One rider's favorite Rolex memory

The only thing that I would add is that, while I agree with Chelan's conclusion that Rolex generally supported the use of Prologs and that course designers need to consider the technologies more closely, the experts that Visionaire and I spoke to after Rolex and wrote about [http://eventingnation.com/home/2010/04/crash-notes-from-rolex-xc.html] felt that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the frangible pins did not work as desired in the Wonderful Will or the R-Star crashes. Furthermore, there are many situations where frangible pins have worked as desired, including, from what I hear, with Alex Hua Tian and Jeans at the Badminton corners. A lot of smart people who know much more than me believe strongly in frangible pins.

I hope that any vertical log that I canter up to in the future is using either Prologs or frangible pins or some better technology. I'll leave it up to the experts to decide which is best. But one thing I learned from Badminton is that jumps don't have to collapse to be safe--designing geometrically safe fences is an important step as well.

Great post! I'd love to hear more from people involved with designing both the pins and the prologs. I'd also like to hear from people who've worn the air vests in a crash. I'm fascinated by the air vests, but every time they come up on a bulletin board I frequent, a couple of well-respected posters rip them to shreds on the grounds that they're not proven technology.

I think Oli's fall is proof enough for me, but I'd like more data from actual riders.

I agree that the new vests are great, and I would love to have one, but I'm not foolish because I don't wear one. I just can't afford one!

Just quietly like to say that I really adore that picture of K and DOC. It always makes me smile.

Oh yeah. And thanks for posting the 40-min-run-around-Rolex-in-wet-jeans-and-garnering-many-snide-remarks-for-useless-video story. ;-)

It would be interesting to know if there were pins that did not give way at the corners where the horse broke it's leg at Badminton, or if they might have helped. I would also really like to hear the course designers explanation as to why he did not have a Pro-log at the fence where everyone fell.

The frangible pin on the jump at the hollow at Rolex probably works when jumped/hit from the other direction? Can the frangible pinned jumps actually be set up to collapse if jumped from either side? This same jump was pinned and jumped from the other direction in the prior Rolex xc.

While I admire so many of the upper level riders, I am often surprised by how comfortably they apparently feel making really bold statements about frangible pins and air vests absent any real data. While I agree with Chelan on many points and certain that we need to work hard to make this safer...I don't get the sense she has really spent much time looking at the issue critically.

"five tries, five failures" - that is only a true statement *IF* the pins were suppose to break with that sort of impact. My understanding, and I have a layman's knowledge base so you'll notice I don't make any really bold statements for fear of being incorrect, is that the type of force that would be required to break a pin (i.e. that found in a 'true' rotational fall) was not really present in R-Star and Oliver's falls. That said, I do think we need to address the 'split-leg' type of fall and figure out a way to account for that. Is it just me or is it getting more common?

As for "Air vests clearly save lives"...can that really be said? I think they can certainly help, but I'm not sure they are the amazing death defying jacket everyone seems to want to make them out to be. Personally, when I saw Oliver's fall, I thought he would be fine as it seemed like the weight of his horse missed most of him and was on his shoulder. I think its possible that he would have walked away with or without the air jacket. And I think its also possible that he would not have walked away, even with the air jacket, if his horse's weight had landed squarely on him/his chest.

For more information on frangible pins, check out the USEA's XC Obstacle Design Standards document. Scroll way down--the final section is all about frangible pins. http://www.useventing.com/resources/files/docs/4-30-2010_X-C_Guidelines_and_Frangible_Pin_Handbook.pdf

Kudos for Chelan! I'm so happy that an ULR will speak about their experiences with the new technology. Callie, sorry, but this is her opinion based on her experience. I don't want to see ULR's shrinking back because someone refutes their statements, it's just their experiences, which the rest of us do not have and I want to hear what they say. Whether I agree with it or not. Which I shouldn't because I haven't been there, done that. We've all seen what test data they have available. What we need down is field experiments. I'm glad she's speaking about it all candidly.

equinedriver, the corner where Desert Island broke her leg was a big brush corner. I'm not sure pins come into the equation at that kind of fence, but I'm prepared to stand corrected on that one.

a bit of insider info - I was talking to Kyle Carter (who owns the company making the PROLOGS) the day before XC and he told me the Rolex order almost didn't happen...there was a lot of back & forth.

Everybody (me included) who was at the Head of Lake when Capt. Curran had his crash, was very glad the technology was installed.

Callie, if the pins were not supposed to break under circumstances such as those presented by the 5 falls, then under what circumstances should they break? And, while the pins weren't designed to break in the cases of R-Star and WW, they were supposed to break under the circumstances of the other 3 falls, yes? Either way you look at it, 5 potentially fatal falls had occurred and, given that we have the technology (but not necessarily the design, mind you), the falls could have been prevented.

On another note, I showed pictures of the hanging log at the Hollow to my engineer boyfriend and he was absolutely perplexed as to how anyone thought those falls could have been prevented based on the placement of the frangible pin.

So, this brings us back to redesigning a jump that is more appropriate for the "Hanging Leg" fall. It has become apparent that not every dangerous fall is a rotational fall and those, too, need to be accounted for in the jump and course design. We KNOW that horses hang their legs when they get slightly distracted or surprised by what the upcoming questions are. We have a responsibility to either not build questions with a high risk of that in combination with an unforgiving fence or build better frangible fences.

Thank you Chelan for giving your opinion. I found your blog a few weeks ago through EN, and I enjoy it immensely.

I completely agree with Lisab that we really want to encourage upper level riders to speak out more about their experiences. We will never agree with 100% anyone says, but our sport desperately needs to hear more from ULERs and I will applaud and support any of them who voices their experiences and opinions even if I happen to disagree with their conclusions on a topic. Go Chelan!

This is for the commenter Kim: it sounds like you are unhappy because people aren't saying what you want to hear on this topic. The reason the well-respected posters on bulletin boards tear this to shreds is that they are basing their arguments in scientific facts (and the lack thereof regarding these technologies), whereas it seems you and many others prefer the testimonials of people whose expertise is riding horses, not engineering or safety.

You'd rather hear from people with zero experience with the vests (how are you even defining experience here - standing in a booth while a rep pulls the pin so you can feel how it inflates?) but who say wearing them "makes them feel safer"?

I'm glad ULR are speaking candidly - I guess *I'm* the foolish one for wanting to have science backing me up when it comes to a ton of horseflesh landing on me.

Don't get me wrong - I am delighted to see safety being discussed and to see some upper level riders speaking out.

That said, I would like to see the level of discourse elevated. I don't spend my weekends galloping around Intermediate and Advanced level tracks, so I am not going to benefit from any improved safety measures (though, clearly the sport I love will!). But it is a bit of a mystery to me why riders who essentially put their lives on the line every weekend (not to mention those of their horses) do not seem to want to really look at the issues and options and discuss the potential limitations of the newer technologies. Its easier to say the pins failed than to discuss the perceived (and perhaps actual) failure and why it happened, how they could be improved, etc.

Its easy to say that the pins failed and that the vests save lives. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. Obviously ULR are not engineers but you would think they would take the time to speak to some and ask questions, not just jump on a bandwagon.

You have no idea how long it just took me to figure out what ULR stood for...
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone else doesn't have to agree with that opinion. Where Chelan has the 'been there done that' expereince/opinion, I am pretty sure she isn't an BEng...so the 'right' answer is somewhere in the middle I would imagine.
As with any new (I am assuming it is new or new-ish) technology, there will always, always be that learning curve to get it just right. Based on the comments above, by people who are much more well versed with the technology then I am, it appears as though they haven't mastered it quite yet.(yeah yeah, keep the 'Thanks Tips' comments to yourself...ha) Sometimes the Pins give, sometimes they don't. I think Suzie said it best: We have the technology, just not the design.
You know that show 'The Science of Sport'...? I could be wayyyyy off the mark here, but, maybe the makers of the technology should pair up with them and do some more 'real life' testing in a controlled environment where there is no chance of injury. It would be interesting to see at any rate...and isn't there talk on here about generating more positive media attention to our sport?
I'm just sayin'... :-)

Again, I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion, even if I happen to disagree. I guess I am just so surprised at how strong some of those opinions are in the absence of real evidence. I just hope that those same individuals are not closed to other possibilities.

That said, I have a related concern. To me, the physics of a true rotational all and a 'split-leg' fall are different as are the possible results. It seems, to me anyway, that a horse is much more likely to fall on the rider in a true rotation fall than in a split-leg scenario when the horse often falls to the side or even manages to remain upright. Should the pins break in both instances? That is a genuine question on my part. I can see how the pins would help with a rotational fall, but would the pins breaking negatively impact a horse who has split its legs and possible prevent the horse from remaining upright and therefore cause more of an issue?

Callie wrote "I would like to see the level of discourse elevated."

I agree 100% Callie, and I would never read this post as scientifically supported fact, more as just an opinion piece to inspire discussion. And frankly, I'm right along side you saying, demanding, and begging for more research and information about the technologies.

>>clb: Sorry for the confusion on "ULR"--I need to think of some funny things ULR could stand for and maybe make a post about that.

Somewhere in the mix I think we should throw in talk about the style/shape/position/combination of the jump/s.
1. How much experience do the riders and horses have with competition speed and jumps similar to the "problem jumps"?
2. Since XC is a one chance run (no points for steplechase and r&t), XC jumps have to do all the separating of the top rider/horse competitors from the less experienced pairs. Is this working, what else could be done?
3. How much serious XC jump preparation is done by rider/horse team prior to 3* and 4* competitions?

Jon - I agree. And I don't Chelan would want it perceived that way either. But I don't see her crying out for more research - just saying that the air vests save lives and that the pins failed. It would be different if she seemed to want to know why the pins failed, or allowed for the possibility that they didn't fail, that they simply weren't designed for that type of fall. I guess just find some of the statements a bit too pat and easy.

No, Blugal, I think you're reading me wrong. A lot of good smart people have gone on record saying that the vest isn't proven; I agree. But just because it isn't proven to work doesn't mean it doesn't. I'd love to see some real safety date--FWIW, I have a background in chemistry research, so I do understand what a controlled experiment is and why it's very difficult to set one up in these cases. Which is also why I think a collection of anecdotal evidence is useful too--not as useful, but still useful.

And while it may be true that frangible pins shouldn't have been expected to release in some of the falls at Rolex, it's also true that the purpose of frangible pins is to prevent falls--so, something didn't work right.

I value Chelan's post because she's been in the irons heading to those particular fences--she's got a lot more right to a strong opinion than most of us, and I'm interested in what she has to say. Which is not to say I'll agree with her on every word. But I'd like the chance to listen--to her, and to other riders at her level.

it's also true that the purpose of frangible pins is to prevent falls--so, something didn't work right.

Not exactly. The frangible pin was designed to break the deadly trajectory of the horse crushing the rider in a slow rotational fall, which was identified in the Hartington Report and subsequent research as the most dangerous type of fall on XC. Moreover, the pin was designed specifically to save the rider (not the horse) in a rotational fall.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this point -- perhaps because all that R&D happened a decade ago in a faraway country.

A frangible pin or a deformable jump element is not so much about 'preventing' a fall but rather, to make the impending fall or sudden change in momentum from impacting a fence less dangerous.

At Rolex, the falling horses, with the exception of Oliver Townend's, did not fall on the riders, and OT's horse only scored a partial hit. Which means the horse and riders were apparently not on the deadly crushing trajectory that the pin was designed to interrupt.

None of this talk and speculation should take the place of serious investigation and research. This week in the UK, a coroner -- yes, a friggin' CORONER -- called for safer fence design after the inquest into Ian Olding's death at Belton HT.

Point taken, JER. Though I wasn't quite clear--I would have said, had I written exactly what I understood to be true, was that frangible pins were designed to prevent rotational falls. Are you saying that they really aren't, they're designed to keep the rotating horse from landing on the rider? I can see that that is different.

I just looked at a post about the coroner calling for safer fence design--one would think it was outside a coronor's expertise to judge that. But I also saw a photo of the fence--WTF was the designer thinking? Human manniquins?!

My question about the corner fence fatality at Badminton was partially prompted by the "crash" by Jeans at another jump where there were pins that gave way, allowing the jump to collapse. Wondering why they were used on one corner fence and not the other, but knowing there is no one on this site that is likely to have the info.

One more comment/question. I was an eventer in the 60's and 70's but now have been a combined driver for 15 plus years. I follow eventing, but am not immersed in the sport like those of you that compete.......having said that, why is it being said that those were not rotational falls? They sure looked like it to me, the horses somersaulted over the fence, so what is a rotational fall?

I also think that it is clear *to me* that OT's air vest did not inflate until after the horse landed on him, so I think they need to credit the "under" vest for saving him from further injury. We need to remember that those crushing falls used to end up with punctured lungs and/or hearts that resulted in death. After the world champion bull fighter died as a result of a broken rib puncturing his heart, the vests were developed and then made it into the equestrian world.

FWIW, there is alot of talk about the air vests by advanced level drivers. We are required to wear a "back protector", interesting verbiage, so not an approved "vest". Because of that, the air vests could be worn alone so I was all excited about them. Lightweight, flexible etc. Then it was pointed out that they give no side protection, basically just down the front and back and around the neck. In carriage accidents it is not unusual for the driver to get thrown into a post or tree, usually on the side (the horse is in front, the seat back keeps you from being thrown out the back, so we get thrown out the side and into whatever might be there), so I am thinking that they might not really protect us where we need it........FWIW the problem with vests for drivers is that the backs are too long and the seat pushes them up around your ears and into your arm pits. Not very comfortable on a marathon VBG.

Jim, that is exactly what JER is saying. The pins come into play when a rotational fall is already happening. That is the force that 'triggers' the pins. They try and prevent the horse from completing the 'rotation' and landing squarely on the rider. Basically they help change the trajectory of the fall but do nothing to prevent the fall...mainly because the fall is already happening and that is 1200+lbs under the effects of gravity.

"My question about the corner fence fatality at Badminton was partially prompted by the "crash" by Jeans at another jump where there were pins that gave way, allowing the jump to collapse. Wondering why they were used on one corner fence and not the other, but knowing there is no one on this site that is likely to have the info."

The corner fences were completely different. Jeans' fall was at a combination of timber open corners, Desert Island had her accident at a BRUSH corner. As far as I know, you can't pin brush...

Not being argumentative, but the photo and video course walk of the corner where the fatality occurred shows dark wood logs with about 6-12" of brown, trimmed, brush sticking out of the top,(as opposed to a live hedge) so I would think that those wood logs could have been pinned the same as the logs at the corner where Jeans fell. So that was/is my question. Was there something about those logs that were different from the other logs?

great argument/post/FAVE memory... I agree with all of it...except I'm with John about how we can't justify some of the pins breaking because of the fall (or whatever he said...I can't quite remember!)She's a great writer...and a sense of humor! I also want one of the vests...but can't afford it...better start saving :)

Would anyone else be concerned about forgetting to unclip before getting off?

Chelan here intrepid writer of said article. I stand by my assertion that the pins 'failed' five times. Five horses fell not one pin let go. As I understand it, the pin technology works when weight is from above. Maybe THAT is the issue that needs to change? Pretty sure we can't teach the horses to fall differently... I'm nobody's engineer. One can't be good at everything!
With regards to the comments that I am spouting off without any hard science behind the comments, I say 'nay nay' Hit Air has been around for years in the motorcycle industry and there have been plenty of studies about falls and injury prevention in that world. Now when those guys fall WOW! I believe that Pro Air have done many studies as well, but don't quote me on that. With regards to pro log 'science' there is plenty of it! Kyle Carter owns the company with Mike Winter and they have sunk tens of thousands of dollars into the company including multiple scientific tests.
Just because I didn't list hard data does not mean there isn't any.
John maybe a follow up article might include the science behind pro logs and pins.
Not my department, I'm just a mere rider working hard to keep red on the right white on the left and insanity in the middle. Go Eventing!

Chelan, while your enthusiasm is infectious and inspiring, you're saying some things that are incorrect.

I stand by my assertion that the pins 'failed' five times. Five horses fell not one pin let go.

If you bump a curb with your car while going 5 mph, do you say that your airbag 'failed'? No, you don't because your airbag is set to deploy for crashes starting in the 10-15 mph range.

Or if you set your alarm clock for 7 am, do you say it failed because it didn't go off at 6.45?

If the pins weren't designed to drop at the impacting force or they were installed incorrectly, then they didn't fail. The blame lies elsewhere. Of course, all of this should be revealed in the post-mortem.

Collapsing/breaking/deforming fences can be just as dangerous as solid obstacles. The pins are one engineered solution towards a safer accident. Deformable fences are another. But we need to know how and when and where to put these jump elements so that they are, in fact, safer.

A few years ago, a French rider was killed at a portable XC fence. The fact that the fence was displaced in the accident was reported as a contributing factor to her death.

With regards to the comments that I am spouting off without any hard science behind the comments, I say 'nay nay' Hit Air has been around for years in the motorcycle industry and there have been plenty of studies about falls and injury prevention in that world. Now when those guys fall WOW!

Motorcycle accidents are different from XC accidents in a number of ways like speed, road surfaces, weight/mass differences between horses and bikes. This is why motorcyle helmets have a different standard than riding helmets. We need equipment that fills the specific needs of our sport. If the ideas come from other pursuits, great -- but we need to make sure our use of them is optimized for the mechanisms of our accidents.

I believe that Pro Air have done many studies as well, but don't quote me on that.

If you're talking about Point Two, their website for some months featured a bogus claim that a falling rider was 'uninjured' while wearing their jacket. The truth was the rider had several broken vertebrae. At that time, there were NO studies or data to be found in any of their promotional material. Studies were recently done by TRL at the behest of BE and concluded only that the jacket wouldn't harm you. Hardly a claim for safety.

With regards to pro log 'science' there is plenty of it! Kyle Carter owns the company with Mike Winter and they have sunk tens of thousands of dollars into the company including multiple scientific tests.

Real-world materials testing is expensive. More expensive, say, than marketing. The ProLogs website says that 'research and testing has now moved forward to the field study phase' -- which in plain English means clinical trials are being conducted on your XC course, without informed consent that you are jumping fences made of materials that claim to be safer but may not be. While I applaud all efforts to make fences 'safer', I'm alarmed at the lack of protocol and requirements for testing and implementation.

Chelan, you are a leader in the sport and many young people will look to you as a role model. They will look to you for advice on important topics like safety. This is why it's so important for you to know what you're talking about. You're right, you don't need an engineering degree -- but the information is out there, even within our online horse community, and I really hope you put some time into fact-checking your own claims, especially when you're calling for something as sweeping as a mandate for air jackets.

What JER said - word for word. It seems to me we would be better off mandating safety helmets for dressage before mandating air jackets - those have been proven effective in preventing serious head injuries. I wonder why we didn't see all those ULRs who were sporting the air jackets following Allison Springer's lead at Rolex?

I think air vests are a good idea, but I have seen through my camera an instance where it might have been a hindrance rather than a help.

Missy Miller ended up on the side of her horse after she hung a leg jumping into the water at The Fork a few weeks back. Miller managed to hang on and get back in the saddle and complete the obstacle with Grace, but I think an inflated air vest would have popped her off the side of her horse.

And if not it certainly would have been odd to continue the course like a Pillsbury Doughboy.

Hey buzzterbrown, this is completely unrelated, but I was wondering about which competition you were next planning to make your awesome videos. I was heartbroken to see you were not at Rolex.

In retrospect I wish I had gone to Rolex, I booked time off to drive there then called it off on account of the horrible forecast and went to the Maryland Hunt Cup instead, which I've always wanted to see. Waredaca is my next video stop, unless I have to do a CT that weekend. My coach would rather see me spend more time in the saddle than behind the camera at this point - lol.

JER, please be a tad more polite! Yes, you are our resident safety nazi and I love it. BUT in clinical trials, don't you ask the person how they are feeling? What's going on with them? So, wouldn't you want Chelan's opinion? And I SAY OPINION! Her entry is about her EXPERIENCE, not a study! Please stop! Yes, yes, yes, we of course need studies and all. We get it.
BUT WE NEED FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES TOO!

Lisab,
How is this "experience" rather than just an opinion?

I might lend a hand to Lisab here if she doesn't mind (and she can absolutely tell me if I'm wrong):
Expereince - actually having ridden a course at a level that has said technology
Opinion - like I am providing right now, my opinion or thoughts on the technology as opposed to having actually experienced it first hand...which in all honesty I hope I never do...
I'm going to stick with what I said before. Everyone is entitled to their opinion which should not cause negativity...Chelan, having ridden the course that has caused this discussion, has experienced it first hand, and has since provided her opinion of what happened, or maybe I should say 'didn't happen'.
This is my OPINION only, I could be waaaayyy off the mark and that's fine with me! I mean, who would want to live in a World where everyone always agreed on the same things? Not me.
Thanks to all the commenters who have provided me with a lot of insight into a subject I don't know anything about! It's great!

Thank you clb! That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

Except NO ONE is saying 'Sit Down and Shut Up'. In fact, everyone has indicated that they are delighted to hear from an ULR.

I very much like hearing what ULR who are riding these courses have to say. I just get disheartened that there *appears* to be a lack of knowledge or interest in exploring both sides of the issue and having a real discussion. That is my perception, and it may be entirely wrong. But you don't have to have a B. Eng to understand these concepts and to question whether it is as simple as the pins failed and the air vests save lives.

For instance, while I can completely understand scenarios in which the air vest would minimize injuries, I do wonder if there are instances in which they could exacerbate injuries. For instance, if a horse falls on his/her rider, causing serious damage to the spinal cord and other internal organs and then as the horse gets up and gets away from the rider the vest inflates, could that added pressure (particularly for the vest that inflates 'inwards') cause more damage? Minimizing bruises and cracked ribs is fine and dandy but what if the flip side is that a rider dies or can no longer walk as a result?

Lisab, the issue is not politesse. Chelan Kozak is a professional instructor, rider and trainer in the sport of eventing. I think it's totally reasonable to expect her to be well-versed in new developments in safety technology, especially if she's going to be making recommendations to others.

I am an ULR. I have jumped fences with frangible pins, but thankfully I have never had to MAKE USE of new safety technology. I would not consider myself "experienced" with said safety technology.

I am VERY interested in what JER and other educated minds have to say about the science of this stuff. My neck is on the line...and I don't think my Physics I from college is anywhere near enough to engineer a frangible fence. I will defer to the experts-- not fellow ULRs -- when it comes to designing and testing new "safe" fences. I definitely want real-life rider input as part of the design process...but I want uber-smart scientists to be heard loud and clear.

The one thing that I love the most about this entire discussion is that there is a discussion.
We need to be asking questions, we need to be asking for more, and we need to demand more information, truth and results.

Maybe it is not so much using pins as it is changing the entire design of certain jumps - why are we using hanging logs if they are going to cause this problem? Why do we have vertical gates if there is a high possibility of a flip.

We should be helping the designers and the organizers more to create a safer course rather than demand and point fingers. We all need to work together at all of the levels including the lowest ones to make this sport work.

If there needs to be a change then we have to come together to demand that change but then make sure it doesn't hurt the sport and the organizers in the process.

Safety is obviously my number one concern.
But supporting the organizers who actually make events happen is another huge concern of mine.

I am personally very interested in what JER and others have to say and I also want to hear more ULR's speaking out and letting us know their opinions. I want to hear from the scientists and the physics majors out there.
I would love to hear everyone's expert advice, and opinions on this subject as it is all relevant to the end result - an eventing sport.

Go Eventing!

anyone notice this?

http://plantationfieldhorsetrials.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=1

Plantation Field Debuts Collapsible Fence