Tree Bar Description

[ASMA]

Folks, we are looking for some advice and counsel. In 2010 ASMA started the Saddle Fit Project. We have one issue we have not been able to resolve. That being the definition of tree bars. IE: quarter horse bars - semi-quarter horse bars – full quarter horse bars. We have come to the conclusion that these definitions are no longer viable due to mis-use and contradictory information.

When we did a GOOGLE search on semi-quarter horse bars we got all types on information. Here are four examples from just the first 2 pages.

Semi Quarter Horse bar - This type usually has a gullet width of about 6 1/2 inches.
Semi-quarter horse bars: 6"
Generally, Semi-QH bars are made for horses with more sloped sides and not so wide backs. A semi-qh tree is supposed to fit horses with a more TB or narrow build.
Semi-Quarter Horse Bars - horses got bigger and wider from the 1970's on, requiring a wider angle in the bars. Semi-quarter horse bars fit most of todays western horses.

See how they contradict each other. No wonder people are confused!

Therefore, we propose the following:

ASMA recommends that the tree bars be described as angle in degrees and type of bar.
For example:

90 degree Quarter horse bars
90 degree Mule bars
90 degree Arabian bars.

This can be expanded by adding the gullet width.

90 degree Quarter horse bars - with a gullet width of: 6"
90 degree Quarter horse bars - with a gullet width of: 6 1/4"
93 degree Quarter horse bars - with a gullet width of: 6 1/4"
93 degree Quarter horse bars - with a gullet width of: 6 1/2"

Not trying to start a war. Just trying to find some common ground that makes sense. Look forward to your comments.

[oltoot]

Seems like you are trying to oversimplify. As I'm sure you know there are many kinds of bar patterns, any one of which can be assembled in several gullet/bar spread configurations resulting in different fits. Perhaps defining the different parts that combine to produce best fits. otherwise the confusion continues. Wait til someone comes along and throws Arizona bars into the dialog and people get it in their heads that that equates to a better fit when not necessarily so. I decided long ago that explaining trees to folks was not the place for lumping but rather identifying the parts and their contributions. Having said all that I recognize that the world of the custom saddlemaker blessed to work with a most responsive custom tree maker is different from the instant gratification mentality that has come to dominate the industry and perhaps your simple approach will be helpful there. I still think that I would mention bar design, rocker, twist and length as major contributing factors.

[ASMA]

oltoot, Can't agree more. With one reference saying semi-quarter horse bars are narrow and another saying just the opposite, what is a saddle customer to do. Of course the answer is education, but we feel we must start some where. These descriptions have been used for decades with in the general public forum, so we decided to start with some baby steps. We thought about diferent bar patterns.

90 degree Arizona Quarter horse bars with 6 1/4" gullet width.

Thanks, for your comments

[Tosch]

I have to admit now I am a bit confused:
From your saddle fit project  page "bar angle vs gullet width"  http://www.saddlemakers.org/id198.htm  and http://www.saddlemakers.org/id204.htm   I gained the understanding that you  / the org. would refer to semi -quarter  horse bars as having a 90° angle, quarter horse bars - 92 ° angle, full quarter - 93°.....  obsiously I missread something.
Oh, wait, actually you do not name the bars degrees any more on those page, but you did so in earlier versions.

In your definition, what is the difference between
quarter horse bars
mule bars
arabian bars
when for each type you would specify bar angle and gullet width ( or hand hold width) separately - is it the amount of rock or  bar length, something else?

It ads to my confusion, that here http://www.saddlemakers.org/id193.htm#bar_angle you seem to prefer to move away from giving bar angle degrees and gullet measurements altogether.

I do thank you up front for explaining it.
Tosch

Edited April 9, 2016 by Tosch

[ASMA]

Tosch,

If you are confused, join the club.  With the contradictory definitions of the "historical"  semi-quarter, quarter, and full-quarters horse bars, we decided to use the angle expressed in degrees, as indicated in the original post.  We ran into a problem in that due to the design of the bars and construction methods used by tree makers, the angle can be modified, yielding a different angle.  You could start out with a 90 degree angle and end up with a 93 degree angle.  So one tree makers 90 degree angle fits like another's 93 degree angle.  You thought you were getting a tree with a 90 degree angle, but in reality get a tree with a 93 degree angle.  Think about building a house.  The builder uses a meter with 1000 mm, but the cabinet maker uses a meter with 995 mm, and the door maker uses a meter with 1003 mm.  Nothing will fit.  That puts us right back where we started.  While we would prefer to use the angle expressed in degrees, until a consensus can be reached as to what the angle in degrees actually means, we decided after much discussion, that body type was the best option. 

As to quarter horse bars, mule bars, Arabian bars, etc.  There are based on the conformation of the breed.  There are various designs within the breeds, I.E.  Northwest and Arizona bars in quarter horses.  These bar designs consist of bar sub elements such as rock, flare, twist, length, etc. that fit the breed conformation.  The problem here is again these are "historical".  With cross breading and selective breading in the past 30 years or so the conformations are changing.  For example,  the "historical" Arabian bar was based in the Egyptian Arabian conformation.  These bars generally will not fit the Polish Arabian conformation.  In the quarter horse conformation, the modern Paint horse has a similar problem.   

 

[Tosch]

Bob,

thank you!
And I do understand it is a (huge!!!) work in progress and the wording might change over time. Thus probably explains that the wording is not always the same throughout  the whole "article"  or book as puplished online (which I do appreciate a lot!

Your friendly explanation eagarding QH bars opens another question for me (well, for you  ) 
"Northwest and Arizona bars in quarter horses.  These bar designs consist of bar sub elements such as rock, flare, twist, length, etc. that fit the breed conformation"
I always thought that the difference is the stirrup leather cut in the bars. I do know that one tree maker in Texas (not a custom maker in the sence of the the Nickkels and others) makes his arizona bars with rounder front bar pads than his Northwest bars, at least that is what he told me when I telephoned  him more then 10 years ago. On second thought, it makes sense that different stirrup slot configurations influence other elements of bar design.
Or are you saying that besides that the overall design is different because, well NW and Arizoner Ropers just are different ? - Not counting that "every maker does things differently (I hear you Denise ..). Or did I misread what you are saying?

Thank you!

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Tosch

[oltoot]

This is an old thread but just remember that, so far, there is no bureau of standards for this stuff so you can only count on personal experience with a treemaker. You (I mean they) can call them anything they decide to. It will be helpful in understanding the dynamics to get individual bars (not trees) and set them on horses to really see things like angle, rocker, flare, etc. That will also help you see the value of and places for rounded edges. Progress with pads has made it easier. Get several pads to extend the useful range of a saddle but remember that the best and most stable result comes from the least amount of pad necessary to make a good even match for weight bearing (horse) and weight distributing (Saddle) surfaces