Body Cage Back Protectors and Rotational Falls

As I see it, if the RDA are fully behind this product then all they need to do is to offer to lease the patent to ALL the leading body protector manufacturers!!

Problem solved surely?

You have the competiton throughout the different manufacturers which will keep the RRP competitive and also BE don't have the issues with the Sponsorship from those manufacturers, as the top BP manufacturers would be mad not to invest in such a topical and lifesaving safety product!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
There can be some sniffiness in eventing about new safety products - like it makes you less brave or something or it diminishes the sport in some way. This is rubbish - making our sport safer is a way of preserving it for years come! If there were issues or concerns about this product it would have been wonderful if users could have given their feedback to the company and perhaps this situation could have been avoided, but it seems some quarters have set out to discredit this product and I think that is a great shame
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agree with this. The sniffyness extends to the Lucinda Green helmet (the type Ruth Edge wears), I had one and this is the first year i've had a positive comment! (Can't find another one for love nor money, though)

I feel very sad that the company has closed, very let down by BE tbh - the safety of its riders should be more important than money from its sponsors. The rumours that went around seem very unjustified, as did the "tell us if you have an Exo because we need to tell the paramedics, the T.D. has to have an allen key etc" notice, if all Exos had 2 allen keys attached to them anyway! Very bad misinformation imho, certainly misled me.
New sponsors can be found, unfortunately I guess new riders will always come along too...
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Earlier this year I did the BHS EFSAC course and the instructor seemed fairly anti- to the rigid one because it can't quickly be torn open/unvelcro'd to reveal the patient's chest for resuss, but you need the correct allen key for that frame and preferrably you need an allen key with every first-aid official so there is minimal time delay in administering resuss.


[/ QUOTE ]

Riding falls don't requite chest compressions, only heart attacks need those. I don't think heart attacks during riding are common, but giving someone who's just fallen chest compressions could be fatal. (Plus don't forget that there are the required allen keys plus instructions on both sides of an Exo, so first aiders don't need to carry them.)

[ QUOTE ]

He was also anti-rugby shirts for similar reasons - being designed for rugby, they're designed not to rip, and in an emergency resuss situation you need to rip the fabric away from the chest.


[/ QUOTE ]
You don't need to expose the chest to give compressions. You only need to get to the skin to apply defib pads, and anyone carrying a defib (i.e. a paramedic) will also have scissors.

Don't take this as an attack on you, but an attack on bad information being given out by an instructor!
 
The ugly reality of this situation is that, for whatever reason, the cruel world of the free market has turned thumbs down on this product. Those who could most benefit from it, those most likely to incur rotational falls, professional and other riders who compete at the top levels of the sport have chosen not to adopt it.

I have seen no data to suggest that these body cage back protectors provide any more protection in any other kind of fall than regular body protectors. In fact, concern has been expressed that the body cage may exacerbate neck injuries in some of these other kinds of fall. Rigorous control group studies are not feasible to resolve these questions. The only time I can see the body cage providing additional protection, other than from a horse falling on a rider after a rotational fall is if a horse steps on or kicks at the cage part of the protector after a rider is on the ground after a fall.

There may be a market for this product to risk-averse riders who want to feel "safer". Whether it's big enough to support another manufacturer remains to be seen.
 
I'd not heard of these before I suppose as son has been into SJ until now. He has his first cross country comp Sunday & I'm with the other mothers on this one. £300 is nothing compared to my sons life. If after this Sunday he decides he wants to do a lot of XC I shall be contacting Woof Wear to find out where to get one. Only one question for now - can he wear them for Pony Club?
The world is full of products that took a long time to catch on & as I hadn't heard of it the marketing men at Woof Wear must take part of the blame here. There is a lot of resistance to change & some people have a downright head in the sand attitude to safety (not wearing Hi Viz for example) so the marketing men really do need to get their fingers out on that one.
 
There's clearly a very strong safety case for using the Exo. It's a good back protector AND protects against crush injuries in rotations, which seems to be the killer type of accident. Rumours like "it can cause whiplash" are clearly nonsensical and easily dismissed IF the right information is put out.

So there must be a large amount of blame on BodyCage here for not effectively marketing and defending their product (until now). Trying to offload that issue onto Woof Wear is a non-runner; making a successful product does not end with the R&D. If BC wanted it to be a success they had to make sure that it was marketed properly.

Let's just hope that, if anything, BC closing will generate enough publicity for Woof Wear to sell more units. "There's no such thing as bad publicity..."

You can ring Woof Wear on 01208 262505. They'll be able to tell you where you can buy an Exo if you want one.
 
Kerilli,

I see a more likely trend of suing organisers for not doing everything possible to maximise safety...
it has interesting implications.


Foxfolly,

I am not sure whether you noticed some of my replies above? I explain there in quite some detail (probably boring detail
smile.gif
) why this wouldn't work - unfortunately the economics just do not stack up... this will probably always be a one-manufacturer product until technology moves on enough to make the development costs cheaper - might happen in the next 10 years, but unlikely. WIth a product like this you are dealing with such enormous forces (work out the impact force of a horse falling from up to 2.5m (above a 4* fence) at 450-500kg (average weight for an eventer) at the speed the horse is travelling ) that force will squash a car let alone a human body, so to protect against it was in fact a break through in engineering (credit to Matt Aspray who invented it!), it isn't a simple product which is cheap to make... shame, but unfortunately true.


HisGreyness

Welcome to the forums
smile.gif
I think that it is worth just getting some things straight here - maybe worth reading the H&H article if you haven't already... It is not so much a discussion as to which riders have adopted it, but what else might have gone on in the industry... There are some good comments above worth reading as well. I am not sure who you are, but if you let me know, and it is relevant, I can provide lots of data on all sorts of things...
smile.gif
I have hard disks and filing cabinets full of tests / analysis / simulations / trials / etc. In fact we became known at the government test laboratories (SATRA) for turning up and getting them to develop new tests, the EXO was tested left / right and inside out (metaphorically speaking!), as mentioned above it sailed through the Beta Level 3 tests recording a perfect score with no impact being transmitted to the body (even through foam at times as the Exo holds the body protector away from the body, so even for its non-crush properties it can be clearly demonstrated that it offers better protection than any other body protector on the market.

The reality is simple, in a market sector where the alternative is a piece of foam covered in cloth, the Exo soars above them in the safety it offers - it is the first substantial breakthrough in body protection for the equestrian market. Lots of value has been seen in the product - probably the most esoteric suggestion is that it is brilliant in the bar after the event - you can always get through for a drink
smile.gif


I agree with you - market forces speak, and the decision we made was purely commercially driven - I am a business man, I am prepared to develop business with risk, for the potential rewards, but I also know when to move on, as here. However, whether this is a debate about 'risk-advers' riders only, or the environment in which the product was on offer and why there were rumours about it / inaccurate information / etc. is for others to judge... It is not as simple as saying
[ QUOTE ]
"professional and other riders who compete at the top levels of the sport have chosen not to adopt it"

[/ QUOTE ]
the more interesting question is why - and then you have to start looking at the climate in which they made that decision, who was encouraging / discouraging etc.

regarding concern being expressed that it may exacerbate neck injuries - you do seem rather quick to accept that rumour, yet be solid on your stance of waiting for more data on the Exo's benefits. I can only repeat what I have said above - there has been no basis offered for any of these rumours about potential damage to the neck, there is discussion above (anecdotal maybe) which debates whether such a rumour is even logical, but as I mention above, the product went through a number of years of development and testing, including involvement from internationally leading spinal and other surgeons, there was not even the slightest question of neck issue raised at any time... I would always be very open to seeing evidence to suggest otherwise, but until then a couple of people voicin an opinion / rumour does not fact make. The simple physics says that you are far more likely to get hyper-extension of the neck from adding weight to the head - so don't wear a helmet if you are concerned.


Hairycob

I see no reason why these shouldn't be worn for pony club - they are standard Beta 3 body protectors, I am not aware of any view from Pony Club which says don't wear them - but do check with them.


Dunkery

Thank you for your comments - the only debate I would have is in accepting blame for marketing - the Exo is not our product.
We developed the concept, patented the IPR, and worked hard in developing the structure inside the jacket, however we were always an R&D company, not a sales and distribution company. Woof Wear then licensed the IPR to build their own product... but it is probably not as simple as just saying that more marketing was needed - I think that it has been a far more complex set of circumstances. I have always been very careful to constrain my discussions to those in authority etc. so as not to interfere with the product of another company, once we licensed the IPR, it is not ours any longer.

The only reason for my discussion with H&H was that they phoned me to talk about the Exo after two horrific accidents within a few weeks of each other - seemingly identical situations where one rider walked away and the other tragically didn't - the only obvious difference being that the second rider was wearing an Exo. H&H obviously saw a story there - but in the discussion we talked about the company and when they learned that we were closing down the company, so this story developed... It is because the company will formally close next week (it has been struck off at our request, but the technical process means that the formal date is the 17th of Sep. though it has already happened earlier this year) that I am happy to now talk in more detail about the product, hence my involvement in this thread on the forum, as well as the article.

I won't talk in detail about where responsibility lies - others are aware of the details anyway - the simple reality on the one hand is that there were more people trying to prevent the product than promoting it, and unfortunately many of those aiming to prevent it were powerful people in one way or another, though I loved working in the industry, because of the so many amazing people - esp. the grass roots, the riders - it has also been a relief to no longer be having to fight some of the other influences - we have good evidence of much of what has happened - we will retain it, and hopefully never need to use it, but if there were to be court cases in the UK regarding rotational falls and their consequences - there might be some difficult explaining from certain quarters. Those people know who they are, and they know what they have done in the market, I won't be drawn into who / what / why, the purpose of the H&H article was to raise questions (which it has!), this is not about apportioning blame.

So, I really hope that out of this - there will be increased awareness of the product and what it can offer, there might be some challenging questions asked, and hopefully the safety of our sport will move forward a little bit more... It is not the answer to all issues, and it is undoubtedly not a perfect product, but in an environment where I can only say sadly that we have lost track of the injuries and deaths through rotational falls (and other crushing accidents) as they seem to be on the increase, at this point in time it offers a choice for riders - a means (proven in action) which might just save their lives...


regards

Alasdair Kirk
Managing Director
Bodycage
 
I really don't know what to say to a lot of that... I hope that those who actively opposed this (for self-interested monetary reasons, one assumes) will eventually be outed. The riders' lives should be more important than the sport, the sponsorship, etc.


[ QUOTE ]
Kerilli,

I see a more likely trend of suing organisers for not doing everything possible to maximise safety...
it has interesting implications.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nonsensical to me, although I fear it may become true. We riders all know the risks, and choose to run on the day, based upon whether we think we and the horse are up to that level. If we aren't brave enough, we stick to hacking/dressage/whatever! Surely it is ridiculous to accuse organisers of making it dangerous when we have gone there for the test (do you fancy riding round a course of 22 nice easy logs, anyone?), and had a chance to assess the problems first and, crucially, decide whether to run or not.
The court case in the U.S. makes me LIVID, i would love to meet that woman for 5 minutes. Yes, it is very sad that she lost her daughter(s), but blaming the organisers... jeez. makes me mad.
 
Kerilli,

I agree with you - however I think that unfortunately, this may be the way things are going - we have seen it in other arenas, the court case in the USA is indication it is coming into riding - if the plaintiffs win, it will change riding...

If I was an estate owner on whose land an event was taking place - I would be very concerned about allowing it to run...

I could see the land owners insisting on conractually making sure that the organisers take full responsibility for anything, the organisers will pass on that responsibility - etc.

The problem is that we live in a litigious climate now...

regards

Alasdair Kirk
Managing Director
Bodycage
 
I would just like to say this must be the most interesting posts | have read on here. I would like to thank everyine who has contributed to this indepth, interesting and valuable disscussion.
 
I can honestly say this is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever read on HHO. It seems incredible to me that pro riders and BE did not get behind this product!! The amount of misinformation surrounding it is, I must admit, one of the reasons I never probed any further into finding out what it was all about purely out of interest. I know that there is a great deal of analysis going on at the moment as to how to make the sport safer - particularly in the US and there have been mentions of frangible pins on fences etc. But here is an opportunity to put the safety of the rider above all else! I hope that those who were deliberately obstructive of this innovation will in time see sense, and I hope this product receives the respect it so deserves!
 
[ QUOTE ]
The ugly reality of this situation is that, for whatever reason, the cruel world of the free market has turned thumbs down on this product. Those who could most benefit from it, those most likely to incur rotational falls, professional and other riders who compete at the top levels of the sport have chosen not to adopt it.

I have seen no data to suggest that these body cage back protectors provide any more protection in any other kind of fall than regular body protectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have dipped back into the debate! Just wanted to make some comments re HisGreyness's post (good name BTW
wink.gif
)...

I notice you are new to this forum - welcome! However, you seem (with respect) to have missed the point by some considerable margin, and I feel the comments you made do a disservice to the reasoned debate which has taken place thus far. I feel faintly suspicious that you may represent one of the other interests which is involved in this saga - if so, be brave and tell us!

Regarding the so-called "Free Market": Bodycage/Alasdair is right to point out that the interesting issue is not whether top riders have adopted but if not, why not. The answers, or at least some of them, have been well-aired already. Nevertheless, if the product is a life-saver, minor objections should be over-ruled and if the EXO was compulsory for all we would all get on with wearing it. Just as governments step in to regulate aspects of the free market for the good of the country, BE/FEI could step in to ensure the safety of riders.

You seem to dismiss the protection the EXO provides in the event of a rotational fall as barely relevant except to top riders. The fact is that most of us reading/joining in this debate could experience one of these falls: another poster on this forum suffered one in a training clinic; the rider featured in H&H fell at the first fence in a Novice BE event - hardly the elite level. THese are the falls that haunt anyone with half a brain who rides cross country. We all know we will fall off from time to time, maybe even will suffer a horse fall but I, for one, pray never to experience a true rotational fall. Equally, we all know the possibility is there whenever we go through the start so a product that offers protection in the nightmare scenario is not to be dismissed so quickly.

I believe the rider sadly killed at Sapey last year died of head injuries but, to the best of my knowledge, ALL the other riders have died of crush injuries. It is the fatalities that make the FEI, IOC and sometimes the participants question the wisdom of continuing eventing, so if a product is available which can address this issue it seems ludicrous (now we have talked it all through - hindsight is a wonderful thing) that it isn't being driven forward by the sport's governing bodies. Other injuries from other types of fall will no doubt remain a part of eventing and we will live with them just as we always have.
 
I for one am sad that the Exo hasnt taken off with eventers and the more I read this thread the more crazy I think we all are for not having them!?

Having fallen at high speed ( fortunatly never rotational!) from racehorses on gallops (not wearing a BP either....) - (Oh to be young and foolish in my teens!) you are throw far and fast enough the only risk is aside from the obvious is trampling by others. = TBH Exos would never take off in the racing world as I suspect (having not tried one) they dont bend of flex-like a racesafe - plus being heavier too - I dont think the likes of AP McCoy or Ruby could or would get much leaner to accomodate that weight. I just think its sad that such an genius product - designed to save lives - hasnt taken

Seat belts are now compulsory -as are BPs XC - I think BE should consider making them compulsory... I dont want to change the sport itself anymore and as Kerilli has mentioned - NO 22 Log XC courses to be designed please - I will take up dressage instead.. and as for Canadas foam /made to look like a log/ fence... It will be lasers on fences next?
 
yes i see what you are getting at but if you watch even a head first rotational, IN RACING the jockeys are usually thrown clear and are more in danger of treads from the other runners which as i said earlier in the thread is what the normal BODY protector (they are not BACK protectors) are designed to alliviate by spreading the area of impact. The other reason is that racing fences, while significant obstacles, have a certain amount of give in the fences (some courses more than others) but even this small amount means that by the laws of physics the horses momentum is stopped a fraction slower than with a slolid obstacle which also helps to throw the riders clear. Think about how much racing there is and how few 'crush' injuries there are.
it is the regular rider and especially the eventer who is in more danger of being involved in the sort of fall the EXO is designed to alliviate damage in.
I can see no good real reason why this has not been made compulsory kit.
 
Hi all
Ive been following this post for several days now and thought i would brave and makea comment! I heard about the EXO a while ago, but i had no idea that it provided protection against rotational falls until i read this post. I'm just about to start eventing, got my first competition in two weeks time. It'l only be a pre novice but i'm already in the look out for one of these. Accidents can happen at any level. Even if it weighs a bit more and makes me look like the michiline man sp. at least if the worst does happen i might live to fight another day. I understand tha maybey its not viable at the moment, but i agree with many other comments about making them compulsory. Anything new feels odd, just takes a little getting used to.

Lol to Train_Robber. Imagine if we had a power cut half way through an event...all the jumps would disapear!
U~T
 
[ QUOTE ]
The ugly reality of this situation is that, for whatever reason, the cruel world of the free market has turned thumbs down on this product. Those who could most benefit from it, those most likely to incur rotational falls, professional and other riders who compete at the top levels of the sport have chosen not to adopt it.

I have seen no data to suggest that these body cage back protectors provide any more protection in any other kind of fall than regular body protectors. In fact, concern has been expressed that the body cage may exacerbate neck injuries in some of these other kinds of fall. Rigorous control group studies are not feasible to resolve these questions. The only time I can see the body cage providing additional protection, other than from a horse falling on a rider after a rotational fall is if a horse steps on or kicks at the cage part of the protector after a rider is on the ground after a fall.

There may be a market for this product to risk-averse riders who want to feel "safer". Whether it's big enough to support another manufacturer remains to be seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

HisGreyness I have to agree with TableDancer - you seem to have entirely missed the point of this discussion. The only time the bodycage does provide additional protection is in the event of a crush injury - that said, the protection it offers in the event of any other injury is comparable to every other product on the market. So essentially we have a piece of kit available, which in the interim period between now and us coming up with a solution for preventing rotational falls, does a great deal to mitigate for the effects on the human body of said type of fall. And yet neither BE nor the FEI have seen fit to make it compulsory. This is not about the 'free market' as such, it is about such issues as the FEI thinking it is fine to introduce 'one fall and out' (an unproven device to improve safety) but have not seen fit to make compulsory the only thing available at the moment which has proven safety benefits.

The neck injury issue I personally think is a complete red herring, and would hazard a guess as to where it has come from. It is nice to see new people posting on debates such as this, but I must also concur that you do sound somewhat as though you may have a vested interest in the BP market, and I'm afraid I too have some degree of suspicion about someone who joins to post on a topic such as this with comments which do not accurately reflect the debate in question. At this stage, I would hope those who feel the bodycage has some disbenefit could contribute (as Kit279 has done) with reasoned arguement and an evidence base rather than simply adding to the rumour mill.

For my part, I have no vested interest in any of the current BPs on the market, but I do wish that the bodycage had been more successful and therefore available to midgets like myself who would like to benefit from the technology! As for being risk adverse - yes, when there is a perfectly reasonable course of action for me to take which allows me to minimise the risk of injury but still participate fully in a sport, or indeed everyday life, I will take it. It's why I do things such as drive with a seatbelt on, rockclimb using ropes a helmet and a harness and cross the road using a crossing....which let's fact it, boils down to common sense really, doesn't it? The bodycage wouldn't stop me eventing, but it might just save my life if I had a crush injury....bit of a no-brainer from where I am sitting.
 
I had heard of this type of body protector before but really hadn't given it much thought if I am honest - and I have not been eventing this year as I haven't had a horse. But this thread is definitely the most interesting I have read in my time on the forum, and has really made me think - as and when I get my next horse I shall be seeking one of these body protectors out (if they are still available). The cost was a factor for me when I first heard about them, but I do think my life is worth more than £300 so why wouldnt you get one?
 
To be fair to HisGreyness - he / she appears to be a regular poster on Chronicle of the Horse (USA based? forum)

regards

Alasdair Kirk
Managing Director
Bodycage
 
[ QUOTE ]
To be fair to HisGreyness - he / she appears to be a regular poster on Chronicle of the Horse (USA based? forum)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, well apologies if I've been unfair then re vested interests.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Body cage you are very astute and i thought i was the only one who noticed!

[/ QUOTE ]

not really
smile.gif

I noticed that they had a thread similar (though less detailed) to this one, the same person has posted on there...

SpottedCat - I thought the same as you - it came across that way, so quite an understandable view...

regards

Alasdair Kirk
Managing Director
Bodycage
 
I think these body protectors are a fab idea and every eventer should be made to wear one even if it is only for xc!! (much to there utter dissgust) i think i would rather have a bit of extra weight whilst riding xc (which you dont really think about) than knowing i could end up in a wooden box six feet under after a serious fall because i was too worried bout minor problems they cause!!!
im actually gutted that they have decided to stop doing them!! I am a friend of kate hammer who fell at spring hill and my dad has watched the video of her falling and says that it is horific!! im so glad she was wearing one!! And i am happy to go and get one!!
i can understand peoples concerns about whiplash and the allen key. (which you only need if you cant stand) they open and close with out one otherwise. And i think they should have done a few more sizes. but otherwise they would are great.
eventing will start getting to be know as really dangerous with the amount of riders that have died from a rotational fall. This is one prevention that could stop this!!
 
lrobson, they aren't being taken out of production afaik, contact WoofWear because they are still in charge of distribution, I believe.
I would love to see the fall (not being ghoulish, honestly, just want to see how it happened and how they fell), perhaps it could be linked to the Bodycage or Exo website? the one on there is filmed from the far side of a fence so doesn't show it clearly.
 
lrobson

as mentioned by kerilli, nothing has stopped or changed, other than my company no longer owning the patent / licence which are now owned by the RDA.

kerilli

if anyone has a copy of the fottage / link, then I would be happy to put it on the Bodycage website.
it is a shame that the other is filmed from the wrong side of the fence - it just happened to be where the video company was shooting from...

daisycrazy

a good post in that other thread...
the one thing worth considering is that motorcycle gear is generally engineered to deal with abrasion / sliding / friction injuries, whereas eventing is more impact / crushing...
regarding airbags - there are a number of solutions on the market at present including a company which is interested in adding an airbag neck protector to the Exo so I have pointed them at RDA / Woof Wear. The biggest issue with airbag technology is how you choose to trigger the airbag, at present (as far as I know), the Dainese is unique in using sensors to trigger based on a computer model detecting you falling off - expensive but accurate. The others all rely on your being attached to the saddle and then triggering when the attaching cable is pulled... the problem with this is that you could potentially trigger the air bag when you are riding on the horse's neck / coming out of the seat over a jump / half falling off, and able to recover - in fact the triggering could hinder your ability to recover... these are all issues which I am sure will one day be resolved, but are there at present...

regards

Alasdair
 
I disagree that motorcycle gear is generally engineered to deal with abrasion/sliding/friction injuries. It is indeed engineered to withstand those but it is also designed to deal with direct impact - such as when a motorbike goes straight into a barrier, or your motorbike flips and lands on top of you, etc.. Armour with the materials design and technology which enables people to get up and walk away from 100-200mph crashes must be able to deal with direct impact, at least to some extent. Some have built in crumple zones - surely a direct impact technology?

The neck protection and the general body armour - protection to hips, shoulders, etc. whilst retaining movement - is made using much more sophisticated materials than normal BETA 3 body protectors. I am not suggesting that these would be better than what we have now, and I'm certainly not suggesting them as an alternative to the Exo.

Ideally - body cage to prevent crush injuries combined with enhanced body armour and protection to neck, back, arms and legs, with ideas and technology applied from both motorbike armour and current equestrian armour to give the best possible protection.

Certainly when I have fallen from horses over the years it has not just been my back and head that have needed protection. Significant damage can be sustained to all parts of the body and, in my view, the more that can be protected without compromising freedom of movement the better.

It is easy to become blinkered about alternative ideas because we don't understand them. I am certain that the companies manufacturing this armour for motorbikes and other sports would be happy to at least discuss the technology they use to enable decisions to be made as to whether it can be applied to and developed for equestrian sport.

I wasn't so interested in the air bags because I wouldn't want to be attached to an airbag with a horse thrashing round me. I've heard it's bad enough escaping from them when they go off inside a car. I struggle to see how the benefits could outweigh the risks - but wouldn't write off the possibility because I imagine the technology could be adapted.
 
I was thinking about this post over the weekend. I think that part of the problem lies in the limits on the patent, i.e., only licensing to woof wear. Now, if you ask on here for recommendations on bp's, how often does ww come up? never, most people go for RP, racesafe, airowear etc. So, would it not make sense to allow other co's to purchase production rights on the patent, which will enable them to incorporate the exo technology into their own styles of bp's, thus increasing the competition and encouraging manufacturers to develop the designs further and give us choice and perhaps a more competatively priced product. Thinking along the lines of 'gortex' here - a technology, which is incorporated into loads and loads of products by loads of companies, why can't bodycage do something like that?

And daisy crazy, IMO you are spot on with what you are saying about other sports. My best friends hubby does motocross and his body armour is way more flexible and lightweight, yet offers much superior protection to riders safety gear. Some of that technology definetely should be looked at by horsy manufacturers and i am sure could qualify for beta approval. Mountain horse tried to do it with a jacket, but is was like wearing a cagoule laden with polystylene bricks!
 
Alasdair could I ask you a couple of questions that a friend and I were discussing yesterday re: the exo?

When the design was first implemented I assume they were tested under the full force & weight that would equal a horse falling onto it? Have seen the posts about people having you jump up and down on them whilst wearing the exo but one man's weight is nothing compared to half a ton of horse coming down at speed. I'm sure they have but just wanted to double check.

Another one would be - they must as SOME point start to lose their strength, thus start to bend and eventually ultimately snap (as the laws of physics would tell you). So say for someone who did get landed on with the full force of a horse at 4* level so more height & speed heading into the downwards fall. Would the exo be strong enough & safe enough to offer the exactly the SAME amount of protection if the same fall over the same height of fence/same speed/same level (obviously you'll never get two identical falls that's neigh on impossible) happened again? Or would it be a case of knowing that you're going xc with a weakened BP? People don't like riding with weakened hats so why ride with a weakened BP? (and for some BPs, but not the Exo - a decent hat costs the same amount of money. You can buy one of the Air-O-Wear ones for £110, my hat cost £120 for example).

You only have to look at crumple zones on the front of a car. They work brilliantly the first time, bounce back but future crashes/driving into walls even at a slower speed, they crumple even quicker as they've been weakened (if that makes sense?). I'm just thinking in the same way that if you whack your hat, you go and replace it as the foam inside never recovers FULLY. Surely that's the same for a piece of metal?

Can you tell I've been thinking about this in science mode?
blush.gif


In reply to whover said "wear the allan key around your neck" so it's always on the rider. If people weren't happy doing that (getting caught on trees, strangling yourself etc) what about putting it in your medical armband?
 
kerilli, i will see what i can do about getting a vdeo for people to see! you will be able to see most of what happens!
as for them being stopped i understand they werent doing them but then that is only what i had heard. apparently from the 17th of this month.
 
I've been reading this with interest. Given as I haven't ridden for 10 months I won't be rushing out to purchase one, however if I was eventing it would be strongly in my mind, providing I could get one to fit (24" waist means I'm in the childrens sizes, with a fuller bust makes life very difficult - I can't breathe very well in an ordinary BP!!!!)

Thinking about the BETA Standards, it seems very much like riding has stood still in its development of safety equipment. I have grown up with motorbikes and I remember my Dad replacing his leathers every 2 years, and his helmet needing replacing often to ensure its up to current standards. With riding hats I remember buying a new one to PAS015 when I was around 8, but now at 21 I go to shows and events and see that the PAS015 standard is still the required standard, so over 13 years there has been no progression on the minimum standards required?

The lack of progression in safety standards I think has led to the reluctance to accept new products - the Lucinda Green helment springs to mind, and the attitude of 'well I can get a hat up to standard for £100 less, so I'll get that'.

Riding is a sport soaked in tradition, hiviz and bright colours are something that is often looked upon as something new, I hack out dressed like a Christmas tree but have been frequently told I "look like an amateur happy hacker". I'd really rather come home, safe and sound dressed like a Christmas tree in hiviz head to toe.

I think I've gone off topic a little here though, but just my thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top