FIE Suspends use of Visor mask for foil and epee

[Purple Fencer]

School uses all 350N or the kids have their private masks..and to be honest I am out of stock on the Prieur ...or I would simply give her one.


R

Using a 350N mask that's legal for all USFA comps is better than her not being able to fence at all this weekend, wouldn't you say?

[Greybeard]

It always rolls downhill Gav. Everyone tries to beat liability by pointing where it came from, Seller points to manufacturer, Manufacturer points to supplier, etc. It just becomes a mess (hence the creation of waiver of warranty and indemnification clauses.) I use em all the time. Most of the time they just cloud the water, but that is the legal system. Or as my CEO is fond of saying, "isnt that why we have insurance?" once again I didn't mean to start some kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[telkanuru]

I'm interested in this parent who can afford to buy a $400 visor mask and support their child's fencing at a national level but absolutely cannot under any circumstances shell out $40 at Absolute.

[Rick Shellhouse]

Using a 350N mask that's legal for all USFA comps is better than her not being able to fence at all this weekend, wouldn't you say?

And lets go to the instant replay...please note the bold....

Right now every Armorer who passes a non-FIE mask at a USFA tournament is risking his legal life. According to USFA rules non-FIE masks are not legal for USFA competition.
Before someone jumps on me about the 2nd note near the bottom of page 55, let us read it together, ESPECIALLY the last 2 words.

Note: An FIE homologated mask is not required for USFA competition, provided it conforms to the specifications described in Appendix A, with the exception that the bib needs to be resistant to 700 Newtons.
How many non-FIE masks do you know have 700 Newton bibs. There used to be one, that stated on the back of the mask that it had a 1,000 Newton bib, but they now have a label on the bib, that says the CE standard 350.



The USFA is just following the FIE. The FIE only banned Foil and Epee.

Sooooooooo we are back to square 1

R

[Rick Shellhouse]

I'm interested in this parent who can afford to buy a $400 visor mask and support their child's fencing at a national level but absolutely cannot under any circumstances shell out $40 at Absolute.

Absolute is selling FIE masks for 40? WOW...wait...


nope...

cant seem to find one...http://www.absolutefencinggear.com/s...f9480b644d39b9

incidentally the mask wasn't 400 new....and was bought over 2 years ago when the economy was alittle bit better as well for her parent...

and the price I quoted was for a mask that would fit at least close to what she is use to...a FIE made by the same maker as her Lexan....

R

[Purple Fencer]

Absolute is selling FIE masks for 40? WOW...wait...


nope...

cant seem to find one...

I suspect he was referring to buying a non-FIE mask to get her through they tourney.

As to your quote of Donald's rules quote...as I recall, Bill Oliver confirmed the 700N was a typo, hence why 350N masks are still legal for domestic use several years later....a very different issue from an FIE one that shattered....how many on-strip failures have there been domestically on non-FIE masks? The only ones I've seen out here happened during the mask test.

[telkanuru]

cant seem to find one...http://www.absolutefencinggear.com/s...f9480b644d39b9

R

Man, it's been a while since I've bought a mask

Point still stands. Sending your kid to JOs is at minimum $500 and airfare, etc etc, but add in $55 and it's cost-prohibitive?

[Purple Fencer]

Man, it's been a while since I've bought a mask

Point still stands. Sending your kid to JOs is at minimum $500 and airfare, etc etc, but add in $55 and it's cost-prohibitive?

And thus, I was correct about Telk's point.

[telkanuru]

And thus, I was correct about Telk's point.

It wasn't ambiguous, someone was just obtuse.

[Gav]

I read the FIE report. So we have basically a counterfeit mislabeled plastic visor that says Lexan but isn't. I don't see a citation as to which specific factory produced it. Was it owned and operated by Uhlmann for sure? Did phony Lexan go to other mask makers? We don't know the answers to these questions to the best of my knowledge. Therefore I think the situation is actually even more complex than the FIE report, and I am not sure that Uhlmann is not being made a scapegoat for a problem that may involve manufacturing defects beyond its control.

This is what we know: the design was poor, the supplier contracted out to a third party and didn't maintain quality control. Not only that but the mask itself wasn't proper polycarbonate and had fake marks.

So what you're saying is that, in America, a company the produces a defective design and doesn't keep an eye on its suppliers doesn't shoulder any blame? I am amazed to hear this.

[pillow]

This is what we know: the design was poor, the supplier contracted out to a third party and didn't maintain quality control. Not only that but the mask itself wasn't proper polycarbonate and had fake marks.

So what you're saying is that, in America, a company the produces a defective design and doesn't keep an eye on its suppliers doesn't shoulder any blame? I am amazed to hear this.

You say above that the mask was polycarbonate and had fake marks. Do you mean to say the visor?

[MdA]

This is what we know: the design was poor, the supplier contracted out to a third party and didn't maintain quality control. Not only that but the mask itself wasn't proper polycarbonate and had fake marks.

So what you're saying is that, in America, a company the produces a defective design and doesn't keep an eye on its suppliers doesn't shoulder any blame? I am amazed to hear this.

To me, it’s pretty simple to determine who is responsible…

There is an injured fencer, there is a mask with a hole punched through it, and there are two names printed on the mask…Uhlmann and FIE.

[Gav]

You say above that the mask was polycarbonate and had fake marks. Do you mean to say the visor?

You can argue over the semantics if you like I can change mask to be visor if you'd prefer, and yet I still think the summary of your own comments is fairly clear.

So come on, out with it, do you really assert that Allstar are blameless in this case?

[Gav]

To me, it’s pretty simple to determine who is responsible…

There is an injured fencer, there is a mask with a hole punched through it, and there are two names printed on the mask…Uhlmann and FIE.

According to pillow Allstar-Uhlmann are not to blame...

[MdA]

The FIE and the manufacturers must replace the “Toyota” masks for free….and they should be thankful that no one was killed. They are getting off easy...and by the way the Uhlmann website now has a message saying the FIE has banned all transparent masks.

Just tell me the address where I should send my defective “Toyota” mask for a full replacement….and for us American foil fencers…please tell us if the replacement should have an electric bib….the plot thickens…$$$$$...€€€€€.

[edew]

Ill pay the shipping if you are serious..lol..

I'll be there. I'm serious.

[brtech]

Well it can't since there is no information about what exactly was used.





Yes it does, see above.

No. It says its not lexan, and then says that the viscosity of molded material is different from sheet material. It does not say that LEXAN resin is better (or even different) from other brands. In fact, I don't think they are: Dow makes a reasonable equivalent to LEXAN branded polycarbonate.

Polycarbonates are sensitive to alcohols and organic solvents (those sharpie markers but also things like acetone). There are high strength plastics that also have resistance to solvents but they would give a somewhat murky view of the world.

I think we need to understand how sensitive. We need some quantification: is the PVC on the tongue when used with a standard mask bag, in a fencing bag, too much outgassing that it should be made from some other material? Is the Sharpie marking really significant enough? I don't know, and I suspect you don't either. If you have tested it, and have some data, please share.

Yes they are. The question is whether a properly maintained mask which passes visual inspection is safe. Assuming it is actually made of lexan (and not some unkown injection molded material) then they are. Ask any materials scientist an opinion of failure risk and you will get a very long list.

I think you are making assumptions that are not valid, but mostly, you are doing so without sufficient information.

Take the stamp. Look at the stress patterns. Does a hot stamp with a date code degrade the material sufficiently that it should be banned? Looking at the stress patterns, it appears to me that it should be looked at very carefully, and my suspicion is that it's a big enough issue that it should not be allowed.

Bear in mind storage and other issues apply to metal masks. Unless of course you are testing each and every weld.

Yes there are issues. However, there are different issues, and the level of concern is indeed different.

We can't make the sport entirely safe. We can't test every mask for every possible failure. We can assess materials, processes and inspection procedures with reasonable engineering criteria and determine what is sufficient. It appears to me that we have a long way to go before ANY visor masks should be considered safe.

[MdA]

Just got an email from Barry Paul warning me about these masks. I’m impressed because I don’t own a Leon Paul mask but I appreciate the effort. He didn’t tell me if he can help me out with a replacement for this weekend but, if he did, he would have a loyal customer for life.

[misha]

And for Rick, I'll buy your fencer the FIE mask.

Guys, please be careful.
Isn't NCAA eligibility goes out of the window with this gift?


.

[Rick Shellhouse]

Guys, please be careful.
Isn't NCAA eligibility goes out of the window with this gift?


.

Dont worry my fencer found her old mask which happens to be FIE and it still fits....so she is covered...

R