Rod and Denise Nikkel

Barra, Thanks for the pictures and links. We have never done the hanger like J. Watt has, but have built some other variations based on customers' ideas. The tree that was initially brought to show us had a section of a straight metal rod welded to the leaping horn plate to act as a stirrup bar. We figured this would be nicer and the stirrup leather would have less chance of slipping off and still be safe. Lillian pointed out to us that the wider stirrup leathers on a Western style (the tree we built is going into an English looking saddle) would need a longer bar. The Aussie design looks like it could be fairly easily made, though getting a non-rusting metal would be the difficult part. Do you know the widest stirrup leather these are built for and are they available commercially?

Hard to say Ben. Research: Fair amount of computer time looking for pictures and doing e-mails. Lillian Chaudhary was invaluable in her information. The customer is from Alberta and made two trips up here. The first one with a saddle she had made, another tree, lots of pictures, etc. so we could decide if we wanted to try to build one. (So for this one, Clay, the saddle maker was giving us some instructions! We'll leave the saddle building to her.) The second time we had her come up was when it was together in the wood so she could give us feedback and we could still change things if necessary. Building time: Rod started to keep track but quit knowing that there was no way we would be paid for the hours that went into it. Overall, it took pretty much a week to build (we generally try to build 4 trees a week), during most of which, in regard for marital peace, I stayed out of the shop. Though I did pop in now that then to give a comment or suggestion - some of which were actually used! We have put English stirrup leathers on regular western trees before. The area for the stirrup bar is routered out to the correct shape to inset it into the bar and then it is screwed in. The body filler you see on the picture is over the screws making everything flush and then the rawide covers it all. Finding left hand thread bolts for the leaping horn was difficult. We sourced them out of Edmonton (4 hours away) where they had to get them machined - at a price. The customer wanted the option of two positions, so we welded the bolts in the proper orientation to the metal piece you see in the picture. The front of the stirrup bar would have been in the same place, so the conflicting bit was cut away and the two welded together. Rod routered out the appropriate shape, and then the whole thing was screwed into the tree, made flush with body filler and rawhided. If we ever have the chance to build another one, we know we can move the metal cross piece between the bars about an inch further forward and if we do then it could be welded to the back of the stirrup bar, making the whole thing even stronger. This was the longest English stirrup hanger we could get. For a true Western saddle the stirrup leather would need to be wider so something else would need to be used in place of the English stirrup hanger. Thanks to all for the comments.

Thank you to everyone who helped with this project. We learned a lot! We figured we should post a couple pictures of the final result.

We have also found that the rock card measurement is the most variable. The height of the horse’s head also makes a difference in what reading you get (which would be why the instructions tell you to take the measurement with the horse’s head in his normal working position.). And yet the topline, unless it is combined with the other cards to make a 3D form like Jon and David have done, does not in itself tell us much about the rock under the bars either, so the rock card is the best thing we have to give us that information right now. When I (Denise) was working as a vet I noticed something. If there was one treatment for a condition that everyone used, it was because that was the definitive treatment. Anything else either didn’t work or worked poorly. If there were many treatments for a condition, it was because a) a number of treatments worked equally well or b ) nothing worked well at all and we were grasping at straws. I can carry this analogy over to saddle fitting. There are some things that (almost) everyone agrees on – there should be no weight carried by the shoulder blade, nothing should dig into the horse anywhere, etc. But in the question of “If you had to have a small amount too much or a small amount too little rock, which would you choose?” there are solid saddle and tree makers answering both ways, though everyone agrees that too much in either direction is definitely bad. This tells me that both ways work. If they didn’t, everyone would agree on which way was best. The variation in shape we see with the DL cards based on how the horse is positioned tells us that there is a lot of variation in rock as the horse moves normally. This explains why, so long as nothing digs in anywhere and the difference in rock between the saddle and horse isn’t too extreme, either a bit too much or a bit too little will work. Both probably fit the horse extremely well at some phase of the stride, and don’t harm the horse at the other end of the spectrum. There is also the idea promoted by some people that you should ask your horse to do a belly lift by poking him a bit in the belly to make him “round his back” to mimic collection and take your reading that way. But what even researchers of biomechanics and gait don’t know is what the shape of the back is when ridden compared to standing square. There is only one study that I am aware of (Effects of girth, saddle and weight on movements of the horse, P. DeCocq, P.R. Van Weeren, W. Back, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrechet University, the Netherlands, Equine Veterinary Journal, 2004 36 (8) 758-763) that has attempted to figure that out. Their conclusion was that the back sags under dead weight, though the weight of just an English saddle has no effect. However, they did not look at what the shape may be with a rider up, asking the horse to round. Is the horse able to round his back to his standing shape or not? Or might he even be able to round more? Nobody really knows. There is still so much to learn.

I agree with Bruce. Your little guy is cute! And stout! As far as trying to see if the dry spots are saddle related or not, all you need is something that won't put pressure in the same place on his back as his regular saddle does. Give the treeless a try. If he sweats where he usually dry spots, you know it isn't a long term problem with him. If he doesn't then trying something else will be needed as I wouldn't take one trial as a total conformation that he can't sweat there. You never know if there are similar pressure spots since often the pressure points are over a roundness in the horse himself. I would recommend staying away from the plastic though. I think it would act like the neoprene saddle pads that "relieve dry spots". They do this not necessarily by helping the fit but by holding in the heat so the horse sweats and since there is no place for the sweat to go except across the pad or down, it makes everything wet and then runs down the horse's sides. Looks like an even sweat pattern but doesn't necessarily tell you about the pressure anywhere. Regarding dry spots, as far as we can tell, all there is out there is anecdotal information. I haven't been able to find any research at all done on the effects of pressure on a horse's back. Every measurement of pressure I have seen quoted, if I can trace its origins, is extrapolated from pressure sore studies on basically immobile humans. Nobody has ever tested how much pressure is OK on a horse's mobile back under a saddle, or how much pressure (over how much time - that is an important factor too) it takes to stop sweating, or disrupt blood supply, or cause swelling, or cause muscle damage, etc. etc. We just really don't have a clue. There was an article in the March 2003 Western Horseman where they interviewed Chuck Stormes, Dale Harwood, Steve Mecum and Peter Campbell. In a side bar entitled The White Hair Myth (page 70), they state "The experts interviewed for this story were all quick to say that white hair or dry marks don't mean a saddle doesn't fit. It could be a saddle-fit problem, or it could be nothing." Anecdotal, sure, but we have found a lot of people, especially working cowboys with a lot of hours on top of horses in a lot of different conditions, say the same thing. And we agree. I am sure it is never ideal, but I also don't think it is always a problem either.

1horse Interesting about the mule. I expect that to be pretty unusual though. I would be surprised if your horse was the same, but never say never... From what you say, your seat is good. It positions you well and keeps you balanced. I think all the "rules" are made to try to see a good seat, when you really need to feel it to know if it is good or not. The saddle you ride stays put, even when you pull with it. You horse is moving well and behaviour problems with saddling have disappeared as well. All this is sounding very good. Dry spots - not ideal, but we agree with Chuck that they do not always indicate serious problems - IF everything else is OK. ie. no swelling, soreness, behavioural issues, etc. From what we know by just reading here, for this saddle - if it ain't broke.. In wanting another saddle to rope from, you are in the same place as when you buy women's clothing - the numbers and terms mean NOTHING when comparing between makers. While you have some good basics on what to look for here, you know that you have to try it on to see if it fits. And with a horse, this means ride it. Reiterating the different components of fit that you will be checking: 1.) The angle of the bars, and how they change from front to back (Note: the change in angle is called the twist in Western terminology. Twist in English terminology refers to the narrowest part of the saddle.) On your guy, you obviously need a very flat angle. Check this all along the bar, not just at the front. 2.) The width between the bars, sometimes called spread. Most production trees combine the spread and angle so as the angle gets flatter, the bars also get wider apart. This is the basic difference between semi-QH, QH and full QH. It doesn't help if you have a smaller horse with a flat angle to their back, which is what you have. This is why the draft saddle didn't work after he lost weight. It may have had a good angle, but there was too much spread between the bars. 3.) Gullet clearance 4.) Bar length - which might be a concern on your smaller guy 5.) Amount of rock 6.) Shape of the bottom of the bar - how much crown there is. On this guy, you will want a fairly flat bar (side to side). This may help with the dry spotting too. You don't want a really bulgy shape on the bottom. And you can't tell all these by a name or "size", or even by looking and feeling. Basically, you gotta ride it to know how it really works on your horse.

1horse It must be a terminology thing. The seats in most saddles - English and western - are so curved (in many various ways) that there is rarely a flat enough area to determine how "parallel to the ground" it may or may not be. Yes, if a saddle is tipped forward or backward enough it can affect the way the rider sits (sqare, tilted forward or leaned back) and where the stirrups fall relative to their body position, but that is due to the shape of the seat and the shape of the rider. Making a flat spot that is parallel to the ground is no guarantee that the seat will position a rider correctly. Most dining room chairs have seats that are parallel to the ground but I wouldn't want to sit on one of them when riding a horse. As Andy said, where the low point is (gravity always works), how the groundseat is shaped and the stirrup position relative to the seat are what is most important in positioning a rider correctly and comfortably. That is what good saddle makers do well. You say that "This saddle really helps me sit up, so I feel like I'm sitting properly." Sounds good to me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially to fit a "rule" that may or may not be correct. First question - can he ever sweat there? If he can sweat in those areas at times other than when he wears a saddle, then he does not have permanent damage to his sweat glands leading to the dry spots. I would think that damage so severe as to cause sweat gland disruption would be seen or felt in the skin other ways as well. To the best of my knowledge at this time, most long term saddle damage causes atrophy of the underlying muscles, not chronic swelling. Again, if there was scar tissue forming lumps causing the problem, they also would be easily felt. So this is a new idea to me. Calling in Bruce or Chuck here. Any experience with this veterinary wise?

Kelly The idea of having a "level seat" is common when I read about fitting English saddles, but I have yet to get a clear idea what is really means. Different people describe it differently. Could you please describe from a rider's perspective what you understand a "level seat" to be? When you say you see inconsistent sweat patterns, does that mean you have dry spots in different places after your rides?

Thanks for the info on Haflingers. Always good to learn more. You say that your current saddle stays in place and works well unless you over pad it. Is he showing signs of soreness, or what makes you think he isn't comfortable now? I'm not sure I am understanding why you are wanting to change things if you think the saddle fits him well now. Or are you not feeling balanced in the saddle and you're thinking that might be affecting him? I still don't think I have the correct picture of the why behind your question, which probably affects the answer to it. Thanks for persisting.

1horse, your post opens the quandary for custom saddle and tree makers - Do I build a saddle to fit an unusual shaped horse? First, can it be done? Partially. I am sure a saddle could be built to fit your horse which is better than an off the rack saddle, since from your description your horse is at the far end of the bell curve of horse shapes, and most saddles are built to fit horses in the middle section of the bell curve. Could a saddle ever fit your horse as well as a horse that has a back that is shaped better to hold a saddle in place? ie. not totally convex or flat in every direction? No. Some backs are shaped to hold a saddle better than others, and yours isn't one of those. (I'm sure that isn't news to you.) Second, should it be done? This is the dilemma. On one hand, you are an owner willing to put in the money and effort to get a better fitting saddle, and it is not your horse's fault his shape is not conducive to holding a saddle well. But on the other hand, your statement "I'm a one horse at a time person" is the key. As much as you love this horse, he won't stay young, sound, and with you forever. At some point the saddle won't be used on him any longer, and then what happens? Finding another horse with the same unusual conformation that the saddle will fit is unlikely, especially if it is sold. And everywhere that saddle goes, not fitting horses, it carries the maker's name and reputation with it. So every maker has to decide for themselves if they will do this or not. Some will. Many won't. That said, it is probably better to make changes in the groundseat for yourself than by trying to build up the front of the tree. You want the horn as close to the horse as you can get it to reduce leverage if you ever plan on roping. Roping off a horse of this conformation can be "interesting". I am not trying to discourage you, but realistically there is a reason why most working horses used on a ranch have a good set of withers on a back shaped differently than your horse's. Raising the horn by building up the front of the tree will make the tree even more unstable when roped from. Hopefully some of the saddle makers on here will have more suggestions for you. I did a bit of looking about Haflingers. They seem to be used as harness horses a lot. The qualities that make a good pulling horse don't always make a good riding horse, so I am curious - did they start out as draft type animals that are now ridden, do you know?

We agree that you can't order or buy a saddle based on any "size" or "name" of the fit, since there are no standards to which saddles or trees must adhere. Frustrating, but true. Something else that needs to be remembered is that you cannot extrapolate "rules" from English to Western. This is commonly done, even by "professionals", and it is just plain wrong. The link chevygirl put up is about English saddles, and there are a number statements there that, while they may or may not be true for English saddles (that is not our area), they don't apply to western ones. Position of the saddle 1 1/2 to 2" behind the shoulder blades - the arches on an English tree are different than the front bar tips on a Western one and they are positioned on the horse differently. The "balance" of the seat tells you something about saddle fit. Yes, the fit being too wide (rarely too narrow) can affect the balance of the rider, but there are many other factors, especially the way the saddle maker builds the groundseat, that have more effect on how the rider sits than the fit of the saddle. The top and the bottom of the saddle are two different things. The amount of gullet clearance tells you something about the width of the saddle. The fork of a western tree is built separately from the bars, and the height of the gullet is set by the cut of the fork. Yes, a too wide tree will sit lower than it should and a too narrow tree will sit higher than it should, but you can have a great fit of the bars with a low gullet or a high gullet. So long as the gullet doesn't touch the withers at any time, it is good. A miss is as good as a mile. You don't have to have X amount of space for things to be OK. You can't determine saddle fit by taking one measurement at the front of the saddle. The bars on a western saddle need to have the same basic angle as the horse all the way down, not just at the front. A measurement taken only at the front won't tell you about rock or the fit further back, which is equally important as fit at the front. So you always come back to the different components of fit: 1.) The angle of the bars, and how they change from front to back (Note: the change in angle is called the twist in Western terminology. Twist in English terminology refers to the narrowest part of the saddle. Another difference that needs to be clarified.) 2.) The width between the bars, sometimes called spread. Most production trees combine the spread and angle so as the angle gets flatter, the bars also get wider apart. This is the basic difference between semi-QH, QH and full QH. It doesn't help if you have a narrow horse with a flat angle to their back, which is more common in Arabs. 3.) Gullet clearance 4.) Bar length - which can be a concern on Arabs as they often have fairly short backs. 5.) Amount of rock 6.) Shape of the bottom of the bar - how much crown there is. And you can't tell all these by a name or "size". Basically, you gotta ride it to know how it really works on your horse.

Nobearsyet Nope. Trees vary in just about every way things could vary - materials used, construction techniques, longevity, use. And even within one general classification of tree (ie. rawhide covered wood handmade Western saddle trees) there are multiple things that change in the bars that affect fit, multiple things you can change in the cantle and fork that change the look and all these things can be mixed and matched. The names given to different forks are similar between makers, but nowhere near identical. So the basic idea of a tree is to distribute the rider's weight over a larger surface area for the horse and give more security to the rider, but beyond that, "every tree maker does things differently".

Firstly, we make no claim to be experts, so maybe we shouldn't be responding here. But we sure enjoy learning from what everyone says. David, Although it is hard to tell from just pictures, my initial response is that that is not a healthy back on that horse. Looking at the protruding shoulder blades and the muscle sinking in so dramatically behind them along the withers – looks like atrophied muscles to me. The tree seems to have the right angle in the center of the bar, and in the first pictures it appears the angle at the back of the bar is good too. Yet the front of the bar has air underneath the front and even the bottom edge. In the second picture it appears the tree is falling down at the front because there is not the normal amount of muscle to hold the front end up, so the back of the tree is lifting off the horse. Fitting a horse like this would be a different thing than fitting a horse that isn't atrophied. Making sure the bar tips aren't too long would be the first thing we would do. Interesting how the rigging position affected things. It goes against the theory that the further forward the rigging is placed, the more the saddle is held back. It fits in with the "rigging them further back lightens up the weight on the front bar tips and gives more shoulder relief" idea. And a horse like this would also show up how important it is to block the skirts so they follow the curve of the bar and lift off the horse. We have seen saddles with thick, unblocked skirts with a very short amount of leather ahead of the bars going straight forward. Yup, the shoulder blades sure ran into those skirts!

I tried to find where this idea has been discussed previously on LW, but I couldn't find the posts. So I started a new thread for this topic coming out of the Tree Fitting, I know, I know... thread just to make it more searchable in the future. It is very important, and also very controversial. Where should the front bar tips be set relative to the back of the shoulder blades and how does movement affect this? HUGE question that we really don’t have solid answers for yet. There are lots of opinions which shows how little we really know so far. Here is an overview of the various ideas as far as we see them. Idea #1 You need to set the front of the bar tips back of the shoulder blades at least 2” or you will interfere with the shoulder blades during movement. This and the “nothing goes behind the 18th rib” rule may both work well as guidelines for English saddles but I hear them all the time transferred as laws to be followed for western saddles as well. Frankly, they just don’t apply. The front bar pad design on a western saddle is a large surface area shaped in such a way so as to fit the contours of the horse’s wither area. It is not something that, should the shoulder blade contact it at any phase of the stride, will impede movement in the way that the small, thin arch of an English saddle would. This is why shaping is so important. Idea #2 You should have the bars sitting on top of the shoulder blades at all times to help carry the weight of the rider. This is current promoted on an easy to find YouTube video made by a saddle and tree maker. First time I have every heard someone say they wanted to do this. We strongly disagree. This causes the same problem as when the saddle is placed too far forward and held there with a breast collar. You then have a small amount of muscle being compressed between a solid bar and a weight bearing, moving bone. This can’t help but impede the movement of the shoulder blades. It is also a recipe for atrophy and damage and results in hollows behind the withers as the muscle there wastes away from excess pressure, and it leaves prominent shoulder blades sticking out, exacerbating the problem. Idea #3 You can build a saddle designed to have bar area that protrudes over the shoulder blades but doesn’t contact them so you can get the rider further forward on the horse without interference. Again, we disagree. There are a number of companies who build trees with this goal in mind. From what we have seen the idea is most common among people who ride gaited horses. We just don’t feel this can work well for long term riding. If you have a significant section of the bar designed NOT to bear weight, that limits the surface bearing area left, causing increased PSI under those areas. And can you stop the tree from tipping forward and falling down onto the shoulder blades all the time? We don’t think so. For riding in a arena where you are always riding on a level surface and concentrating on your position, etc. at all times, it might possibly work. But if you ever lean forward or back to avoid an obstacle or open a gate, we can’t see how the tree won’t tip, and that happens as soon as you ride outside. And you sure couldn’t expect that design not to contact the shoulder blades if you are roping. As well, what keeps a saddle of that design in a constant place on a horse? Idea #4 You build the bar to fit just behind the shoulder blade so the short area of relief or flare, depending which term you like to use, built into the front bar tip doesn’t put pressure on the shoulder blade itself. This is how we build our trees and why we think it works best. When the leg is weight bearing, there should never be pressure on it. As the horse extends his leg forward in the non-weight bearing portion of his stride, the back corner of the shoulder blade does move back. But if the bar tip is shaped correctly (not a blunt wall to run into) the shoulder blade is free and will slide underneath that bar without excess pressure on it. As long as the muscle and cartilage in that area is never squeezed between two hard surfaces, solid (weighted) bone and tree bar, there will not be excess pressure and there will not be damage done. So the shoulder blade CAN go under the bar tip without causing problems – so long as it doesn’t bear weight at the same time. We know a lot of tree makers who fall into this basic category. We all know that the curved shape of the bar pad and especially of the front bar tip is crucial, but we disagree on exactly how it should be shaped and exactly where the bar tip should end. Our method of dealing with shoulder interference is have relatively short bar tips normally on our trees which won’t extend over the shoulder blades. We build a lot of curve into that first ½” or so of bar tip, not to flare them out to sit over the shoulder blade but to allow a smooth surface for the shoulder blade to slide under. Other makers currently posting on this board do things differently. This is where the technology of the pressure pads, used in properly conducted trials, will be able to teach us a lot. The next few years will be exciting in terms of what we will learn about saddle fit. The next few posts might be exciting too. Looking forward to this discussion.

And we agree rigging has a major effect on how a saddle fits as well. In our opinion it just doesn’t determine the position of the saddle position if the tree fits well. We have had a few of the equimeasure type moulds sent to us. Ideally we would like it to include the back of the shoulder blades so we get the full idea of how the shoulder blades and the “wither pocket” area merge. If it starts behind the shoulders we miss an important part of the equation. (For example, see Traveller’s posts of her horse.) We also want to get the profile of everything that will be under the bar. The problem with most of the kits on the market is that they are too short for that. I believe you can pay extra to get enough to get a piece long enough to work for a western bar. They seem to have been made for the shorter English saddles originally. If we miss anything, we would miss the back two inches rather than the front 2 inches. Chuck, your question about where the tree sits relative to the shoulders is an important and controversial one. I know it has been discussed before here (if you search this section and the section on trees you will see lots of interesting discussions on tree fit) but I wasn’t able to find one place it was well covered. So if you don’t mind (Denise changing to her moderator hat for a moment here) I will start a new thread on the topic for easier searchability in the future. I think it will be a good discussion.

Chuck, Your post brings up a commonly stated and taught-as-fact point that we think is a fallacy – namely that rigging position will determine the position of a saddle on a horse. This is not to say that rigging position isn’t important. It is. But we disagree with the “rule” that the cinch has to a ) be in the “girth groove” behind the elbow and b ) be vertical or it will pull the saddle forward. Some horses do have a barrel (rib cage) shape that moves the cinch forward. Others don’t. So long as it is on and not behind the sternum, it doesn’t have to sit in any specific spot. But even if the cinch is slanted forward, it still won’t pull the saddle forward onto the shoulders unless the tree doesn’t fit the horse. Back to our spoons analogy – if the shape of the tree fits the shape of the horse, it will take a lot of pressure to move it out of position, just as it takes a comparatively high amount of pressure to disengage two teaspoons that are nestled together. And if the tree fits, you don’t need a real tight cinch to hold it in place anyway. On the other hand, a forward placed rigging will tend to pull the front bar tips down, restricting the movement of the shoulder blades. A rigging placed further back on these horses will lighten up the pressure on those front bar tips and give more shoulder relief and a better fit. At least that is our take on things. The popularization of “the cinch has to hang vertical” rule has led to a lot of people placing their saddles too far forward and then tightening their breast collar accordingly. A forward rigging position will cause people to place their saddles further back and off the shoulder blades, but I would like to think there has to be better reasons behind rigging placement than that…

Ponygirl, I would say that is your best course of action. Every treemaker knows how they want to fit a particular style of horse and what they need to do to get that fit. Being too specific with specs without knowing how that maker's trees fit could get you want you don't want, whereas giving them the freedom to decide their specs for a type of horse is more apt to get you what you do want. As far as measuring your old saddle, we wrote Bar Angles, Why the Numbers Are Meaningless Between Makers to help people understand why that doesn't work. Unfortunate, but true.

Ponygirl, In all honestly, I don't think there is a best all round size for Quarter Horses since there is so much diversity in the breed. For some ranches and sections of the continent, a handhole width of 3 3/4" (getting rarer all the time, but still present) or 4" x 90 is best. For other areas we are building a lot of 4 1/4" x 95 now, with the middle variables (most common being 4 1/4" x 93) being used a lot as well. And we have gone wider and flatter on occasion. If you are riding a bunch of different horses, having a couple different saddles - one narrower with less angle and one wider with more angle - and different thicknesses of pads is what you need. (You can't just get one really wide one and expect to pad up for the thinner horses. A saddle that is much too wide will cause just as many problems as one that is too narrow, even with padding.) If the one you have now is the "narrower with less angle" saddle, then I would suggest you go a bit wider and flatter with your other one. But you can't compare bar angles (the numbers are meaningless between makers - explanation here) or gullet widths (the measurement can be varied between trees, let alone makers - explanation here) by the numbers, so to make sure you get the differences you want, you need to know who built the first tree and get a second one from the same maker. Hopefully you can track down who or which company made your present tree. Actually, you are the best type of candidate for using the Dennis Lane system regularly. You will be riding a number of different horses with just a couple of saddles. Which one of my saddles will fit them best? What thickness blanket should I use? You'll be thinking questions like that. If you have the DL system, you will figure out which of your saddles works best with which numbers (therefore which shape) and how much padding you use to get the best fit for that shape with that saddle. Then when you start riding a new to you horse, you just need to card the horse and you will know which saddle will work the best and how much padding to use to start with. You can change it as you need it, but it will give you a very good starting point right off the bat. I wish there was an easy answer for your question, but there isn't. If there was, then that would be the standard size made for QHs in North America. The fact that there is so much variation available tells you that it is needed. Maybe others will chime in with their favorites.

Thanks for those links, Johanna and Barra. Also thanks to Mike Craw who has sent us a CD of pictures pull of his restoration of an English side saddle.

We have been asked if we would build a western side saddle tree, and we haven't done one before. We would appreciate it if anyone would share pictures of western side saddles, and especially trees, or any information they have about side saddles.

Yote On our website we have an information article here that tries to explain from a tree maker's standpoint some of the geometry of why the same seat length measurement can give you varying amounts of room between the fork and the cantle along the bar where your leg goes, which we call "thigh length". We have found that the majority of people need between 8 and 10 inches from the front point of the cantle measured horizontally to the back of the fork (in the bare tree). A lot of saddle makers want to know the rider's thigh circumference in their determination of seat size. Dennis Lane gave us permission to share his starting point. He uses the thigh circumference divided by 3 (close enough to Pi) to get the diameter, then adds an inch. That gives room for the distortion of the thigh on the saddle, leather etc. That gives him a ballpark to start with. Then there are personal preferences in how tight the rider likes to be in the saddle, whether it is a slick fork or swell fork, will have bucking rolls or not, and what the saddle will be used for that also affect how long that distance should be.

Dead on!

We don’t know the exact history behind the use of the 93 degrees, but Keith is probably right in that someone started to use it empirically. Since their trees worked well, it caught on as “the thing to do”. (Does anyone know more history that that?) We have tried to explain on our website here why the actual numbers have no real meaning when comparing between makers, so there is no magic in 93 versus 92 or 94. It’s all in the combination of angles and shapes a maker decides to use –and everyone is different. These are things you can measure on a finished tree while there is no way of measuring the “angle” as such. But even these measurements can’t be used to compare “angles” between makers because the depth (width side to side) of the actual bars varies. You can have the hand hole width and the spread across the bottom of the bars identical, but if the bars are different depths, then the “angles” are different. This is why rather than trying to define the “fit” of the saddle, it makes a whole lot more sense to us to define the body type of the horse. This is where Dennis Lane’s system could really make a difference over time as they do the research based on the specs they receive from people using the system. If they can come up with defined body types, then we can sell a saddle made to fit a certain body type and the customer doesn’t need to try to understand widths, angles, etc. Of course, every saddle and tree maker will want to fit that body type a bit differently…

Ron, This guy is probably worth a call too. He makes normal round knives as well. http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?s...76&hl=Breti

We would agree that to start building on this tree with that much twist is not a good thing, though when you pull old trees out of saddles it is sometimes "interesting" what you find. Agreed that it can not rock on a stone and still be crooked, and if it is built straight a 1/8" difference is not going to matter much, since it practially means that you have 1/16" difference on each side of the horse. Don't know many horses that are built that symmetrically. We laminate some bars and not others, mainly to use wood efficiently. When we first started we didn't pay much attention to grain direction in the bars, but we soon started to make sure they were similar and we thought we had less problems keeping trees straight as they dried. Then I started keeping track of grain directions in the bars and if they were laminated or not so I could correlate it with whether they tried to go a bit off or not. There honestly doesn't seem to be a correlation. The laminated bars are just as likely as the non-laminated ones to rock a tiche according to my records. That doesn't make logical sense to me, but it is "real life" data. (We use screws and glue to put the tree together.) Something you may want to try is to weight the tree down on a flat surface with a bit of a shim under the side that connects so you have made it rock worse. Leave it for a while - weeks - and see if it changes. If it goes back to being an "acceptable" amount of rock, take the weight off and see what it does over more time. If it stays there, great. If it gets bad again, then enjoy using it as a demo of what a tree looks like. Humidity and temperature both play a role and trees will go back and forth a bit. It is when they go way off and stay there that they cause problems. I do wonder what happens inside a saddle on the back of a sweaty horse on a hot, humid day versus a cold dry one.