talking about Sabre?

I suspect Donald was talking about the cost factor for people having to buy a new mask if the ruling was expanded to sabre....and you DID read the part that said this come from Donald, right? I'm just posting it because he can't yet. Mergs got it right when he posted his response (including Donald's name in the quote)

[DHCJr]

The urgent letter states that the requirement is suspended for Foil. Why are you talking about Sabre?

As you can see I have made it back.

There is also another thread Fie suspends requirement for visor masks for foil

I had no choice in where Sam placed my quote. In the other thread Jason and Pillow were advocating while the investigation is going on the masks should be banned for ALL. The same argument could be used for Foil. It would be an added expense. The reason I mentioned Sabre is because they have been required to use the visor mask longer, so are most likely not to have a mesh mask.

[Gav]

I suspect Donald was talking about the cost factor for people having to buy a new mask if the ruling was expanded to sabre....and you DID read the part that said this come from Donald, right? I'm just posting it because he can't yet. Mergs got it right when he posted his response (including Donald's name in the quote)

I don't know Donald. I am sure he's a great guy who knows his armoury but you forget that I am not from the US. The point is that the current suspension - which is what is being discussed, is public knowledge - only applies to foil.

I am sorry but as things stand your point doesn't apply. If a suspension for sabre comes in feel free to have that chat then.

Mr Clinton should contact Craig who can sort out his log on problems.

[Gav]

As you can see I have made it back.

Welcome back! Didn't realise it was you.

I had no choice in where Sam placed my quote. In the other thread Jason and Pillow were advocating while the investigation is going on the masks should be banned for ALL. The same argument could be used for Foil. It would be an added expense. The reason I mentioned Sabre is because they have been required to use the visor mask longer, so are most likely not to have a mesh mask.

Which is a fair enough point except that it hasn't happened yet.

[DHCJr]

Thank you Gav.

As everyone knows I do not like and in fact fear Visor Masks, but I don't think they are going away. What I hope will happen because of this instance is SEMI write up specific specification.

If you look at the requirements for the mesh mask, they are very specific of the composition of the steel, how it is formed including tempeture, etc.

For the Visor mask there is only a maximum size, minimum thickness and requirement that it be formed hot.

How Hot? What should the polycarbonate be made from (what percentages of each item)? Would a visor made from a cube 3mmx3mmx3mm. There is nothing in the rules that has a minimum size. Does the replacement visor have to be made by manufacturer and made to the same specification as the original?

I do not consider SEMI at fault for the lack of specifications. In the original minutes both SEMI and the Medical Commisions were against the visor. It was pushed through anyway without having SEMI create specifications.

[the ancient one]

Yet there are specifications for Polycarbonate Face protection. Perhaps it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel entirely.

There are a number of very specific standards and test methods, many of which are listed in the links below.

http://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/pdf/p...ts-updated.pdf

http://www.minesactioncanada.org/tec...standards.html

How sad that there appears to be an entire industry devoted to de-mining land. What a world--eh?

The link below is not directly related to polycarbonate, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/22ndISB2005/friday/anctil.pdf

[Purple Fencer]

Thank you Gav.

As everyone knows I do not like and in fact fear Visor Masks, but I don't think they are going away. What I hope will happen because of this instance is SEMI write up specific specification.

Welcome back....I just emailed Dan the same thing.

He thinks the rubber gasket idea would be good....but it WOULD de-certify any current mask it was done to....plus the existing screws might not reach the threads.

I also asked him why there was no angle on the face of the lexan like there is on a full mesh mask...that probably would've deflected the force, which is what it does on a traditional mask...and for the same reason.

I suspect it was a visibility issue (although I remember a nice big rod running down the center of my early 80s Prieur mask...I learned to look past it.)

[Superscribe]

A flicky blade is not more "powerful" than a stiffer blade, nor should it be considered more dangerous. Part of my ridiculously expensive education started to go spastic when that statement was made. I don't mind this bally hoo so long as you guys don't start spreading incorrect information about things i care about.

The last thing i need is for that statement to be taken out of context and my kids going out and buying more "powerful" blades.

Further, Purple, will you please stop with this "no angle" on the lexan face plate? The thing is already curved about the vertical axis. They weren't anticipating people aiming for the mask, so it was hard to tell what angle you should have the face plate to minimize the force of a tip striking the plastic, especially when you have to consider the ridiculous angles a flick would come from, and also the trade off between impact of the tip dispersed about the area of the tip, and an impact concentrated on the edge of the tip. Guess what they did? The same thing that most manufacturers would do: THEY DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT IT WHAT THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW, and instead focused on making it easy manufacture.

[Purple Fencer]

Further, Purple, will you please stop with this "no angle" on the lexan face plate? The thing is already curved about the vertical axis. They weren't anticipating people aiming for the mask, so it was hard to tell what angle you should have the face plate to minimize the force of a tip striking the plastic, especially when you have to consider the ridiculous angles a flick would come from, and also the trade off between impact of the tip dispersed about the area of the tip, and an impact concentrated on the edge of the tip. Guess what they did? The same thing that most manufacturers would do: THEY DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT IT WHAT THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW, and instead focused on making it easy manufacture.

Then why is the angle required on fully mesh masks? You may not INTEND to hit the mask, but it DOES happen....that's why we wear masks in the first place. I don't know if the masks had an angle in 1982 when Smirnov was killed....my own mask of the era did not...but it's possible an angled front might've deflected Behr's blade a bit....that's what it's for.

If the bib is adopted as target in the US, I see a LOT more mask hits in foil from fencers going for the upper chest/bib and not having enough point control to hit there.

As it turns out (and as I was advised by Dan just now), the angle on the front with lexan WAS tried by LP....but it resulted in a distorted binocular vision for the wearer, especially if the head turned, so it was dropped (After reading Dan's description, I probably would've puked if I'd tried wearing one).

Easy to manufacture should not equal a compromised safety factor. The curvature on the plate is not enough to really deflect a direct hit the same way the angle on a full mesh mask would....or have you not actually looked at the picture of the mask that failed? Compared to a full mesh, a lexan plate is pretty flat.

I will say what I will....that's my job. You don't have to read it, or agree with it.

[Superscribe]

Hey,

I asked nicely. You have you're answer. I'm sorry your suggestion didn't turn out to the new revelation that was going to make Lexan masks more safe.

I also ask that you look up safety factor and use it more responsibly from now on. Please

Thanks.

[D'Art]

hmmmm....cold + intense impact, rinse and repeat over time = ?

Obviously several trips in a planes cargo hold at high altitude, followed by serious competition could never give any worst case scenarios....

[Grasshopper]

Obviously several trips in a planes cargo hold at high altitude, followed by serious competition could never give any worst case scenarios....

don't forget: frequent wiping with various chemical agents not meant for Lexan, profuse sweat.

Speaking of airplane cargo holds, have you ever seen a ground baggage handler throw luggage around? Think of all the solid objects your Lexan mask is crashing into protected only by a soft cloth fencing bag...

Then think about how a fencing point can wear down over time and develop irregular edges, scratches etc.

[Purple Fencer]

Speaking of airplane cargo holds, have you ever seen a ground baggage handler throw luggage around? Think of all the solid objects your Lexan mask is crashing into protected only by a soft cloth fencing bag...

That's why the care instructions include carrying them aboard by hand.