Trees Explained<--that's what I want.

[Echo4V]

I have noticed that there are several tree makers on this forum and I would like some definative answers about trees. I know there are rarely any definative answers about trees but I'm hoping...

Here are my questions:

First, it's my understanding that 90 degree bars are more verticle than 93 degree bars and therefore would be more for a horse with narrower or more pronounced withers where as 93 degree bars are for the mutton withered wide backed horses. Is that correct?

Secondly, what's the actual difference in the bar types? I've heard my whole life you need gaited bars for gaited horses, I know that's not absolutely true but, I also know that the wrong bars will definately screw up a gait. So how do gaited bars differ from QH bars and Arab bars and Wade Bars and Arizona Bars? Are there any other types of bars that I missed?

Third, I've always refered to the measurement from the outside edge of the fork to the opposite outside edge of the fork as the swell width ( I don't know if that's the correct term but it's what I've heard it called) what's the narrowest swell width that could be put on a slick fork saddle and that saddle still be usable? By usable I'm talking about dallying colts and maybe dragging a log. I don't find myself with a lot of cattle on the other end of my rope but I have had a few 4yr old colts there.

I hope you folks don't mind my silly questions but they are things that have nagged at me for a while.

Thanks in Advance

David

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

David,

Good questions for someone trying to figure out trees to ask. No easy answers.

If you go to the Saddle Supplies, Tools and Trees section there is a bunch of information on fit in a number of threads. You have the basics right in that 93 degrees is a wider angle than 90 degrees and so will fit wider horses better. It is important to note that some makers change other things than just the bar angle when they call their trees 90 or 93 degrees, which they may or may not tell you about, ie. widening the spread between the bars. Here is a link to an article I recently put up on our website that tries to explain why the numbers don’t mean anything between makers anyway. http://www3.telus.net/public/rdnikkel/BarA...sAugust2008.pdf

Again, the names of the bar types are meaningless between makers and also in fitting the different breeds because there is more variable within a breed than between breeds. In general, Arab bars will be shorter and set on at a flatter angle. Wade bars will tend to have more surface area to them. The gaited horse community is concerned about allowing free shoulder movement so that is the focus of that bar design. Arizona bars do not have a back stirrup groove, originally intended to cut down on breakage at that spot, which will have negative effects on the fit for the horse. And there are many other names for bars but there is a lot more than the bar shape that goes into getting a good fit for the horse. The bottom line is a that a good bar pattern that has lots of surface area and fits the shape of the horse’s back will not dig in anywhere, will distribute the rider's weight well, and will not interfere with the shoulder regardless of the breed or use of the horse.

How narrow can a slick fork be? First, there is no place to measure a slick fork so again, the numbers are meaningless between makers. Everyone calls “this shape” what they want. The strength depends more on the construction used to build the tree than the width of the fork. Straight pine and thin rawhide will not be as strong as having some laminated hard wood and thicker hide. How much surface area is on the bottom of the fork to attach to the bars? While this may be affected by how slick the fork is, there are other factors involved too. And is it stapled together or glued and screwed? So no definitive answer to this one either.

We too have questions about trees we want explained…

[Echo4V]

Rod and Denise,

I actually did read the article on your website. It actually gave me a lot of answers and left me with a lot of questions. I guess I should have been more specific on my questions.

On the differences in the bar degrees--thank you that was the answer I was looking for.

On the differences in the bars themselves I was more wondering what you do differently if a customer asks for gaited bars or wade bars? On the Arizona bars when you say "Arizona bars do not have a back stirrup groove" by back do you mean the horse side of the bar or do you mean the back of the seat (as in closer to the cantle)? When you say "Wade bars have more surface area..." and "The bottom line is that a good bar pattern that has a lot of surface area and fits the shape of the horse's back will not dig in anywhere,..." are you recommending wade bars? I know I had a wade saddle ( I traded it for a horse trailer this weekend) and I rode many horses in it with never a problem, even gaited horses performed well in it.

When I asked how narrow can a slick fork be I mean if you took a caliper and measured from the edge of the handhole to the outside of the fork ( keeping the caliper horizontally level) right where the inside of the bar connects to the fork, how thin can this be? By thinning that measurement it would thin the measurement across the tree at that position ( what I would call the swell measurement).

Again thanks for the info, I'm learning a lot from this site.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Echo4V

[Tosch]

Echo4V/David

in this discussion http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=821 inthe "Saddle supplies, tools and trees" category you will find some info and a pic about Arizona bars. You have posted in the "Saddle Constructoin" section. In this section here this topic http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=4210 explains also the relation between bar pad and shoulder interference while this one http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1952 about the Lady Wade might also have info of interest to you. If you go to the search button and type in "tree" you will find many more topics incl. a discussion about trees for Paso Finos. Info about all aspects you mentioned (and much more!)is a bit spread out but worth sanning through lots of topics that have same tree relevance in their title.

Hope this helps a little.

Tosch

Edited October 7, 2008 by Tosch

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

On the differences in the bar degrees--thank you that was the answer I was looking for.

Just an additional note. On our trees, if we change nothing else, the difference from 90 to 93 degrees is only 1/8" across the bottom of the bars. So to change between narrow withers and mutton withers you need to do more than just change that angle, although that is part of the equation.

what you do differently if a customer asks for gaited bars or wade bars?

Not much, really. We, and most hand makers, don't have a lot of "bar types" to choose from. I can't really speak for the production trees, but my understanding (correct me if I am wrong, anyone) is that they have certain bar patterns that they use as their template and use duplicating machines of differing types to make the bars based on those templates. For us, every set of bars are individually hand carved. We use measurements to set the hand hole width, the bar angles, the rock, the twist, the amount of crown, length, etc. So we do the same thing for every order - find out the body type the tree will most likely be used on and set the measurements accordingly. Our Wade bars had 1/2" extra front bar tip to accommodate the extra stock thickness of a Wade fork, and are 1/4" deeper (wider) than our "regular" bar. That's the only difference. The fit of the two is determined as above. Surface area is a major component of fit, since you are trying to decrease the PSI in all areas. Even with a really good match in shape, a tree with small, narrow bars can still have too much pressure under it, especially with a heavy rider. That extra surface area can buy you a lot, so long as it doesn't dig in anywhere.

how thin can this be?

I don't think there is a numerical answer to that. It really depends on the quality of materials. I am confident in thinning our laminated hardwood down, knowing that it will also have thicker rawhide protecting it. Knotty pine covered in "chicken skin" will need to be much thicker to have anywhere near the same strength. On the other hand, there are many more places on a saddle and tree that should give long before a fork unless there is a defect in it (ie. a large knot in the middle of it). The leather covering a tree does a lot to help keep it together too. So even if a really thin slick fork breaks, I'd say to check out the rest of the saddle really well for other damage – and tell us the story. It should be interesting.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Denise

[Echo4V]

Rod and Denise,

I really appreciate your patients with my questions and you are giving excellent answers. It's interesting that you said the fork shouldn't be the first thing to break on a tree, I watched a video on the Martin Saddlery website where they used a hydralic jack to "stress test" a tree and it broke slap through the fork (just a little above where the fork joins to the bars on the near side of the tree) before it even came close to breaking a bar. I found the link on this forum so you may have already seen the video. Is that not the norm then? I would have thought the bars were the weakest part of the tree until I saw that video. As far as broken trees go I have never had one break and I've had some pretty rough spills, the wade saddle I just traded off had an 8 yr old mare stand up fall over on it then roll across it a couple of times. I took it to a local saddle maker because I figured sure it was mush but we looked at the tree and you couldn't tell it had happened. I guess I'm just lucky it was muddy that day, even though I didn't feel lucky trying to clean all that mud off.

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

David,

We have seen the video, and we talked with a guy at Sheridan who has a new production tree company called Precision trees who tested his trees (with the built in seat) in the same way who said they also broke at the same spot. I would be curious, however, to hear from the saddle makers here who do a lot of repair to see how many trees they have had come in with broken forks. We do a little duplicate work - build new trees for old leather - and of the ones we have done we have only ever had one come in with a broken fork and it had a 2" knot in the single layer fork right where it broke, plus other damage to the tree. The fork is the thickest part of the tree, so in a real life situation, it seems to me it would be the least likely to break. Bars, cantles, horns pulling out, rigging screws giving way - all these things are much more common that forks breaking. I am not sure why in that test they tend to break there (the way its strapped down?, where the pull is placed?), but I would think that long before the pressure got high enough to break the fork, something else on the saddle would have given. The horse sure wouldn't stand there anyway! We haven't yet seen a lab test that matches what happens in real riding, so I am curious as to what others have seen with broken trees. What is the most common place to break a tree and why?

[bruce johnson]

Broken forks off the top of my head. One was torn off intact after the horse hooked a squeeze chute handle under the gullet and took a jump. That was when the guy decided it was time to leave the buggy. One was broken next to the horn - flipped over on in the salebarn alley. One was a barrel racer with fiberglass that wiggled after it fell off the top saddle rack in the trailer to the driveway below. Not really broken except at the joint where it was stapled to the bars.

Most of the breaks I see in users are in the bars. Most all of these breaks have occured from being flipped over on. I can only think of one that had scored rawhide. Several of the oldies I have worked on have the higher thinner cantles. Seems like the common break on them is the upper part breaking across the width of the cantle.

[Hidemechanic]

I don't know if you want to start a new thread here,(broken trees) but as to the bench test, I agree that was not what I would call a real world situation. I too figured that the swell broke because of how the tree was lashed down, as well as the angle of pull. It did not appear to me to replicate a saddle on a horse under stress.

I would say that after getting replies from saddle makers as to what kinds of breaks they have seen, I would compile that information and then ask the makers and the riders what situations have you seen where you thought a tree should have broken but didn't. I'm sure the comparison would show that trees breaking under normal use is the exception to the rule.

In my experience, the trees that I have seen broken were broken in the bars , usually at the stirrup slots or originating there then following a grain.

Causes of breakes ranged from runaway horse hooking the horn on a tree branch,loading a saddled horse into a trailer(horn hit the roof bar of the trailer)rollovers-fallovers, stomped in the seat while the saddle was on the ground,banged into posts or rails in an arena. Usually these damages were witnessed in saddles that were not of the highest quality, or the saddle was being used beyond it's intended pupose. Say a cutter-rainer used to rope something. Old saddles with dried out wood. I have seen broke bar tips on the old saddles so they don't count. Old saddles with dried out glue and dove tailed shells and cantles, probably in the same catagory.

Bottom line, I have not seen or heard of from other saddle makers I know, any roper style or pleasure saddles that are of reputible quality that have broken trees that were used for their intended purpose.

David's question about how narrow is still functional, I would suggest you ask different tree makers what they would suggest they do. You should be able to get a feel for the 'norm'. Hopefully you will hear a repeat of R&D's explanation relatings to types of wood, laminations, and hide thickness.

I personally am curious as to how thin you want to go and why. You will want to keep in mind that you want to stay within cirtain peramiters relating to your intended use. For instance, snow skis don't make good water skis, or a harley hog wouldn't make a good dirt bike.

Best wishes. GH

[Echo4V]

I'm not sure how thin I would like to go because I haven't measured the ones I have ridden. What I do know is that I have sat on saddles that have felt like I was sitting on a 55 gallon drum without the sides beat in. What I'm looking for is a saddle that doesn't interfere with my legs when I ride. If I need to reach forward to nudge a shoulder to move a colt or whatever. I have sat on a McCall wade and the pommel just felt too wide to me, it made the whole saddle uncomfortable. I'm pretty sure I don't want a wade tree saddle but I might want a weatherly and I may have to dally off a colt now and then so I want a functional saddle not just something pretty to sit on. I also need to be able to move my legs around, that's why I don't want a swell fork, so I'm wandering just how thin I can get the pommel and not have to worry about it coming off the first time a colt decides it don't want to pony around the pasture.

[bruce johnson]

It kind of looks like the things that are interfering with what you want to do have more to do with the maker than the tree. At least they are things the maker can help out a bunch. The width across the middle that makes you sit wide. - Wider midseats are a plus for a calf roper to stand out there and not be leaning into the center. That is about the only place a wide seat is much of a benefit to me. One of those function vs. comfort factor things. Otherwise I wouldn't ride mine to the road (50 ft). The groundseat makes a lot of difference in how wide a saddle sits. You can build one up higher with narrow build ups and the rider will swear they are sitting closer than a broad across the middle model. My first flat seat was a Billy Cook board. It about split me in half, and I was young and limber then. The seat on that one was right down on the bars, and I'd wager those bars were not real thick.

As far as getting your feet up into the flats. You can do that probably the easiest on a 14" wide association tree with a 5/8 EZ dee setup. The rigging style and frender and leather shapes probably limit more stirrup swing than swells. For a general using saddle that you want a little swell in front of you there are several options. I like something I can kind of lean up into. I use some Dee Picketts, Nikkels' High Country is a good tree, Olin Youngs, the land of Bowmans, etc. I am not a fan of low TMs personally as a user. That leg cut is just asking to bruise you when you hit it, and they put it on a lot of them.

It really sounds to me like a narrow seat with a plate rigging to allow some forward swing will be pretty close to what you are looking for.

[Hidemechanic]

I had a suspition your question about swell width wasn't going the direction you wanted to go. Don't worry, I've done the same thing.

I agree with Bruce that the seat is your problem. It doesn't matter whose name is on any saddle or the style

. The Wade isn't your problem, it's the way the seat was put in.

If you aren't into that saddle too much you could have a saddle maker rework the seat and you'll be surprised how much better your ride will be.

Good Luck. GH

[Echo4V]

Bruce

Thanks for explaining that about the seat. That may have been my issue with the saddles I tried and didn't like. As I've posted before I'm no calf roper ( or roper of anything really although I can rope if I have to) so I guess I would like a narrower seat especially towards the front of the saddle. I spent a lot of time on the front line of a foot ball team in high school and then 5 yrs running every morning in the Marine Corps so I have bigger thighs than most riders and I tend to have issues with interferance when I try to move my legs much at all in a saddle. I've had a roping saddle with a bowman style pommel and I liked it but I prefer a slick fork like a weatherly or a wade. I definately agree with you on the plate rigging, my last saddle had a drop plate with a "C" shaped rigging ring and I liked it better than any rigging style I've ridden before. Whether tied or buckled it was the most comfortable rigging.

Hidemechanic

Well actually, what happened was...

I had a saddle that I really liked but another guy liked it too so he offered me his horse trailer ( which I was in need of and liked a little more than the saddle) for my saddle. So, now I have a trailer but no saddle. So I thought if I'm gonna get another I want it to be exactly what I want and not "just about what I'm looking for" that's why I got on here and started trying to figure out what I could do with a saddle. I started this thread about narrow swells( or I guess the seat) and I started a thread about skirts to see what people think about eliminating the skirts to cut down on saddle weight. So, I don't have the saddle to have it reworked. I'm actually hoping that this will be my chance to build my own so I'm kinda easing into that idea and trying to get everything worked out in my head before I spend money on materials.

[Hidemechanic]

Sorry, I misunderstood the trade, I thought it went the other way. But that's okay. You're right that now you can pick up a few more things to look for in your next saddle.

I've been off here all summer and I don't know if seats have been covered but I'll see if I can give a quick run down('quick' HAA Haa!!!), and I'm sure others will fill in the gaps as you'll have more questions.

You were talking about slick forks to give you more leg room, but you can have Bowman or association or whatever with a bit longer seat length with the ground seat built up and carved out so you still have room on the front. Genearlly whatever swell you have, one of the issues you are also going to run into with a wide seat is sore knees and ankles. The wide seat pushes you thighs away from the horse causing your leg tendons and ligaments to overwork themselves by the time they get to the stirrups.

Generally speaking we are trying to keep everything as streight as posible posture wise. So narrowing down the seat so as to bring your thighs into a more natural 'hang', takes stress off your knees and ankles,(and hip joints in some people's case) and gives the rider better controle of his riding seat and his balance.

Personally I believe in building up those thighs and using them for controle rather than sitting on my seat bones. But we wont get into that here.

I guess that's the short version. I bet too if you know your stirrup length on the wide seat, you'll notice it get a bit longer with the narrower seat.

Anyway, you will notice that when you get your legs closer to the horse you'll ride better and with more control and comfort. I'm done.GH

P.S. I think there are threads about carving out ground seats as well as other aspects of saddle building for the first timer. gh

[Echo4V]

Hide mechanic,

Thanks for the advice. I have had several issues with leg and joint pain while riding but I attributed it mostly to arthritis and past injuries. I have been riding an old plantation saddle that I traded a colt for ( cause the saddle don't eat and the colt was the result of a neighbor's stud getting loose) and I have noticed that I need longer stirrups and that I have less joint pain riding it. I have even entertained the idea of building a buena vista as my next saddle. I noticed that Steele sales this tree, but I don't know what the get for them, so it won't be any harder to get that tree than a wade tree. I'm glad you mentioned narrowing the seat because now that I think about that and look at the saddle it does have quite a bit narrower tree than most western saddles. I did also see a thread about re working a ground seat but I haven't seen the conclusion to that thread yet, so I'm anxiously waiting for that. Once again, thanks for the advice.

David