Is an eggbutt a severe bit ??

Tnavas said:
The fact that it is easier to stop a horse in a Pelham tells you that the action is sharper - therefore some could say stronger - the action is different!

A snaffle is the milder of all the bits because as many of us have actually noticed this is a bit that is pretty useless if the horse gets strong or takes off.

They work differently.
Click to expand...

Also, simply put, the action of a snaffle is directly acted on your hand as the same amount as the horse's mouth. So the amount you are pulling is the amount the horse feels. Leverage bits, by definition, work by increasing the force of the hand by a factor determined by the lever, which is usually in the 2/2.5 ish range for most Pelhams. So if you have 4lbs in your hand, the horse feels 8+lbs. Pelhams are lighter for people, not for horses. ;) This does not make them good or bad, but it is part of the conversation that can get skipped over.

Re bearing surface, yes the bearing surface of the bit definitely determines "strength". Smaller surface + same force = higher psi. Of course thicker bits can be uncomfortable for some horses because of their mouth conformation so thinner bits are "kinder" to them but basically the thinner/sharper the bit, the more pressure it exerts. This is why twists etc are more severe and why the point about waterfords above is valid. No one thinks a bicycle chain bit (yes, really) is kind just because it is flexible. Double wire bits with offset joints are actually milder, relatively speaking, than single wire bits because the bearing surface is larger and the joint does not fully collapse. Looks scarier but isn't.

These two aspects work together, too. We experience rein pressure on a relatively wide strip of leather in a relatively strong and weathered part of our body. Horses experience it in a very sensitive area, pretty much right on the bone. . . .

Of course, the problem is bitting is not an exact science and horses don't read books!
 
Last edited:
Taffieboy1 said:
Do you think happy mouth jointed Pelhams are much different in action to happy mouth snaffle ?
Click to expand...

No!

A jointed Pelham is a waste of space! It just becomes a snaffle with either the action of a Hanging Cheek - when used with roundings or on the top rein.

A really nothing bit - the moment the reins are used the bit collapses, the curb chain goes slack and the poll pressure is lost along with the tightening of the bit and chain against the bars.
 
Glad I have an agreement with that, hence was my reason taking him out of the happy mouth jointed pelham and putting him into a happy mouth jointed snaffle as felt they were just same really.
He has got such a tiny delicate mouth, doubt I get a straight bar in there either :-)
 
Have heard in the past that the Nylon flexible mullen mouth pelhams are v mild, but not to sure as never used one, hopefully someone on here will know the truth on them.
 
And yet, oddly, I've seen some horses go really well in jointed pelhams. They are seen fairly regularly on North American working hunters and that's a pretty bit happy crowd so it wouldn't be from lack of options.

That was my point before - bitting is not an exact science. Would I recommend a jointed pelham? No, probably not. But having used them successfully in the past I wouldn't categorically rule them out, either.
 
Prev owner said my lad went brill in his, but she was a v nervous hacker too, an felt more in control with it.
Know people who use them, an say slightest twitch an the horse listens to you, where with a snaffle sometimes it takes a little longer, goes back to a prev posters comment that sometimes it better to use less restraint with a harder bit, than to need quite hard force with a milder bit.
 
Tnavas said:
A Waterford may have no leverage or nutcracker action but it's action is far more severe as the pressure is pin point per ball and it can also bruise the hell out of the bars when it clonks backwards and forwards over them on turning.

A Yes Mike a Waterford is in the 'snaffle' family!
Click to expand...
Lets face it ,the textbook definition of a snaffle is a load of nonsense .It is a bit which acts directly without leverage. Any engineer will tell you that by this definition ,a typical eggbut snaffle couldnt be a snaffle. It has two fulcrum arms and a hinge,it applys leverage. (So does a french link .) Also , if one considers the action of an eggbutt snaffle ,it too applys pressure to a point, the difference being it also squeezes the jaw under leverage. Far more likely to bruise the jaw. And of course you have the additional factor that because of the fixed ring ,the bit is more likely to strike the roof of the mouth. And as for clonking backwards and forwards on turning, I find that simply doesnt happen ,but I have seen a lot of people hammering horses mouths with eggbutt snaffles. As for not being able to ride into a contact,thats frankly nonsense. I am well aware that there is a school of thought that hauling a horses head into a semblance of an outline and using the bit as a sort of fixed buffer for the horse to lean on ,is what is ment by riding into a contact. I would have to agree, a waterford isnt really going to work ,However a horse that is carrying itself properly can find all the contact it needs from a waterford.
 
Mike007 said:
Lets face it ,the textbook definition of a snaffle is a load of nonsense .It is a bit which acts directly without leverage. Any engineer will tell you that by this definition ,a typical eggbut snaffle couldnt be a snaffle. It has two fulcrum arms and a hinge,it applys leverage. (So does a french link .) Also , if one considers the action of an eggbutt snaffle ,it too applys pressure to a point, the difference being it also squeezes the jaw under leverage. Far more likely to bruise the jaw. And of course you have the additional factor that because of the fixed ring ,the bit is more likely to strike the roof of the mouth. And as for clonking backwards and forwards on turning, I find that simply doesnt happen ,but I have seen a lot of people hammering horses mouths with eggbutt snaffles. As for not being able to ride into a contact,thats frankly nonsense. I am well aware that there is a school of thought that hauling a horses head into a semblance of an outline and using the bit as a sort of fixed buffer for the horse to lean on ,is what is ment by riding into a contact. I would have to agree, a waterford isnt really going to work ,However a horse that is carrying itself properly can find all the contact it needs from a waterford.
Click to expand...

While the eggbutt has a fixed mouth to rings there is no fulcrum because the parts that can action the bit are able to move freely. A fulcrum is a pivot point and there is no pivot point on an eggbutt - when the rider uses the reins the action is back and upwards, the cheek pieces of the bridle slacken.

The Waterford is currently the bit in fashion! It is used by many that are totally unsuitable to use it - and it is a bit that can and does bruise the mouth easily. I will search for the photos I have
 
The corners of the bars of the mouth are the fulcrum points,the two arms of the bit are the levers and the joint is the pivot. This bit gives leverage. It also applys a squeezing pressure on the jaw which the horse can find no obvious way of responding to ,hence they learn to bore down on the bit and use the teeth to take the unwelcome force. Any bit can do damage in the wrong hands ,but my experience is that the typical jointed snaffle causes far more damage and behavioural problems simply because people mistakenly think they are mild.For every pound of pressure we apply back on the bars of the mouth,we apply about the same ,squeezing the jaw. Since we have a dialogue with the horse through our hands, what kind of messsage are we sending?A bit like hitting someone in the jaw every time we say somthing really.
 
Mike007 said:
The corners of the bars of the mouth are the fulcrum points,the two arms of the bit are the levers and the joint is the pivot. This bit gives leverage. It also applys a squeezing pressure on the jaw which the horse can find no obvious way of responding to ,hence they learn to bore down on the bit and use the teeth to take the unwelcome force. Any bit can do damage in the wrong hands ,but my experience is that the typical jointed snaffle causes far more damage and behavioural problems simply because people mistakenly think they are mild.For every pound of pressure we apply back on the bars of the mouth,we apply about the same ,squeezing the jaw. Since we have a dialogue with the horse through our hands, what kind of messsage are we sending?A bit like hitting someone in the jaw every time we say something really.
Click to expand...

Mike - normally you and I will agree on most things but one thing you've not taken into account is the effect of the width of the horses neck which actually regulates how much nutcracker action the bit makes. View from above and you have a long diamond shape with the two narrow ends being the bit and the riders hands - in between the rein travels outwards to the widest part of the neck and then inwards to the riders hands - this considerably reduces any nutcracker effect.
 
I agree that any single jointed bit applies leverage. However, this is insignificant when compared to the leverage of a bit with 'arms' where the force is applied at a distance from the point on which it acts, increasing the moment on the horse's mouth considerably.

A nutcracker action mouthpiece (so any single joint) should be fairly small and acting mostly on the horse's tongue if the rider holds their hands correctly (up and apart, not down and together).

I also think, used correctly, the waterford is a under-utilised bit. It does require someone who understands how it works- if your horse pulls and you pull back, it forms a rigid bit and becomes a really horrible bit of equipment rather than a very useful one. This is something that can't be achieved with other mouthpieces really and is probably a big reason in why it's not dressage legal...
 
Tnavas said:
Mike - normally you and I will agree on most things but one thing you've not taken into account is the effect of the width of the horses neck which actually regulates how much nutcracker action the bit makes. View from above and you have a long diamond shape with the two narrow ends being the bit and the riders hands - in between the rein travels outwards to the widest part of the neck and then inwards to the riders hands - this considerably reduces any nutcracker effect.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the width of the horses neck is irrelevant .Under load the bit forms a V shape. To get a better idea of the effect. Make a fist and lean against a wall with it. Not too bad. Now put your fist into the corner betwean two walls and try. It hurts like hell ,Why ,leverage ,even though the angle of the walls didnt change ,they still applied leverage.The problem with a jointed bit is that in order for it to fit comfortably ,it must be significantly wider than the jaw,in order to accomodate the fleshy parts of the mouth. This extra width is what brings leverage into effect and causes the bit to form a v shape. The wider the bit in relation to the width of the jaw,the worse the effect.
 
OP, this is a really useful page on bitting that has been referenced on this forum many times. As Tarrsteps said it's not an exact science though, and I don't agree with every point this page makes but it makes for very informative reading.

http://www.sustainabledressage.net/tack/bridle.php

Scroll down for bits.

FWIW there is nothing for the horse to take forward in a Waterford, so it absolutely should not be dressage legal. I assume Mike is talking about a single jointed snaffle rather than an eggbutt cheek; I can see no meaningful amount of leverage at all with a single joint, just a nutcracker action. Are you talking about leverage on the poll or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
DollyPentreath said:
OP, this is a really useful page on bitting that has been referenced on this forum many times. As Tarrsteps said it's not an exact science though, and I don't agree with every point this page makes but it makes for very informative reading.

http://www.sustainabledressage.net/tack/bridle.php

Scroll down for bits.

FWIW there is nothing for the horse to take forward in a Waterford, so it absolutely should not be dressage legal. I assume Mike is talking about a single jointed snaffle rather than an eggbutt cheek; I can see no meaningful amount of leverage at all with a single joint, just a nutcracker action. Are you talking about leverage on the poll or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

No - Mike is convinced there is leverage!
 
Mike007 said:
No I am not talking about"poll pressure". The nutcracker action you refer to is also the application of leverage.
Click to expand...

OK, at least I now understand the context of the word leverage in your earlier posts. I do understand what you mean, especially if you think of the bit in 2 halves acting as a first class lever. (Riders hand is the effort, the bars are the fulcrum and the palate takes the load - ouch!). Hopefully that's your analogy: correct? In which case; I agree with you as this is the nutcracker action.

But, you do need some sort of contact for dressage. Yes, mouth 'leverage' will occur (with lesser force than a single joint, but importantly, the palate isn't taking the load) in a French link, however, what about the single rollers (like mylers) that you can't totally collapse? Surely this minimises the squeezing effect, especially with good hands (yes, I admit it will still occur but how else can a contact be taken forwards)? A bit off topic, sorry. Now I understand your point Mike, I think it's a pretty good one!!
 
Last edited:
Yes that was my point ,the mylers are designed to not collapse and provide minimal leverage and also importantly cant jab the roof of the mouth. My personal opinion is that the effect of jabbing the roof of the mouth (even if only occasionaly and not hard enough to cause bruising)is vastly underestimated. I suspect that a lot of problems start here. That said, the french link is a bit of a oddity, we consider it has less nutcracker action,but from an engineering standpoint ,the leverage is greater because the distance from the fulcrum (the jaw) to the joint ,is shorter in relation to the length of the lever. The squeezing force would be greater. I suspect that the success of this bit has more to do with it not striking the roof of the mouth.
 
Again I will say that you have to take the width of the neck into account with the amount of nutcracker action!

It does reduce the amount of folding - when you consider that the bit is only around 5" wide and the neck a good deal more.

The rein comes outwards first before it returns to the rider.

HAve a look next time you are with a bridled horse
 
Mike007 said:
Yes that was my point ,the mylers are designed to not collapse and provide minimal leverage and also importantly cant jab the roof of the mouth. My personal opinion is that the effect of jabbing the roof of the mouth (even if only occasionaly and not hard enough to cause bruising)is vastly underestimated. I suspect that a lot of problems start here. That said, the french link is a bit of a oddity, we consider it has less nutcracker action,but from an engineering standpoint ,the leverage is greater because the distance from the fulcrum (the jaw) to the joint ,is shorter in relation to the length of the lever. The squeezing force would be greater. I suspect that the success of this bit has more to do with it not striking the roof of the mouth.
Click to expand...

Instead the French link bruises the bars of the mouth where the joints catch on it. Only time this doesn't happen is when the bit is a true french link - that is the two sides joined with a figure eight. The flat plate takes the joints out to the bars for the majority of horses.

There is also much debate as to whether the joint of a single jointed snaffle does hit the roof of the mouth. When you conside that the joint lies downwards in the mouth when the horse carries it - when the rider applies the reins the movement of the ring is backwards and upwards which does not alter the lie of the bit in the horses mouth.

If used with a running martingale or when led from the ground yes the bit can rotate as the pressure of the reins is first downwards which changes the lie of the bit. Again go have a careful look
.
 
Initialy you said that it was the width of the neck that regulated the amount of nutcracker effect . Again I would say this is not true. The fit and design of the bit are vastly more important. The width of the neck ,considering the distance betwean the point of contact on the neck ,and the mouth,can only shave a few degrees off the angle the rein makes with the bit and only mildly influence the action.But I do accept that there is a small effect.
 
The feel in the hand from a snaffle ridden vs in hand would suggest angle makes a difference. I HATE jointed bits (bits in general, but jointed in particular) for showing youngstock, loading etc as I think you can do real damage to both the mouth and the 'mouth'.

Re single joints, there fashion as the default bit of choice on the basis that they are 'more comfortable' is relatively recent and not driven by science, but by some very vocal opinions, a few with obvious bias. There are still horses that 'prefer' (as if any horse prefers being bitted. . .) a single joint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top