Point of reference on a tree?

[D.A. Kabatoff]

Hi Keith,

I would determine my rigging position as I always have using the points of refernce that I'm comfortable with to find full position and then build the different postions into my paper patterns. I would then have patterns for 7/8ths, 3/4s, etc... trying to keep my screw holes consitently in the same position. After thinking about this a little more, I figure I will have my tree maker mark on the bare wood with a felt pen where my screw holes should be. Hopefully this would show through the rawhide and would make up for any inconsistency in hide thickness and allow the two sides to be indentical.

Darc

[jwwright]

Darc, I like your idea. I am preparing to put riggings on a couple trees in the next few days. Both of these happen to be dropped double D rigs, but I see no reason why your idea would not apply the same. As you wrote, I have the riggings already built, identically. If you don't mind, I will try your ideas, and post later about how it worked out for me. JW

[D.A. Kabatoff]

Hi Jw,

sure would like to hear how it works out for you... I don't see a reason it can't work for any type of rigging that's screwed to the tree.

Darc

[Hennessy]

Troy I use a nail top dead center on the cantle first, then I stand the tree up on the front bar tips on my stamping block and measure both front and back rig distance from block.. If everything is where its supposed to be the measurements will be exactly the same both ways. As for rigging depth I have a 1 foot wooden ruler to which I have fasten a piece of skirting flush with on end making a large stop . then I took two pieces of skirting 1" wide by 3 " long and sandwhiched the ruler between these two placing a rivet close to the edge of the ruler on both sides. I can set the blocked end of the ruler against the bottom edge of the bar then slide the riveted piece up to the bottom of the riggin ring or plate then check the other side. This is nice cause if the phone rings or I get distracted I don't need to re-measure or try and remember the measurement as I still have my ruler set. Greg

greg you can also set tree on flat surface,hold front off surface and ease tree down watching for when th dees touch surface if at the same time your even

[tnestes]

In reading through these posts, here is the list so far for what people use as their basis for the "full" rigging position.

Center of the horn

Measurement back from the front tip of the bar

Lowest point of the bar

Center of the base of the horn

Back of the base of the horn

Center of the fork

Center of the front bar pad

There was a thread on this before the crash that, if I recall, had some more ideas as well. Obviously, saddle makers are no more "standardized" than tree makers in how they do things.

For what it is worth, from the perspective of a tree maker:

Using anything but the bars themselves as a reference point for rigging position will introduce a whole bunch of variations. We can make a wooden horn or put a metal horn on the same fork style. This makes the center of the horn vary relative to a specific spot on the fork. We can make vary where we set a metal horn on the fork, or where we place a wood post horn on a fork, and how we shape it as well. This makes the back of the base of the horn vary relative to a specific spot on a fork. (We have even been asked to set it ¾" ahead of normal to provide some needed extra "belly room" for dallying.) We can stand a fork up or lean it ahead. The center of the fork relative to a specific spot on the bars will then be different, and this also affects all the horn references. All of these changes can give different reference points for "full" even when used on identical bars that will sit on the horse in an identical place on its back.

It is the shape on the bottom of the bars that is crucial in determining where on the horse's back the bar will sit, especially the front bar pad area. If the front bar pad is designed to fit behind the shoulder blades, then the "roundest part" or "deepest part" of that area will determine where the bar fits relative to the shoulder. (This "roundest part" can be more difficult to determine on bar pads that are flatter rather than rounder, but the shape does affect where the bar fits.) And that "roundest part" is as far forward as you would ever want a rigging to go – if that far. Further forward, and you will be pulling the front of the bars down, acting to tip the saddle forward and more likely affecting the movement of the shoulder blades as they rotate back. Even that far forward can cause problems for a lot of horses. In checking out a bunch of pictures of trees tonight, almost all the measurements from the horn and most of the measurements from the fork as described above would put the pull of the rigging too far forward on our trees based on this idea.

How does the "roundest part" of the bar pad correspond to the front tip of the bar? Doesn't have to be, and isn't, consistent at all with different bar types and especially between makers. On our trees, there is a different between "regular" bars and "Wade" bars in that the bar tip for Wade trees is longer (from the fork cut forward) to accommodate the extra stock thickness of the Wade fork. But the "roundest part" is consistent compared to the fork cut between regulars and Wades. So using a consistent measurement from the front bar tip on our trees would vary the "rigging position" (compared to the bar shape) depending on bar type. Between makers, it would be all over the map.

How does the "roundest part" of the bar pad correspond to the lowest point of the bar? Doesn't have to at all. The outline of the bar doesn't have to correspond to the bottom shape in any set manner. Every tree maker does things differently, you know. On our trees, it happens to. Because it was planned that way? Not by us, but probably by wise people in our "genealogy" of tree making who knew how to make things easier for a saddle maker. If it does correlate, it makes it a simpler way for a saddle maker to figure a rigging position.

Basically, as far as we see it, the full rigging position needs to be based on the shape of the bottom of the bar since that is what determines how the pull from the rigging will affect pressure from the tree on the horse's back. And that shape, of course, varies between tree makers, which gives saddle makers an excuse for varying how they do things too.

A story about the "string from the center of the cantle" test: We have pictures of a rigging on a tree that passed that test beautifully – string to same spot on the rigging an even length. Unfortunately the actual rigging was ¾" farther forward on one side than the other and also off an equal amount up and down. A case where it appeared that two wrongs made a right, but the horses sure didn't think so! So while it can be a good check, in our experience it shouldn't be the only one that is used.

I fully agree, Rod. Your ideas make the most sense of all!

[BondoBobCustomSaddles]

Hi Everyone,

At the risk of either agreeing or disagreeing with the comments in this thread, I find that this topic is fully covered in detail, and also how to make a "jig" that works on all styles of rigging, and instructions on how to use it, can be found in The Encyclopedia of Saddle Making by Al Stohlman. I have used this method for a very long time now, (15 years) and have never had a saddle that came out wrong. I have used it on saddles with Quality , Superior, Hadly & Fox, and Bowden trees. The outcome is the same and does take into consideration any inconsistancies in the tree itself.

Bondo Bob

[steve mason]

bondobob;

I do not have the stohloman books so I am not familiar with the method and jig system in it. could you explain the system and maybe show us a photo of the jig.

thanks in advance

Steve

Hi Everyone,

At the risk of either agreeing or disagreeing with the comments in this thread, I find that this topic is fully covered in detail, and also how to make a "jig" that works on all styles of rigging, and instructions on how to use it, can be found in The Encyclopedia of Saddle Making by Al Stohlman. I have used this method for a very long time now, (15 years) and have never had a saddle that came out wrong. I have used it on saddles with Quality , Superior, Hadly & Fox, and Bowden trees. The outcome is the same and does take into consideration any inconsistancies in the tree itself.

Bondo Bob

[gtwister09]

bondobob;

I do not have the stohloman books so I am not familiar with the method and jig system in it. could you explain the system and maybe show us a photo of the jig.

thanks in advance

Steve

Here you go...a quick scan.

Regards,

Ben

[D.A. Kabatoff]

After seeing some more of the complex jigs people are using, I thought I'd expand on my post from above and report some findings I've had over my last seven saddles.

I have tried using the paper pattern method for pre-marking rigging screw holes on seven saddles now and am happy to say everyone of them has come out as square as can be made. On the first six saddles, I started by using the paper pattern to mark holes and then temporarily pinned my riggings into the marked holes so that I could take measurements of squareness through the use of threads coming from rear bar tips, top-center of the cantle, and top-center of the horn. I also used the method of tilting the tree on it's nose and measured plate height from a granite surface and distance from the bottom edge of the bars. On all six saddles I tried this on I have not had to make any adjustments at all. The last sadde I built I didn't bother with the temporary attachment of the riggings for double checking squareness. I simply marked the holes on the tree and riggings, drilled my pilot holes on the tree and attached the riggings... I'm happy to say that the rigging on that saddle also squared up as evenly as can be done. It took me approximately 5 minutes to make a simple paper pattern as pictured below, mark the holes on everything, drill my pilot holes, and attach the riggings.

For anyone tired of fooling with jigs, you might want to give this a try. A short explanation of how to do it is as follows.

To use this method it requires a well made tree with bars that are as near to indentical as can be had. It also requires that your left and right riggings be mirror images of each other. For reference points, I used the front junction of the bar where it meets the fork and the leading edge of the stirrup leather slot on the bottom of the bar. You can see from the fourth photo below these points... the lower, vertical blue line indicates where the stirrup leather slot is and the blue dots indicate where I marked the screw holes on the tree.

To start, I made a simple paper pattern out of construction paper by cutting it oversize and holding it against the bottom side of the bar and traced the edge of the bar from the two reference points. After cutting the pattern, I double checked it against the offside to make sure both bars were the same shape. I then marked on the pattern where I wanted my screw holes to be and then lined the pattern up with the reference points on the tree. I used a scratch awl to mark the screw holes on the tree. Using the paper pattern, mark the holes on your rigging, doesn't matter if it's a flat plate, big D, or inskirt, it'll work just the same as long as you made both the near and offside riggings identical in size. Incidentally, I have found it easier to mark my screw holes on my rigging paper patterns as shown in the last photo of a skirt rigging, and then use the paper rigging pattern to mark the tree.

At this point for anyone trying this for the first time who isn't confident in the method, I would suggest using small nails to temporarily tack your rigging to the tree in the marked holes and then double check the squareness through whatever means you are comfortable with. If everything checks out ok, you can drill pilot holes at the marked locations and screw your riggings down.

Darc

[jwwright]

Thank You Darc, for bringing this idea up again. I've been meaning to give it a try, but just hadn't. I will be giving it a go very soon. JW