Margaux

Ron and Denise, Thanks so much for taking the time to educate me. That is exactly the information I was looking for. I truly appreciate you taking the time to do all that work for my education. I know it was a lot of work for you to do that, and I appreciate that a lot. Your photos were so illuminating. You had said earlier that you didn't want a mirror image, but I didn't get it. I do now. I now see what it looks like. I suspect that is useful to others too. It does all beg several new questions though, I'm full of them. Or full of something..... 1) If you are creating an angle as in photo 1, then why does Dennis Lane use curves? Why not just measure the angle and use that? 2) How do you decide where the angle of the tree will go tangent to the curve of the horse (see photo 4 for example), since there are an infinite number of choices there? (i.e. in photos 4 and 5, the tree touches just one spot on the curve of the horse. How do you decide where that point goes?) Thanks again, I've enjoyed it all so far. And I appreciate all those who have participated. Best, chilly Margaux. PS johwatsabaugh (et. al.): are the cross sections of the bars convex at all locations? Or is it concave at some places? Thanks for your input too, it was useful. PS Greg: You: "...its funny how the shape used in the top drawing does not match the one on the bottom..." Me: I used the same plastic CD case for all of the arcs in the drawing, so I am sure they are all the same. The case is 124mm across, and so are all the arcs in the picture. (except for the pad arc of course, since that's my point in the post. It was measure 1/2" inward as measured from the normal at all points.) It's cold here, but the case isn't shinking/expanding that much!

Greg, I think that perhaps you don't understand the geometry of the situation. Several others and I have pointed out why pads do affect the fit in previous posts. Here is a picture which should help: (not great art work, I admit...) I have not change the size or shape of the "tree" or the "horse" in the upper and lower drawings. I just added padding to the lower one. Notice that in the lower picture, the saddle does not fit with the 1/2" pad I drew. Or the pad has to be crushed in some places, and not even touching in others. Either way, not a good fit any longer. It would be worse with a 1" pad of course. Your assertion is only correct, as R&D point out, on a flat table. The next conversation, which is how much does it matter, I concluded that the answer is: "not enough to bother with". (okay, that's a run-on sentence.....) But clearly padding does affect and change the fit. Hope that helps. Margaux

R&D: Sorry I asked? Hell no, this is getting me close to where I'm trying to go! Thanks for your replies. SittingUpHigh1: (is there a sittinguphigh2?) You understand perfectly. I can see that from your comment about wither pocket. It seems to this inexperienced writer, that if the tree fits around the wither perfectly, when the pad/leather/fleece go on, it's going to pinch. I hear several people say "...close enough....". (eg. Bruce Johnson and Rod/Denise) So I'm getting that trees have larger tolerances than I had expected. (Perhaps I should say here that I have made 0.0 saddles, and 0.0 trees, and have ordered 0.0 trees. I have put my rear in a bunch, but let's not go there...) In my engineering/physics experience, tolerances are something to tolerated, but minimize. I think I hear everyone saying "...horses move, and that movement distorts the back a whole lot, so let's not go crazy making it too good, since that is a waste of time." Did I get that right? If so, that is what I was looking for. I've gotten a lot out of Rod and Denise's last reply. First I get that it is far more art than science. (from the comments about "teaching", "observation", "feedback" "empirically" etc). While all that is good, it is not "better" which is what I always hunt for. Perhaps that is all there is today, and if so, that is the answer I was looking for. I get from Rod and Denise that you basically treat the back more as a flat surface than a bowl, which tells me that padding isn't really taken into account much, and if so, that is the answer that I was looking for too. There are some contradictions in the reply which means there is a high probability that there is something I'm not getting: "Does that mean it (spacing for padding/fleece) is not accounted for in the bar patterns we use? No" and "...we don't feel it makes enough of a difference that we have to change what we do about it" So you do and you don't? What am I misunderstanding here? I think you basically don't take it into account much. Is that right? I also don't understand how "The patterns do take this into account." Could you educate me on that? My summary so far (fix me if I have this wrong): Horses move, so getting a "perfect" fit is a waste of time. The tree should be good, and experience is the guide, and final judge. There are other tools, like DL's system, and that will augment the experience, but isn't used in an objective way. Tree makers don't take the padding/fleece into account much, since it doesn't matter much. Here, for the record are some (questionable) suggestions which would easily take padding into account: When placing a bare tree on the horses back, why not put some little 1" * 1" *1" sticking things (plastic? wood? felt?) onto the trial tree to see how the tree is going to fit in the end? Or, hold the tree up 1" to see if there are 1" gaps everywhere normal to the surface? (too much "art" for my taste...) Or, Dennis Lane's cards could come with inverse cards which are a "positive" (the same as the horse's back) but have 1" or 2" padding gap built in, so the tree maker could place those in a stand which holds them the appropriate distance apart, and the trial tree should fit just right onto that. The system could also be refined in several way to eliminate the cards (which would make it more universally accessible) and still be communicated through email. I have some ideas about that. Or, have thermal set plastic softened, place that on the horses back to set up (there are plastics whose pliability varies drastically around 120 degrees F (BTW, there is still no temperature here in Colorado yet) ) and then put 1" sticky cubes in 20 spots on the blank, and fit the tree to that. If people could point out why these ideas a NOT good, I think it would help me understand where my gaps in understand are. That would be great. Thanks for the info in the replies. Best to all, Margaux

Hi daviD, Or is it Divad? You make several points. One is that you don't want your saddle too close to perfect, since that may not fit another horse when the original dies. That doesn't seem logical. Why would a saddle not perfect for one horse be better for another random horse, than a saddle which is perfect for the first horse? Random is random. You also seem to have a contradiction in there. You say that you don't want a perfect fit, yet your boots let you down. Had you gotten the correct boots made for YOUR foot in the first place, would you have gotten the blister from a couple miles of hiking. (BTW, don't you use kilometers down there? yuck yuck) I think you have made my point. You had a problem with your non-custom boots right? If you had a custom pair of boots made, wouldn't you want the be able to walk up and down (or do you walk down and up down there?) for a couple kilometers without getting a blister? If you did have those custom boots made and did get blisters from a short hike, wouldn't you be, well, disappointed? I know that I can go to Valley Vet and get some off the shelf saddle for my horse, or go to KMart and get a pair of off the shelf tennis boots for myself. But they are both compromises, and in my opinion, poor compromise, as your blisters can attest. But if I get a custom saddle, or a custom pair of boots, I expect them to fit right. I expect to ride or walk without problems. Don't you? More to the point: I understand that you can find a saddle that fits "pretty good" as you say, and that I can find a pair of shoes that fit pretty well also. My original question was: Why don't you want the saddle to fit right? Your point seems to be that you don't want it to fit right because it's either too hard or too expensive. I get that. But that is a financial compromise, not a decision which is in accord with my thinking, or desires. Also, if you can find "pretty good" fits for saddles/trees, then why use Dennis Lane's system at all? Why not just have 4 or 5 (8 or 10?) different trees and call that good enough? We are trying to to BETTER. Not just use off the shelf. Is the whole idea behind getting a custom saddle to get it to look right? Or fit right? I want both. If I can't have both, I'll go to Valley Vet and pay $500. (US mate). In short: I disagree. I want a custom saddle to fit like a custom saddle, and I want custom boot to fit MY foot, like custom boot should. I care less about the looks, and more about the fit, but I want both. I don't want it to be "pretty good" I want it to be "damned good". That's why I'm interested in Dennis's system. There is the potential (not yet realized) for that system to make great trees for my foot. Oops, I mean my horse's back. I'm still interested in hearing from the tree makers to hear how they account for the pad and fleece and leather when using Dennis Lane system. Nobody has addressed my basic question yet. I think they don't. I think they think "good enough" and move on. I think they don't use Lane's system correctly. Anyone? I hope I'm wrong. Let me know! BTW: I wish I were "down under" right now, it's zero degrees here in Colorado tonight. That's right, there is no temperature. Best wishes from up-over, Margaux

R&D, Thanks for the reply. It was not exactly what I was asking. It is clear that you cannot make the "mirror" image of the horse's back without accounting for, and we know that we want maximum contact with minimum pressure, no pinching, must allow for movement of the horse, and it's clear that odd/incorrect saddle construction and/or screwy padding will mess up the tree fitting properly. I'm looking for the "how", and I don't see that explaination in your kind reply. My question is HOW do tree makers take measurements that they make, or from Dennis Lane's system (of which I am a fan), and turn that into the proper tree? Do they ask the owner how much padding he typically uses? Do tree makers take the templates defined by Dennis and make inverses allowing for padding/leather/fleese and fit the tree to that? Is this all "art", or is there an objective procedure for determining the proper tree? On a new side note: You are saying that you do not want a custom saddle ("...nor do we want to have a saddle specially made for every individual horse..."), and that confuses me. I do want a saddle fit to my horse. If I want the best saddle for my horse, it seems like I would like it made for my horse, not one kinda like him. Can you clarify that point or straighten me out? Thanks again for clarification to any/all who have experience with this. Margaux.

Les't say that I'm hunting for the best sewing machine. So I read and read through all the topics and forums relating to sewing machines, and sometimes the information is useful, and many times the messages are "me too!" or "I have this one". There are lots of comments, but getting the overall summary picture is difficult. Can we have a summary section, or perhaps it can be voting, so that the basic information is available in the executive summary format? I can image this would be useful not only for which sewing machine is better/worse, but also for a lot of other subjects Best/worst supplier of..... (saddle trees, tools, leather, glues, patterns, machines,...) Best sites for information regarding.... ( holsters, chaps, saddles, trees, dyes, glues,...) Best places to go for tutorials, books, DVDs. Best/worst hardware/brands.....(, like glues, trees, machines, tools,....) It could just look like the suppliers page (http://www.leatherworker.net/suppliers.htm) , but with a ratings, similar to amazon rating of their products. If there were lists like that, I could still go down into the archives to see the details, but the picture would start out a lot clearer. Thanks, Margaux

Sorry for the redundancy, I posted a reply, but this seems more like a new topic. Here it is again on fresh turf: Let's say that you have a perfect profile of a horse's back, and are going to order a tree based on that data. How is the tree made to take into account that there will be some leather, fleece, and saddle pad in between the tree, and the horse. Obviously that distance is normal (perpendicular) to the tree (or horse's back), and that normal direction is sometimes down, sometimes slanting back and down, sometimes in and down, etc. i.e. it's pretty complicated. How do tree makers take these complex directions and distances into account? Thanks in advance, Margaux.

Okay. Let's say that we have a perfect profile of the horse's back. How is the tree constructed to take into account the fact that there is leather, fleece, and a blanket/pad in between the tree and the horse's back? Obviously you can't just put 2" (or whatever your estimate is) straight down, it has to be normal (perpendicular) to the surface of the tree. Who does that calculation? How does is that taken into account? Thanks in advance, Margaux