Increasing lifespan of masks not intended for sabre

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

When designing machinery, it is common to lessen wear costs by designing the parts so that a large part of the wear is borne by a cheap and easily repaired, or exchanged, part. For example, welding masks have a costly piece of very dark glass to protect the welder´s eyes. Welding creates a lot of hot metal drops flying around, and if they hit this dark glass they melt into it, rendering it useless. Therefore, a piece of cheap windowpane glass is set in front of the dark glass, and the cheap glass is exchanged when needed.

I was thinking that this could be used for F/E masks. Imagine a piece of polycarbonate plastic/ Lexan in front of the ordinary wire mesh. The plastic would be equipped with many small holes for ventilation, and set on several flexible holders which fastens it to the wire mesh.

When the weapon point hits the mask, it hits the stiff plastic, which is pushed backwards when the flexible holders are compressed. Since the holders a flexible, the mechanical impulse of the hit will be stretched out in time, leading to a much lower maximum force. Also, since there are several flexible holders, the mechanical impulse will be divided to many places.

When a point hits a unprotected wire mesh (as is the case now) the maximum stresses are almost always not large enough to destroy the mesh, but they are often large enough to soften the metal locally and/or cause one cycle of metal fatigue, leading to mesh failure later on.

If the mesh is protected and the total impulse is divided and spead out enough, the maximum stresses could well be lower than the metal fatigue, and elastic, limit of the metal. In this case, only rust (and unforeseen mishandling of the mask) would affect the mesh, drastically increasing the lifespan of the mask.

Obviously the plastic will break sooner or later, but it can be easily exchanged. Furthermore, when it breaks, the weapon point will push a piece of plastic against the wire mesh, lessening the risk of penetration. It is also possible to fine-tune the chemistry of the plastic so that it becomes easily visible when the plastic is on its last leg, and exchange the plastic at that time.

What do you think of this idea? Any problems that I have forgotten? Any better idea on how to increase the lifespan of the wire mesh, without making it heavier or using costly materials?

Obviously, this does not work for sabre, since the mask has to be conductive. Conductive plastics probably are not conductive enough, durable enough, or are too costly. On the other hand, in sabre the wire mesh is often subjected to line loads (rather that point loads) and the cuts are not the hard, so mesh failure should be much less a problem in sabre than in F/E.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[oiuyt]

Transfer of oxygen.

Yes you mentioned many small holes, but one of the major issues with the lexan masks when originally being developed (and why the lexan portion is relatively small) is that the FIE medical commission had major problems with the limiting of the oxygen to the athlete. They tested with masks with varying amounts of lexan present and found that any more lexan than what was approved was completely unacceptable. Even with holes, the amount of lexan that you're talking about would cover a much higher total amount of the surface and you'll run into the same problems.

Problem 2) WHY?
What's the incentive? My FIE mask is 4 years old, shows no real (ie non-cosmetic) signs of wear. I have no plans to replace it in the near future. What do I gain? Okay, maybe I have a mask that lasts 25 years with a lexan replacement every year instead of a mask that lasts 5-10 years. Masks aren't so expensive that I can't afford to replace one each decade. Hard to believe that there's any cost savings involved. Unlikely to be a safety gain. Once I'm also dealing with fogging issues, and the hassle of replacing bits of my mask there's just no way.

-B :)

[Artisan]

Sounds like a "suspenders AND a belt" solution to me...lets add a third even cheaper layer to protect the lexan from scuffs...a tear-away clear mylar to the front of the lexan like a drivers / motorcycle racing helmet - when it gets dirty / scuffed, you peel off a layer. Seems to me that the idea is that masks, like so much else in life are not meant to last forever. Sarcasm aside:

There is somebody making a saber mask with an interchangeable bib.

The solution I believe you are after is a componentized design of mask that allows replacement of each sub-assembly; bib, front mesh, side and top mesh, and easily removable interior fit / padding for laundering.
I'd love to see such a mask, that is lightweight as well. I'm wondering if such a design wouldn't feature a kevlar / graphite composite monocot frame or "chassis" onto which the components mount.

I like the way my welding helmet has a semi-rigid adjustable headband, that tightens with a ratcheting knob, and supports the face shield in the flipped up position.

[DHCJr]

The original idea is interesting. The amount of air has been noted above. I would like to make a few observations. Having the faceplate in front of a regular mask would probably make it safer as you say. The problem is, this is not the direction the FIE wants to go. I don’t agree with the FIE on this point, but they want the faces more visible to the television cameras. A comment about the holes you describe. Many of the FIE masks with the faceplate were disapproved, most notably Uhlmann and AllStar. I don’t know if they have had a new design approved. This is because they drilled holes in the faceplate and that is where the faceplates were breaking. You have alleviated this problem in two ways, you have the wire mesh behind and the holes are not structural in nature. It is interesting, but weather this can get though the FIE may be an uphill battle.

I also like the idea pushed by Artisan of a componentized design. The problem is again the FIE. One of the obscure rules of what is FIE. The manufacturer sends in a few copies of the design with a few copies for testing by the FIE. If there are any changes, the equipment is no longer FIE. Now come the faceplate masks, so if the faceplate gets scratch up you can replace it. But do you own a torque wrench, that has been certified and do you know the specifications for the amount of torque. If you replace the faceplate yourself, it is no longer FIE. Now no one is going to check, but I was just trying to show how difficult it would be. I would like to see it done.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by DHCJr
I don’t agree with the FIE on this point, but they want the faces more visible to the television cameras.

The what?????