Bars and Bottoms

[bruce johnson]

I set this topic on it's own because I think it needs to be separated out from any one tree maker's discussion. I think we have enough varying opinions and experiences that we could enter into a discussion of the various parts of the tree and what we do/don't want. I think we could all gain some perspective. I envision breaking the tree down to its components and discussing each one by itself in its own topic to kind of keep this on as even a keel as we can. I would like to start with the bars and their shape and spread, independent of forks (swells) and cantles. I am going to probably ramble some, and ask a lot of rhetorical questions. Obviously David has some ideas that are not in synch with the current standard, and I would encourage him to expound more on exactly where his trees differ and why. Nothing is carved in granite, a lot of what we do is based on tradition, right or wrong. I also would encourage the exchange of how we fit our bars to a horse, how we order the tree (limited to bar pattern and spread to start with) from our current or a different tree maker, and the limitations we see with our trees. How do we fit the general horse our clients will ride, and how far from great fit is no fit?

Now my opinion only. I don't think we can lump all current tree makers together. Obviously some make bar patterns and have geometries that are different from others. Price is somewhat of a factor, but not always. Some tree companies are making a hundred or more a day, other guys make one every other day. Who pays more attention - no answer. Just like us, some factories make better saddles than we do, and some of us make better than the factories. I have a tree that has rounded pads on the front that concentrate forces in a small area, but gives the appearance of having "flare" for that desirable shoulder freedom. Obviously a round withered muscular horse will suffer if full doubled in this type tree. I have other trees with fairly flat pads. I see a fair amount of horses that these pads provide good contact. I think David posted that he makes some trees with concave pads. Interesting, although I am curious about the rawhide lifting up and tenting, or are they nailed into this dish. If I am correct, this might be a place for a synthetic coating like epoxy.

What about ordering based on handhole width vs. gullet width? If we are using the same tree maker and everything else is constant, does it matter? (again rhetorical) Should we specify both, along with the bar spread at the bottom? What about 2 stirrup grooves vs. one (Arizona bars). Is that back edge of the stirrup leather making a lump right where we have muscle bulge in the stride phase? Does the 1/4" of bar thickness we are saving make it that much stronger? What about the arbitrary narrowing of the cantle gullet to account for twist? Can we make a level seat on a "down-hill" sitting tree? Of course we can, ground seat build ups, probably accounts for a lot of the 3 piece built up ground seats. Is the narrowed channel width necessary for all horses? Which horses need it and which ones don't? Like David I see very few uphill built horses, some of the Arabian/gaited horse crosses are probably as close as it gets. BUT, I see a lot of level or down-hillers. Add a gullet (OK Front width) too wide and we have a downhill saddle and more force toward the front. Tapered insert pads (the 3/4 wedge gel insert pads are pretty popular around here) are kind of a filler. Narrow up the front (or widen the back) and we have the same effect.

Bar angles. Some horses are getting flatter withered and wider. How do we determine what ones need the celebrated 93 degree bars the training clinicians are touting? Are they throwing their 93 degree bar Wade on the two year old QH and then the 5 year bucking Morgan or TB in the clinic round pen regardless of what his back says?? Food for thought.

What about rock(er)? Is too much better than not enough? How do we measure it to tell a tree maker? How do we know what we should have. Does it depend on the horse and his job? If he slogs along at a walk nose-to-tail down the trail, and the rider sits back all day, we probably want it closer than the barrel racer, California stockhorse, or cutter that flexes and extends and is more fit. Big blow out extended strides and the ultimate flex when stopping hard. Bar flare no doubt enters in here too. How much is enough, without sacrificing normal weight bearing surface? How much flex/extension is there in a normal horse's back anyway??

Bar thickness. How many broken bars do we see that were not either (a) flipped over on or ( scored when cutting stirrup leather slots by the makers who build them that way? I do see some of the monstrously thick calf and steer roping trees that do have some major thickness for a reason. Even though the bottom geometry of these bars may be fine the edges are either stubbed off or rounded over. Personally I think a rounded over bar will dig in less than the stubbed off, if the cinches (front and back) aren't pulled for a rodeo run. Is this the saddle we want to brand calves in all day with a little looser cinch? I see a fair amount of Wades that are wider webbed (for lack of a better term) through the stirrup slot and waist area but pretty thin bars. These are old slogging saddles that have stood the test of time and aren't broken. May be a factor of steady pressure vs. a jerk. Obviously the thinner the bars, the closer we are to the horse, the more we feel, the less we torque on his back side to side, and we are all happier.

What about the "close contact" trees with the narrower waists? I have to spread my legs as wide as the horse is. Now that is not rocket science. Does it really matter if the bottom bar edge is 2 inches down my inside thigh or 3"? If that bar edge is tapered and smooth with the horse, I can't tell a difference, but I think that extra 1" of bar width will let me rope something bigger with less chance of damage to my gear or person. This is all based on a tapering seat down the sides too, not the 2 full layers to the bottom bar edge ground seat.

Other factors obviously play into how these bars will fit besides type of activity and conformation. David mentioned farriers, dentists, bitting, the rider, where they ride - hills or flat. The owners can control a bunch of saddle fit with the feed program, conditioning program, saddle pads, and just plain how they ride. As makers we influence it with rigging postion and type, getting these riggings on evenly, and making a seat our rider can sit in to be in balance with the horse (and right on the cantle generally ain't it). That is getting to the top of the saddle, and I don't want to go there yet.

We have factories and one man shops making trees and saddles. We are competing with saddles sold by unknowing catalog and tackstore employees to mostly unknowing customers (both judging the top of the saddle) to put on an animal that can't talk. If he gets sore, they put another saddle on, it may not fit better but is different enough to rest that sore spot and create another one somewhere else. I would really like to see some data from standardized testing of different trees with real-time pressure cell pads during different activities. I look forward to the day of standards, but don't see that happening in my lifetime, and I am not old. In the meantime, I want to have as much information as I can to do the best job I can. I think it starts with the bottom of the tree. Hope this sparks something

Bruce Johnson

[Romey]

Id like to add a side note, I work alot of horses, Iv come to specialize in obviously ranch horses but alot of remedial horses often times i have been the last stop from the buckin horse sale or them sent off to become french beef.

Several time I have found poorly fitting saddle to be the cause of mental if not physical trauma to our equine friends and was the root cause of certain problimatic horses. Compound that on owner caused issues ,as remedial horses are much like a onion, lots of layers of problems.

Horses have one main behavior, being a horse, we, put the other behaviors into them, the good and the bad. So I stress KNOW HOW TO FIT A SADDLE. I have seen it enough actually its first thing I look at when a problimatic horse is brought to me, just to get that out of the way. Im interested in seeing the various opinions here with the saddle makers we have here. Good topic Bruce

Edited May 1, 2007 by Romey

[David Genadek]

Bruce,

Your post is really excellent! I would like to expand on some of your points but don't have time till this weekend.

David Genadek

[Blake]

I set this topic on it's own because I think it needs to be separated out from any one tree maker's discussion. I think we have enough varying opinions and experiences that we could enter into a discussion of the various parts of the tree and what we do/don't want. I think we could all gain some perspective. I envision breaking the tree down to its components and discussing each one by itself in its own topic to kind of keep this on as even a keel as we can. I would like to start with the bars and their shape and spread, independent of forks (swells) and cantles. I am going to probably ramble some, and ask a lot of rhetorical questions. Obviously David has some ideas that are not in synch with the current standard, and I would encourage him to expound more on exactly where his trees differ and why. Nothing is carved in granite, a lot of what we do is based on tradition, right or wrong. I also would encourage the exchange of how we fit our bars to a horse, how we order the tree (limited to bar pattern and spread to start with) from our current or a different tree maker, and the limitations we see with our trees. How do we fit the general horse our clients will ride, and how far from great fit is no fit?

Now my opinion only. I don't think we can lump all current tree makers together. Obviously some make bar patterns and have geometries that are different from others. Price is somewhat of a factor, but not always. Some tree companies are making a hundred or more a day, other guys make one every other day. Who pays more attention - no answer. Just like us, some factories make better saddles than we do, and some of us make better than the factories. I have a tree that has rounded pads on the front that concentrate forces in a small area, but gives the appearance of having "flare" for that desirable shoulder freedom. Obviously a round withered muscular horse will suffer if full doubled in this type tree. I have other trees with fairly flat pads. I see a fair amount of horses that these pads provide good contact. I think David posted that he makes some trees with concave pads. Interesting, although I am curious about the rawhide lifting up and tenting, or are they nailed into this dish. If I am correct, this might be a place for a synthetic coating like epoxy.

What about ordering based on handhole width vs. gullet width? If we are using the same tree maker and everything else is constant, does it matter? (again rhetorical) Should we specify both, along with the bar spread at the bottom? What about 2 stirrup grooves vs. one (Arizona bars). Is that back edge of the stirrup leather making a lump right where we have muscle bulge in the stride phase? Does the 1/4" of bar thickness we are saving make it that much stronger? What about the arbitrary narrowing of the cantle gullet to account for twist? Can we make a level seat on a "down-hill" sitting tree? Of course we can, ground seat build ups, probably accounts for a lot of the 3 piece built up ground seats. Is the narrowed channel width necessary for all horses? Which horses need it and which ones don't? Like David I see very few uphill built horses, some of the Arabian/gaited horse crosses are probably as close as it gets. BUT, I see a lot of level or down-hillers. Add a gullet (OK Front width) too wide and we have a downhill saddle and more force toward the front. Tapered insert pads (the 3/4 wedge gel insert pads are pretty popular around here) are kind of a filler. Narrow up the front (or widen the back) and we have the same effect.

Bar angles. Some horses are getting flatter withered and wider. How do we determine what ones need the celebrated 93 degree bars the training clinicians are touting? Are they throwing their 93 degree bar Wade on the two year old QH and then the 5 year bucking Morgan or TB in the clinic round pen regardless of what his back says?? Food for thought.

What about rock(er)? Is too much better than not enough? How do we measure it to tell a tree maker? How do we know what we should have. Does it depend on the horse and his job? If he slogs along at a walk nose-to-tail down the trail, and the rider sits back all day, we probably want it closer than the barrel racer, California stockhorse, or cutter that flexes and extends and is more fit. Big blow out extended strides and the ultimate flex when stopping hard. Bar flare no doubt enters in here too. How much is enough, without sacrificing normal weight bearing surface? How much flex/extension is there in a normal horse's back anyway??

Bar thickness. How many broken bars do we see that were not either (a) flipped over on or ( scored when cutting stirrup leather slots by the makers who build them that way? I do see some of the monstrously thick calf and steer roping trees that do have some major thickness for a reason. Even though the bottom geometry of these bars may be fine the edges are either stubbed off or rounded over. Personally I think a rounded over bar will dig in less than the stubbed off, if the cinches (front and back) aren't pulled for a rodeo run. Is this the saddle we want to brand calves in all day with a little looser cinch? I see a fair amount of Wades that are wider webbed (for lack of a better term) through the stirrup slot and waist area but pretty thin bars. These are old slogging saddles that have stood the test of time and aren't broken. May be a factor of steady pressure vs. a jerk. Obviously the thinner the bars, the closer we are to the horse, the more we feel, the less we torque on his back side to side, and we are all happier.

What about the "close contact" trees with the narrower waists? I have to spread my legs as wide as the horse is. Now that is not rocket science. Does it really matter if the bottom bar edge is 2 inches down my inside thigh or 3"? If that bar edge is tapered and smooth with the horse, I can't tell a difference, but I think that extra 1" of bar width will let me rope something bigger with less chance of damage to my gear or person. This is all based on a tapering seat down the sides too, not the 2 full layers to the bottom bar edge ground seat.

Other factors obviously play into how these bars will fit besides type of activity and conformation. David mentioned farriers, dentists, bitting, the rider, where they ride - hills or flat. The owners can control a bunch of saddle fit with the feed program, conditioning program, saddle pads, and just plain how they ride. As makers we influence it with rigging postion and type, getting these riggings on evenly, and making a seat our rider can sit in to be in balance with the horse (and right on the cantle generally ain't it). That is getting to the top of the saddle, and I don't want to go there yet.

We have factories and one man shops making trees and saddles. We are competing with saddles sold by unknowing catalog and tackstore employees to mostly unknowing customers (both judging the top of the saddle) to put on an animal that can't talk. If he gets sore, they put another saddle on, it may not fit better but is different enough to rest that sore spot and create another one somewhere else. I would really like to see some data from standardized testing of different trees with real-time pressure cell pads during different activities. I look forward to the day of standards, but don't see that happening in my lifetime, and I am not old. In the meantime, I want to have as much information as I can to do the best job I can. I think it starts with the bottom of the tree. Hope this sparks something

Bruce Johnson

Lets try this again ...... and everybody check their guns at the door!!!!

[bruce johnson]

Thanks Blake,

Kind of where I would like to see this go is discussing the different names of bar patterns and some of the differences. I have a handout from a tree maker about some of these styles of bars, but without their permission to post, don't feel right just doing it. Also has Rod and Denise have mentioned, every tree maker does things just a little bit differently.

The names I have heard (and used some of) include:

1. Arizona

2. Wade

3. Northwest

4. PW bars

5. Tidwell

6 Rainmaker

7. Mule bars ( a subset probably of the above).

8. Hape bars

The explained differences usually revolve around Twist and rocker. Arizona style bars (one stirrup slot vs. two) can be done on most of the other "non AZ" bars.

Choices of wood - poplar, cottonwood, etc. are favored for different reasons by different tree makers. Obviously not everyone uses the same wood. Advantages/Disadvantages?

The tradeoff of bar thickness vs. strength, what about bar width?

Tapered thin bar edges or thicker rounded edges?

Shape of the bottom side - rounded or flattened pads?

Finally, how do we measure? wires and tracings, where at? how many? Thermoplastic pads? fitting shells?

Bruce Johnson

Edited May 8, 2007 by bruce johnson

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

I don't know how long it took for Bruce to write his post, but this one has been on the go for a few days, and this is just part one in answering some of his questions. Lots of good questions and food for thought, and lots to learn by listening to others. Here is our current opinion, as tree makers, on the questions Bruce asked. We would invite (respectful) feedback, comments and questions on our ideas. All we can do is learn more.

"Nothing is written in granite" should be the underlying theme when discussing trees, especially bars. We are trying our best to fit a solid object (unless you go with the flexible bar theory, which would be a whole different thread) on a softish, movable one. There will be no one "right" answer to the questions asked here.

"How far from a great fit is no fit?" Our answer would be "A long way". "No fit" is one that hurts the horse. A great fit is harder, because what moment in time are you trying to fit the best? If you set a bare tree on a horse when he is standing still, you can see where it contacts him at that point. If you set it there and watch while he walks around, you will see that there is a lot of movement of the muscles of his back under the tree. There are times when the back will fall away from the tree so it isn't even touching at the back end of the bar and then the middle. As he turns the outside has less contact in places while the inside has more. The area where the bar fits into the wither pocket seems to be the only area that never loses contact between the tree and the horse. With weight on the saddle, you won't get as dramatic a visual difference, but the same factors are at play - the muscles will be having an increasing and decreasing amount of pressure with every movement and every phase of every stride. This is why we can "get away with" so much. There is rarely a constant enough area of high pressure anywhere under the tree to cause problems unless something is really wrong ("no fit"). The areas this constant pressure is most likely - the wither pocket and the back bar tips - are the areas we tend to see more problems.

Bruce writes "Obviously some (tree makers) make bar patterns and have geometries that are different from others." I would change that slightly to say all are different. Even makers that learned from the same teachers modify and change things and think for themselves. Bottom line is that you cannot compare trees between makers based just on numbers and measurements. You have to see one from that maker and try in on horses. Then you will know what you want different next time. And you don't always have to change makers to get something different. If you ask, they often make them in the various permutations and combinations you want, but trying to explain all those options to you at one time is often too complicated to be practical for a first order, unless the saddle maker asks. Bottom line, once you know how one fits, talk to the tree maker. He can often make the changes you want for another tree.

Bruce talks about the amount of "roundness" in the shape of the underside of the front bar pads - a very important factor which should match the shape of the horse. Some horses are A shaped with the sides of that A being concave. They hold a saddle in place the best, and need a rounder bar pad. Some are A shaped with the sides of the A being flat, and they need a flatter bar pad. Some horses bulge outward from either fat or muscle and that makes a difference in fit too. The problem with this "roundness" is that there is no number or measurement that can be used to describe it to someone who hasn't seen one of that maker's trees before. So for a first time order, the best you can do is describe the type (style) of horse you are trying to fit, to send back drawings, photos, molds, or whatever the tree maker asks for, and trust the tree maker to send his best shape to fit that type. Some tree makers make different shapes while maybe some offer only the one they feel fits the most horses. The method and equipment used to make the bars affects the ability to make different shapes a lot and plays a huge factor in what options are available. But basically you have to see one first, and then ask for changes if needed. (Sorry about that, but it's the truth.)

"Hand hole vs. gullet width"? While repeating the statement, "you can't compare between makers", I would say that probably the most consistent thing that you could try to compare between makers would be the hand hole width. It always means that the inside edges of the bars will be the same distance apart. (Just check if that maker's numbers are in the wood or in the rawhide, which makes a difference.) If you just use gullet width, the inside edges of the bars can easily vary in their distance apart for two reasons - stock thickness (thickness of the fork front to back) and the way the bar tip is shaped. That being said, a maker may adjust for those factors so that gullet width can be used to compare between that maker's own trees. It does not compare well between makers. So order by what that maker uses as his standard to set bar width. He may or may not (the practical geometry gets very complicated) be able or willing to use the other measurement.

"Should we specify both hand hole and gullet width and the bar spread along the bottom?" Our answer would be "No, please don't do that to us!" As I said before, the geometry gets complicated, but basically you are talking about a quadrangle with the hand hole (or gullet) width determining how wide the top line is, the two bars sloping outward forming the sides, and the bar spread along the bottom forming the bottom. Any and all of these sides and angles can be adjusted in different ways (but necesssarily evenly side to side!) There are two factors that are not mentioned here that affect the spread along the bottom of the bar (and where and how does everyone like to measure that?) compared to the hand hole or gullet width: 1.) The angle at which the bars are placed (discussed later) and 2.) The depth (or width) of the actual bar, which I rarely hear discussed. That would have to be measured in a way that is precisely the same on all the trees but everything is so rounded and shaped by the time the bar depth is determined that I have yet to find a consistent place to measure it that would be useable to compare between makers. Does anyone do this regularly? What is your preferable way to measure bar depth? We can tell you what the spread at the bottom of our bars is at various places along the bar based on the hand hole width, bar angle and bar type (which determines the depth or width of the actual bar) on our trees. But to try and make that fit some arbitrary numbers given to us based on someone else's trees - practically that is a no go. There are enough other differences between maker's trees that you wouldn't get the same fit anyway, even if you did want to pay us for the time and effort it would take to get it figured out (and even IF - that's a big if, by the way - we were willing to do so). Maybe math PhDs and computer programmers can do it a lot easier, but that's not us. All that being said, the bar spread at the bottom is another measurement that may be very helpful in comparing trees - within one maker's styles, depending on other factors. Between makers - different story.

Arizona bars - our take is that we have decided that we won't make them. They may or may not cause problems depending on the way they are made and how well the rock in the bar fits the rock in the horse's back. But we are comfortable enough with the strength of the materials in our trees that we are not worried about breakage at the stirrup groove, so we see no necessity to remove that back stirrup groove - in our trees. Our main reason for not making them is that however they are made, we feel that you compromise fit. You either have a stirrup leather lump under the bar against the horse, or you lose bar surface area behind the stirrup where the bar is hollowed out a bit to avoid problem number one. Remember, please - "Every tree maker does things differently." In another thread Blake said that he would go with Arizona bars in arena or hard roping ranch horses, depending on the event. I am curious as to why. Is it a strength factor or is there something about the fit that you feel works better in those events?

I am not quite clear on how arbitrarily narrowing the width of the cantle gullet would account for twist. Bruce, are you talking about what David Genadek calls orientation? Downhill horses are the bane of a tree (and saddle) maker's existence. They fall into the category of horses that are not properly built to carry a saddle. So how do we deal with the problem? I see fixes at three levels. 1.) The best one is the horse - breed them level!!! But quarter horses are often sold on the basis of their "big butts", according to the ads anyway, and a butt looks bigger if it is taller than the front of the horse, so that is still how they are being bred. Hopefully we are close to the end of the pendulum swing and we will see more level horses in the coming years. (To encourage this, might I suggest getting the owner to ride in a normal, flat seated saddle for a fair distance - long enough that they get so tired of sliding into the fork that they decide to geld the stud or spay the mare? But no, that wouldn't be fair to the horse.) 2.) The tree. My best understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that David works on this problem by spreading the back of the bars further apart than the front of the bars so the back will sit down lower compared to the front. I can see how this would work well if you also changed the shape of the bar and the angle of the back of the bar (by altering the twist) to fit the horse further out from the spinal column. To just spread the bars as is wouldn't work well. But how far out to spread would be dependant on how downhill the horse was, and every different amount of spread would require different shape and angle. If that is what David is able to do, good for him. But it would be technically very difficult, and for some severely downhill horses, it just wouldn't be possible to reach the ideal. You would run out of practical width of horse before you run out of downhill!! (Unfortunately, I sometimes see horses this severe advertised with stud fees attached. Ouch.) 3.) The ground seat. You fit the tree so it fits the shape of the horse's back as if it were level, and then build the ground seat higher in the front to level out the seat. Then the weight of the rider wouldn't be pushing the saddle down the hill so much. This is very possible for a custom saddle maker to do, especially since he has a greater chance of seeing the horses on which the saddle will be used than the tree maker does, and can make the ground seat accordingly.

How wide or narrow should the channel between the bars be (at the back I am assuming)? Good question. A channel can be too narrow so that it puts too much pressure too close to the bones of the spine. But how wide is too wide? One difficulty of having a wide channel comes for the saddle maker in putting in a ground seat to cover the wider distance - more of a problem for leather ground seats versus tin. A second disadvantage is that the further apart the bars go, the higher the cantle gullet needs to be to clear the spine. This can be a problem for a short cantle. You may not have enough wood left between the top of the cantle gullet and the top of the cantle for strength. Another difficulty is trying to make a narrow seat on a wider tree. If you spread the back of the bars apart, you will make the tree wider. Even if you change the angle to match the steeper angle on the horse's side further away from the spine, it will still be wider unless you narrow the depth of the bar, which decreases surface area. Balancing all these factors fits into the "Every tree maker does things differently" category.

Bar angles. We hadn't heard yet that 93 degrees was now "celebrated". (Maybe it takes a while for the news to travel north.) A few years ago the word in some places was that it was "bad, bad, bad". But no one angle is right for all horses any more than one width or one shape is. And wrong angles probably cause more problems than wrong widths. The real truth is the numbers actually don't mean much when comparing between makers. Honest. Within every maker's trees, a 93 degree will be wider at the bottom for the same hand hole (or gullet) width than a 90 degree. But you can't compare one maker's 90 degree with another maker's and expect them to fit the same for a number of reasons too complicated to go into right now. (There is another information article that has been floating around in my head for about 2-3 years on that topic. Maybe it is getting ready to be written sometime soon.) Again, as a saddle maker, the bottom line is that you need to get one tree from a maker and see how it fits. Then talk with the tree maker about how you would like to adjust things for other. Chances are, they can do it, or they have their reasons why they can't or won't. Communicate. It's worth it.

Enough for now. My brain hurts. And I see that as I am agonizing over how to make myself clear, Bruce is asking questions faster than I can give my opinion on them. There's lots to discuss, isn't there? But this is our two cents worth, for whatever two cents is worth today. (Just to be perfectly clear, while I (Denise) actually type the stuff, Rod has his say on the content. We work together on things. It's more fun that way!!)

[dsenette]

good info guys (and gals maybe?) i know squat about saddles...or at least i did before reading this (and the other two threads here in the saddle forum that i've read) i know know (sort of) what you're talking about when you say "trees" (and here i thought they were just for climbing and getting apples out of) and having to google some of the other terms you guys are using has forced me to learn even more things....good info guys (and gals if there are any)...i think this will turn out to be a great resource for saddle makers and people just wondering about the "hows" and "whys" of all this stuff

[bruce johnson]

Denise and Rod (now that I know what order to give credit to for writing that great reply), Thank you again for your participation. It took me about an hour to write that post. It has taken at least 10 years to think about it. It seems like whenever two saddlemakers get together, two questions always come up. First is "What tannery's skirting do you use?". The second question is always "Whose trees do you use?".

I am sorry I posted the reply above with even more questions before you had a chance to reply to the first. LOL. Pretty much all of your reply is self-explanatory and well written. Just for clarification on one point, the 93 degree bars being celebrated was kind of tongue in cheek. Some of the equine clinicians have been touting the 93 degree bars for their endorsed saddles or saddlemaker. While they do have a place, the average clinic attendee comes home and wants to have them arbitrarily. Kind of like Ray Hunt, some would say, introduced the Wade saddle to the masses. No slam against Ray before we go there. His first wife Millie and my mother-in-law were fast friends. I have one of the first copies of his book inscribed to her.

I am looking forward to further replies, and really want you to know that I for one, appreciate all the time and effort you have put into this.

Bruce Johnson

[Blake]

maker does things differently." In another thread Blake said that he would go with Arizona bars in arena or hard roping ranch horses, depending on the event. I am curious as to why. Is it a strength factor or is there something about the fit that you feel works better in those events?

Hi Denise

That is a great question. It is what the customer wants and orders. I am not a big fan of the Arizona bar and it won't be found in any of my personal saddles.

The customer usually specifies the Ariz. bar along with a full double rigging. They feel that the saddle becomes more stable that way and the bars less likely to break.

A few well known saddle makers in the roping circles have established that bar and it is difficult to promote change.

What would you suggest? I am really open to this discussion and have great respect for the job that you and Rod do and your willingness to share your knowledge.

Kind Regards

Blake

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Blake, regarding the ubiquitous use of Arizona bars in roping circles:

It is hard to change how people think, but a question is "Why do they think the way they think, and do they know why they think the way they think?" Do they know what makes an Arizona bar an Arizona bar other than "this is a good bar for a roping saddle"? Some people won't change their minds for anything, but there are others who are open to reasonable explanations. It just takes time to educate them.

We often have had to explain to people what an Arizona bar is. Even some saddle makers who call us don't know that an Arizona bar doesn't have a back stirrup groove, so your customers might not either. We have asked a number of people who know nothing about trees if they see a problem with putting a piece of leather under a bar, making a groove for it at the front but not the back, and then sitting on the tree when it is on a horse's back. Their response is generally, "Won't that make a lump at the back of that leather that will hurt him?" It is often obvious to someone who doesn't know that this is supposed to be a good thing, but hard to see by someone who has been told that it is.

We have good pictures of the upper side of a set of skirts and the under side of a bar that had an Arizona bar tree in it, which I have attached below. You can see the area of pressure under the stirrup leather, and how it gets deeper towards the back. Then you see the area of total lack of pressure behind the stirrup groove for a bit, and the pressure gradually building back up again. If you get the chance to get some of your own pictures (or use the ones below, if I figure out how to attach them), it will let people see that what you are telling them is true. By the way, this saddle came to a friend's shop because the tree was broken - right where the back stirrup groove would have been if it had had one.

Then we explain to people that the original reason for an Arizona bar was because of breakage at the back of the stirrup groove - the weakest place on the tree. Taking away the back groove left more thickness to the bar and so increased the strength. But there are other ways to make it strong - better wood, better rawhide, greater bar width. Show or tell them about the difference between a poorer quality tree without a stirrup groove and a better quality tree with one. This often is enough to convince them. (Of course, if a saddle maker is using trees that have thin pine bars with thin rawhide on them, the likelihood of breakage is still fairly high.)

If you can get a couple of good ropers in your area using non-Arizona bars in their saddle, word of mouth may gradually change the ideas. But some people just won't change their mind. Making Arizona bars is the one major thing that we have decided we won't do because of the compromise we see in fit as a result. Fortunately, I don't think we have ever had anybody decide not to use us as a tree maker because we won't build them. If so, we haven't missed them. But I realize some saddle makers don't have the luxury of enough work to say no. (An elderly, very well respected saddle maker up here has a kind way of saying it: "I think another saddle maker would suit your needs better." He is one who has had the luxury of saying no for many of years.)

As far as the full double rigging goes, if they are still listening to you at this point, they may be thinking that you know what you are talking about and be willing to listen to your opinions there too. Some people will listen to you, and some people could learn a lot if they didn't already know so much.