Tree modifications

[Alan Bell]

There's been some discussions on another board about bar modifications for the female anatomy. I had not heard of any. I think what they are looking at is how a Wade bar is narrower in the middle compared to an Assoc. (this might also be why the flat plate does not feel as bulky on a Wade tree as it would on an Assoc.) Is there a specific modification for women other than what the saddle maker can do with his ground seat?

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

Burnin' all pollution tonight; Burnin' all illusions tonight

Bob Marley - Burnin' and Lootin'

[D.A. Kabatoff]

Alan,

I've heard all sorts of wild ideas about how to fit a woman's anatomy to make the saddle more comfortable. My opinion is this... You need to understand what makes a good, balanced seat; not only is the shape from front to back important, but from side to side. The seat should allow the riders legs to make good, even contact from the crotch to the point the leg drops off the horse. The only modifications the bars need is to make them narrower from the stirrup leather slot back. (this is also debatable depending on the size of the woman) The reasoning for this is that a woman's legs are generally fuller (they don't like the term fatter) on the inside of the thighs. The narrowing of the bars helps to create a bit more room for the inside of the leg which in turn allows the leg to make more even contact from the crotch to the point the leg drops off from the horse.

The bars are not narrower to help a saddlemaker build a narrower ground seat; a narrower groundseat will actually be less comfortable for a woman. If you looked at what we commonly call the "pin bones", on a woman you would see that by making the seat narrower, it will actually be putting pressure on the insides of the pin bones forcing them outward which will definitly cause discomfort.

I won't address the idea of association bars being narrower than Wade bars because my treemaker's bars are fairly consistent through the thigh area with the most noticable difference being below the fork to accomodate the extra stock thickness and depth of the fork.

Darc

Edited March 25, 2008 by D.A. Kabatoff

[Alan Bell]

Hey Darc, That is pretty much what I thought about the narrower ground seat but have heard from a lady touting her Lady Wade because it has a narrower seat! I guess the bar thickness issue I end up dealing with is the difference of having a "factory" tree and a tree made by a reputable maker. This is also what some saddlemakers are pushing saying they can get trees with narrower bars made for ladies by Timberline. I had never heard of that and thought I'd put it out there on this board.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

War in the east, war in the west, war up north and war down south

bob Marley - War

[bruce johnson]

Alan,

I am pretty much in agreement with Darcy's take. Pete Gorrell has a pretty good little section on this he brings up in some of the classes. Basic take-home is a wider spot for the pins, faster narrowing forward, and a narrower or more "pinched" rise and/or more thigh scoop for increased contact because women are theorized to carry more mass inside the femur than men.

Regarding trees, as the Nikkels are prone to say, no two tree makers do anything alike. I have two of theirs here, three Timberlines, and have built on Sonny Felkin's too among others. Comparing Wades to Wades here - same handhole width. The Felkins bars are very similar to the Timberlines in shape and thickness. Rod's bars are thicker and wider, they drop deeper. They are a bit wider through the waist. Just put my 24" wing dividers to Rod's and the Timberline. The Timberline is about 9-1/8 wide measured at the narrowest point (rear stirrup slot) and Rod's Wade is about 10". For what it is worth, I think this Wade from Timberline is one of them I ordered with a "half-narrow" bar. It is supposed to be a 1/2" narrower bar in the waist, and I have been told it is the Lady Wade bar pattern. If we figure a 45 degree slant for arguments sake, then a half inch of narrower bar should make each side a little less than 1/4 narrower. The engineers can help me out with the math here. Rod's bar is 4" wide measured with the plane of the bar here, vs. the Timberline which is 3-1/4, both in the rawhide. So yes, you can get a narrower tree from Timberline. I have built three for a guy who rides the tar out of them, and he likes a narrow seat. They have worked for him.

[Alan Bell]

Thanks Bruce, Now I'm trying to sort out if the bar is narrower at that point is it really affecting the seat once all the leather is put over it. With the same hand hold width wouldn't the top line of the bar remain the same and the narrowness show up on the bottom line. In my mind I can see how this would make for a "closer contact" but not necessarily a narrower seat. I think a ladies seat should be built just the way you described. I made a saddle for a friend of mine and he got one from another maker at the same time. The other fellows seat is built like you would for a woman and my buddy feels it is too wide and doesn't like it. I guess the 1/4" each side adds up to a 1/2" difference overall. But it still seems that the way the ground seat is built can either accentuate that difference or almost completely negate it.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

Dey jus keep a holdin' me, naw let go!

Bob Marley - Hammer

[bruce johnson]

Alan,

Yes the way the groundwork is put in has as much or more effect than the tree width through the waist. However the wider tree in the waist can have more build up in the center, be scooped for the thighs, and narrowed up top to make the same profile as a narrower tree. This is almost like the pitch of a roof thing. If you don't have as much build up on the narrower tree, and leave them fuller across the bars, you could make that one ride wider. I keep thinking back to those early flat seat cutters. They were much like straddling a 2x12. Some women had a heck of time in them. I did, and I was pretty skinny back then.

As an aside, I have 4 different Timberlines sitting here. The Association (bronc tree) has the narrowest width of 8". The two Dee Picketts have a width of 9-7/8".

[Alan Bell]

Hey Bruce,

do you think you could post pics of the trees comparing the Timberline to the Nikkel trees? Also, in another topic Andy Knight mentions the thickness of the swell where the horn is, How does this compare on the Timberline vs the Nikkels? Thanks,

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

I've got to keep on moving

Bob Marley - Duppy Donqueror

[David Genadek]

You may find this information helpful.

http://equinestudies.org/knowledge_base/built_to_ride.html

[Alan Bell]

Thanks David, I thought I had seen that information on your website before.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

If I am guilty I will pay!

Bob Marley - I shot the Sheriff

[David Genadek]

Here is a another link that has info relevant to the topic

http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/197.html

[Tosch]

I have a copy of Verlane's 2003 booklet which includes a drawing of "narrow waisted" bars (bars are narrower from around the center of the fork to approx. the point of cantle) and also a 4 page chapter on "Gender & Seat shape, why men and women require different seats" with text explanations and various drawings. If of interest, I can try to put the 5 pages in a pdf and try to "somehow" upload it (assistence appreciated!), just let me know.

Tosch

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Just a note on width at the “waist” of the tree. If the bars are identical, as you get a wider fitting tree, the width across the “waist” will naturally increase accordingly. The increases generally go by ¼” increments, so overall that isn’t a lot, but it is there. And the wider angles increase that measurement too. (This means the horses it is used on are also wider, so that also has an effect on the rider’s leg position.) To compensate, we (I don’t know about the other makers who do things differently ) narrow the bars in the middle slightly to make them approximately the same width regardless of hand hole width or angle. And if the bars are individually handmade, then ask your tree maker to narrow them up if you want that. It is as simple as marking the pattern differently for us, and we do get that requested, often with the statement “Its for a lady…” attached.