tree fitting... I know, I know

[Traveller]

Thanks, Jan, I just might take you up on that! Good to hear from you.

Joanne

Hey Joanna, its Jan from yarrow.

My old mare in her later years was lookin alot like your guy.

I ended up borrowing Sara's treeless endurance , and went up the mountain.

The results were so impressive, I ordered one some time real soon after that.

Mares shoulders were completly free, she wasnt sore, I was compfy, it all just worked.

I am not a treeless fanatic, my reg saddles for my three horses now are: crates circle y and f.eamor.

Treeless is an alternate lifesyle, so to speak, but if you want to try mine, just come out for a ride here.

I do have an arena, or Rons indoor, and of course the trails. Just let me know.

This one was made buy Dana, of nickers saddlery.

[ccpowell]

This is my first time replying to a post on here, so apologies for mistakes up front- I am also not claiming expertise, just offering up my one experience. I am a Vet and a novice saddlemaker- I have built about a dozen saddles now, and one was custom made for a horse similar to yours. I purchased a mold that you heat up in the oven, and then fit to the horse when it is standing square (I can't remember the name- equifit or something like that). I then sent it to a tree maker, and had the tree made to fit the horse. The second and probably most important part of the equation was rigging position relative to the very long shoulder blades in such horses. I had read an article that Al Stohlman included in his first volume of saddlemaking encyclopedia pertaining to rigging position on long shouldered horses. In looking at your horse, his shoulder blades are pretty long. On the saddle I made for a similar horse, I had to make my rigging position forward of a full double to keep the bars just behind the tips of the shoulder blades in order to fit the horse. I used a three-way rigging plate, just to give the owner options should she use the saddle on other horses. It worked out well- fit the horse well and the owner was happy, but without considering rigging position as well as tree bar fit, I don't think I would have been so lucky. I just wanted to add to the discussion that it can be done, but also can be difficult, and expensive for a single horse. Anyway, for what it is worth, my two cents,

Chuck

Thanks, Jan, I just might take you up on that! Good to hear from you.

Joanne

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

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…

Edited April 24, 2009 by Rod and Denise Nikkel

[ccpowell]

Well said- I agree that tree fit is by far the more important of the two regarding rigging position and the tree fit. I was only suggesting rigging position could also be an important factor with horses having very long shoulder blades. I have an additional question for the tree makers- when you use products such as the equimeasure (which is what I used in this instance) where do you place the front of it? I followed the instructions and placed it just behind the caudal and proximal end of the scapulas. On this mare, if I hadn't set the rigging position ahead of a full double, considering her shoulders and large barrel, the bar tips would have been a good twelve inches forward of the end of the scapulas, or the cinch would have had to shoot forward at about a 45 degree angle. This particular mare had a short back to go with long shoulder blades and a large barrel. It seems to me that the front of the bars would have had to be shaped much differently to set comfortably in the more forward position on her shoulders compared to if the tree was to set just behind her shoulders. I would love to hear more opinions on this- should the tree be on or behind the shoulders, or does this it matter one way or another? Some horses do seem more interested in bucking when something is on there shoulders, but this could have more to do with poor bar fit and uneven pressure than the fact that there is pressure on the shoulders. The mare I built the saddle for wouldn't even lope without bucking with several other saddles, and now goes comfortably even on a riding trip across several western states last summer- I readily admit this could be more due to the custom bars or even accident than my logic. I am anxiously awaiting more expertise and experience on this topic to expand my limited knowledge (admittedly anecdotal as well). Thank you for the experienced input, and I love these forums,

Chuck

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…

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

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.

[jenn]

Hello there,

first time posting- I've been a lurker for a long time but registered to see pictures here on this great forum.

Hope the OP doesn't mind me hijacking the thread and me bumping this ancient thread, my question fits right in, I'd say.

I have a question that has been hunting me for some time now. I have a very hard to fit mule that is downhill built (and a straight backline) with not much withers to speak of. I had a local saddlemaker fit the tree to her back as good as possible (as close as "perfect fit" as possible using a measuring device consisting of wire, looks like a rib cage made of wire), but the saddle kept moving forward. It only stopped when I got a saddle with a new type of adjustable panels (called Startrekk) and I used those to level out the saddle (lifted it up a little less than an inch in front). From then on the saddle did not move forward anymore.

This saddle is not something I want to ride her in for the rest of her life, I want a regular saddle with a regular tree in it again one day. This brings me to my question: using for example the Lang system, is it possible for a tree maker to take into account the downhill built? I hope I make any sense. A tree that fits her back but doesn't take the downhill built into account moves forward until it ends up being hold back by her shoulder (she has old white marks exactly where all tree saddles end up on her).

Edited February 26, 2010 by jenn