To stake or not to stake, that is the question

Snapshot 2011-03-29 16-28-25.jpeg

Recently there has been some discussion about XC fences used in an unaffiliated event in the UK that were not staked. The incident that got this story started was an unstaked corner that rolled over. The fence in question wasn’t very big, in fact was probably only 2 foot 6 (75cm) but when it rolled over was easily over four foot (120cm) tall (NB 120cm is the maximum height allowed for 4 star). No horse should be asked to jump a fence that has the chance to get bigger when jumped, especially when jumped badly.  Check out the fourth line in this link for photos.  While the fall looks dramatic, from what I understand the landing was pretty soft.  As a result, I thought I would talk to jump builder Dan Starck about the issue of staking cross-country fences.
Dan is a very experienced course and jump builder (over 25 years). He is the Co-Chairman of the US Eventing Course Builders/Designers Committee and serves on the USEA Safety Committee.  Dan by his own admission has not staked fences when he should have, and he has also seen the results of good and bad staking.  Before I get to our discussion, here is an article written by Dan on staking in Eventing USA, Issue Three 2009 PDF.
Dan and I caught up on skype, me from my home in Australia and Dan enjoying a rare weekend at home in Virginia.

Dan.jpg

What struck me from our conversation was how similar the issues are that we face here in Australia to those in the USA. I asked Dan if he had experienced any resistance to staking out in the field. Thankfully, he had not experienced much resistance from riders about staking.  
With over 25 years experience in building fences and courses, Dan had some observations on where the use of devices like the spirafix or ground anchor was most appropriate. He believes that where a fence is positioned on a mound and narrow enough to roll, this is a situation when ground anchors at the front are most critical. That said, there are many variables that determine what type of staking is most appropriate and no hard and fast rule suits all situations.
The intent is probably the most important factor in deciding what to do, rather than creating a rule that says you must do this, this and this if this, that, and the other apply and so on.
Dan noted that much of the time we stake fences to ensure that they do not change position or profile or in the case of a fence on a downward slope fall down after the horse and rider. But it is also critical to stake to ensure a fence does not get bigger when hit.
Another point raised in the UK discussions was that a fence that moves has a bit of “give” in it, or absorbs some of the energy. This has some merit, however when you want to absorb some energy you can plan for that. Using brush is a great way to create a more forgiving fence, rounded or roll top fences also have the capacity to allow energy to pass without necessarily  creating a fall.
But no course builder or designer would build a portable fence designed to roll over or move without incorporating a frangible device to regulate that change in shape. For instance, the Mim NewEra clip is designed to react in that very short period of time – less than 0.4 seconds – between a substantial hit and the beginnings of a rotational fall.
P1010996.JPG
We talked about the variety of frangible devices available today and where they fit into the sport today. Particularly, the Frangible Pin, Reverse Frangible Pin and the Mim NewEra Clip. Dan, like me believed that the Mim NewEra was the best device for moving forward in the future.
Primarily because:
  • The Mim can be used on a huge variety of fence types, in fact almost all.
  • The Mim is simple to install, does not require specialist tools or force tables to install correctly.
  • A fence judge can reset a Mim fence before the next horse arrives and without the use of any tools.
There are still a number of serious challenges to be overcome before we will see these used more widely in competition, particularly in the USA. Currently the USEF funds the cost of frangible pins used in US Events. No subsidy or support is offered to use the Mim device or any other frangible device in the USA.
The reverse frangible pin, while more adaptable than the standard frangible pin, requires the use of charts, torque wrenches and most importantly correct installation methodology. The installation information is not widely available and Technical Delegates (TDs) – those responsible for checking and approving its installation – do not have access to training or information on the correct installation.
IMG_0987.jpg
Another question that has been raised directly to me in recent times is that some riders might not be keen to see so many frangible devices on XC courses.  I asked Dan about his experience in this area.
Dan said in his experience, that riders wanted to see more frangible fences on XC, many riders including those at the elite level had been saved by frangible devices and hoped to see more out there. The biggest thing holding us back was cost and that even with free pins, in most cases a fence needed rebuilding to make it frangible and every event had a budget for XC courses and only so much could be done each time.
Just so there is no confusion, all portable XC fences should be staked, depending on the size, weight and nature of the fence means there are a number of options. No XC fence should ever be able to move or roll over. This is explicitly different to a frangible fence that is designed to collapse in a controlled and timely manner. 
We are heading in the right direction, an industrial standard in frangible fences is on its way, hopefully. Riders, Officials, Committees and Equestrian Bodies are now motivated to move in the right direction.

Thumbnail image for Wearing a Hunt Cap and a Certified Safety Helmet at the same time

On a side note.
I caught up with the USEFs CEO John Long at Red Hills and put the question to him about Helmets, which had been raised in comments following my story. I asked John if it was it their intention to allow a rider to wear an international FEI recognized helmet standard (UK, Euro or Aus/NZ) in a four star at Rolex for instance but then not allow the same rider to wear the same helmet in a beginner novice class. John was not aware that the US rule had excluded the use of safety helmets allowed by the FEI and he made a commitment to review the rule and perhaps include the wording used by the FEI. This is great news and I look forward to seeing an update on this soon.
Yours in Eventing,
ESJ
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments