Saddle tree angles

[oldtimer]

I am wondering why the angle 93 degrees is chosen ? It is a very small difference between 90 and 93 degrees, so why not 95 or even 100 degrees? Is there an upper limit on this angle?

Edited February 26, 2009 by oldtimer

[bruce johnson]

Knut,

I had a treemaker set a 115 degree bar tree on one of my horses, and it it was not really out of line.

There are no absolutes and horses have really proven themselves to be pretty tolerant, so there are a few schools of thought about how to make the changes for varying widths and angles of backs. To dispense with one school of thought, some say it just doesn't matter what the measurements are, fitting is bogus and saddlemakers need not concern themselves with trends of how some horses have changed. One school of thought is that with wider profiles, we need to increase the spread of the bars and not change the angles. Another school of thought is the angle is changing, but the vertebral process is in the same place, so we need to change the angles and not the width. In other words, we still need to be a couple inches lateral to the vertebral process on top and that doesn't change because a horse is more angular or flatter. You just open up the angle to be somewhat congruent with the wither profile and keep the surface area on the horse. I think both of the latter two schools of thought have merit. They both get the surface area on the horse, and time and testing might prove if one is better than the other. Some will change spread widths and angles together.

Denise and Rod can bring this up again, but I think the difference in angles with the same spread between 90 and 93 degree bars is pretty small - makes for something like 3/16" at the bottom. It is not a huge number. The deeper the bar pattern the wider this should be, and their patterns are pretty deep. Also treemakers can determine how they measure this angle differently. Comparing a 90 degree bar from one treemaker to another may not even be the same finished angle, so it really needs to be compared within the same maker.

[kseidel]

In many ways it was easier when we used gullet measurements of front, rear, and height, and a bottom bar spread measurement. It was the only way to measure a production tree after construction.... and still is the only way to measure a finished tree with any degree of accuracy.

I think the degree of angle measurements came about with the popularity of handmade trees, as it is an angle marked on the block of wood prior to shaping the swell. Some treemaker made a tree that fit well for someone and he happened to be using a 93 degree angle. Pretty soon it caught on, and others wanted the 93 degree tree. This angle rarely transfers to the actual angle of the bars on the underside, and has no bearing on the shape of the bar, (or twist or rocker) and, as stated repeatedly, every treemaker does things differently.It would be easier for the treemaker to use an even number like 94 as the angle is split off of a centerline.

There is a significant difference in the fit of a tree from 90 degrees to 100 degrees, even among a variety of treemakers.

Keith

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

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.

In many ways it was easier when we used gullet measurements of front, rear, and height, and a bottom bar spread measurement. It was the only way to measure a production tree after construction.... and still is the only way to measure a finished tree with any degree of accuracy.

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…

[jwwright]

Just my opinion, but.........there is just enough knowledge out amongst the general horse public regarding bar angles and such to be very confusing. And it is growing, the confusion. I just saw today an Ebay listing for a Chas Weldon saddle, and the listing states that the tree in the saddle is a Brannaman 91 tree and will fit ANY horse.

For me what made / makes the most sense is to educate and acquaint myself with my tree maker's trees. I feel like the saddle maker needs to have some experience trying trees from their chosen tree maker, of various hand hole / gullet widths, bar shapes and angles...........on horses of various body types. If a person does this, and is knowledgeable about how their tree maker's trees will fit various back types, then they are capable much of the time of making good decisions in ordering a tree for a given customer. I think this would be difficult to do if a saddle maker was using trees from many different tree makers, or building on what ever trees that they come across. As has been stated many times here, every tree maker does things differently, and you can order the same tree, same specs from different high quality hand made tree makers........and will get a little different fit.

JW

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

For me what made / makes the most sense is to educate and acquaint myself with my tree maker's trees. I feel like the saddle maker needs to have some experience trying trees from their chosen tree maker, of various hand hole / gullet widths, bar shapes and angles...........on horses of various body types. If a person does this, and is knowledgeable about how their tree maker's trees will fit various back types, then they are capable much of the time of making good decisions in ordering a tree for a given customer.

Dead on!