bodycage
Active Member
I hadn't realised that so many threads had popped up
Some random musings if I may - now coming from me privately as BodyCage Ltd. is now offically no longer!
- I think that asking the question is a good idea - it plants a flag in the sand which states that riders are concerned about safety and want to be reassured that the organisers are doing everything they can to ensure safety.
- I have explained elsewhere on this forum why this product will probably never be a multi-manufacturer product, that is just the reality of manufacturing a high-tech product, it is expensive. However I do not see that as an issue, I have an iPhone - do I insist that Apple can only sell it if they licence their technology to lots of companies for competition - no, of course not, I have bought Apple Macs since the 1980s, the fact that the make money selling them allows them to innovate and now we have the iPhone - had they been forced to allow all manufacturers to sell their interface / kit they would probably have gone out of business, and there would have been little money for innovation...
- I do think though that they need to be compulsory, the simple reality, and my biggest sadness, is that people die without them, no-one wearing one has died in a rotational fall, yet since we launched the product, a number of people have died. They need to bee compulsory so that a) people wear them b) there is parity c) there is enough money being made commercially to develop stage 2 etc.
- I think that the arguments against compulsary requirements can be dealt with - it probably needs to be phased in etc. But excuses will be just that - it is possible if desired...
- If there is anyone for whom they just do not work / body shape / back issues etc. then there should simply be a medical sign off to exclude requirement / a time penalty added / a legal waiver signed / etc.
- Baileyhoss has it right on standards - there needs to be an overhaul.
- Standards should not be in the control of the trade body - it is a huge potential for conflict of interest.
- either 'BETA level 4' / Crush protection standards should be developed. SATRA have in the past expressed a willingness to do this / be involved in it - they would actually be the logical home of the standards - an independent body outside the equestrian world - internationally respected.
- The minute you do this, you allow for an EXO which is not in a full BETA 3 body protector - the eventing rules then need to change to allow / require the crush protection, with the choice of whether the anti-brusing / etc. protection is used as well...
- agree with Kerilli's comments about 'looking through the wrong end of the periscope' if you don't want a horse to fall - leave it in the box
When we developed the Exo, we did a lot of work looking at competitor products to see whether they were a threat commercially to us, and concluded that the only solution which works is one which sits on and protects the rider... why? because there have been a number of cases of riders being killed, crushed by their horses no-where near a fence... we know of a young riding instructor in Hyde Park, London who riding with her class back to the yard went past a van where the driver started the engine - horse spooked, reared and went over backwards - rider crushed; a child riding in a stubble field, horse leg caught in a rabbit hole, horse rolled, child crushed. It is horrible to talk about these things, but they happen. It is only by protecting the rider that you can ensure safety.
- Thistle - I totally agree with this response, the EXO in its current form does not suit everyone - it was a first product demonstrating the ability to prevent crushing - all the experts said that it would be absolutely impossible, the forces were too big - but we did it, so as a first product the EXO is right - but it does now need to develop, no-one would disagree with that - John Felton of Woof-Wear referred to that in the original H&H article - but that will not happen until there is a trigger to make it happen - and how it is phased in can be sorted out - but if you don't want crushing - this is the only solution, and with the patent being so generic - there will not be another approach for 15 years! So, yes it needs to move into phase 2 - see above for thoughts - but a trigger is needed.
- Kerilli, agree about not wanting to buy obsolete - but there are two solutions - if you can get an investor like goodyear, then you can jump ahead, otherwise, the money has to come from sales... and we all buy obsolete kit - all our cars are designed, already knowing generation 2 / manufacturers buil in obsolence / don't put in all the latest stuff as they make more money by selling an upgrade... Not suggesting that is why it should be done, just acknowledging a reality of life
and saying it may be the only way - consider it more as you investing a bit of money into the future of safety of the sport...
- Shaab - totally behind more study into types of ffences, but there is alreadya train of thought which says that all fences should be logs with frangible pins - that could be quite boring! Also, as per my point above - you can be crushed from a horse on the flat, nothing else you can do there...
- Winkfiedwintershere - you say that you would be hacked off to have a compulsory rule telling you what form of protection to wear - yet that rule is already in place - you have to wear a BETA 3 body protector - so any rule would only change the type, not the concept. And what is being proposed here is something far more gradual / and a discussion at least initially. Also curious to know what more road testing you would want - does the fact that it has saved a couple of lives not count - any safety device that can take 1/2 tonne of horse from 1m has to be reasonably good
- eventerchick - appreciated, thank you for the feedback, and glad that it is working for you...
regards
Alasdair Kirk
(previously Managing Director of Bodycage Ltd. which is now dissolved.)
Some random musings if I may - now coming from me privately as BodyCage Ltd. is now offically no longer!
- I think that asking the question is a good idea - it plants a flag in the sand which states that riders are concerned about safety and want to be reassured that the organisers are doing everything they can to ensure safety.
- I have explained elsewhere on this forum why this product will probably never be a multi-manufacturer product, that is just the reality of manufacturing a high-tech product, it is expensive. However I do not see that as an issue, I have an iPhone - do I insist that Apple can only sell it if they licence their technology to lots of companies for competition - no, of course not, I have bought Apple Macs since the 1980s, the fact that the make money selling them allows them to innovate and now we have the iPhone - had they been forced to allow all manufacturers to sell their interface / kit they would probably have gone out of business, and there would have been little money for innovation...
- I do think though that they need to be compulsory, the simple reality, and my biggest sadness, is that people die without them, no-one wearing one has died in a rotational fall, yet since we launched the product, a number of people have died. They need to bee compulsory so that a) people wear them b) there is parity c) there is enough money being made commercially to develop stage 2 etc.
- I think that the arguments against compulsary requirements can be dealt with - it probably needs to be phased in etc. But excuses will be just that - it is possible if desired...
- If there is anyone for whom they just do not work / body shape / back issues etc. then there should simply be a medical sign off to exclude requirement / a time penalty added / a legal waiver signed / etc.
- Baileyhoss has it right on standards - there needs to be an overhaul.
- Standards should not be in the control of the trade body - it is a huge potential for conflict of interest.
- either 'BETA level 4' / Crush protection standards should be developed. SATRA have in the past expressed a willingness to do this / be involved in it - they would actually be the logical home of the standards - an independent body outside the equestrian world - internationally respected.
- The minute you do this, you allow for an EXO which is not in a full BETA 3 body protector - the eventing rules then need to change to allow / require the crush protection, with the choice of whether the anti-brusing / etc. protection is used as well...
- agree with Kerilli's comments about 'looking through the wrong end of the periscope' if you don't want a horse to fall - leave it in the box
- Thistle - I totally agree with this response, the EXO in its current form does not suit everyone - it was a first product demonstrating the ability to prevent crushing - all the experts said that it would be absolutely impossible, the forces were too big - but we did it, so as a first product the EXO is right - but it does now need to develop, no-one would disagree with that - John Felton of Woof-Wear referred to that in the original H&H article - but that will not happen until there is a trigger to make it happen - and how it is phased in can be sorted out - but if you don't want crushing - this is the only solution, and with the patent being so generic - there will not be another approach for 15 years! So, yes it needs to move into phase 2 - see above for thoughts - but a trigger is needed.
- Kerilli, agree about not wanting to buy obsolete - but there are two solutions - if you can get an investor like goodyear, then you can jump ahead, otherwise, the money has to come from sales... and we all buy obsolete kit - all our cars are designed, already knowing generation 2 / manufacturers buil in obsolence / don't put in all the latest stuff as they make more money by selling an upgrade... Not suggesting that is why it should be done, just acknowledging a reality of life
- Shaab - totally behind more study into types of ffences, but there is alreadya train of thought which says that all fences should be logs with frangible pins - that could be quite boring! Also, as per my point above - you can be crushed from a horse on the flat, nothing else you can do there...
- Winkfiedwintershere - you say that you would be hacked off to have a compulsory rule telling you what form of protection to wear - yet that rule is already in place - you have to wear a BETA 3 body protector - so any rule would only change the type, not the concept. And what is being proposed here is something far more gradual / and a discussion at least initially. Also curious to know what more road testing you would want - does the fact that it has saved a couple of lives not count - any safety device that can take 1/2 tonne of horse from 1m has to be reasonably good
- eventerchick - appreciated, thank you for the feedback, and glad that it is working for you...
regards
Alasdair Kirk
(previously Managing Director of Bodycage Ltd. which is now dissolved.)
