How much sway or belly is right???

[Doug Mclean]

I like the wade bar pattern for what I do with my horses and they seem to work pretty good in this country for the saddles that I have on the job. But I had some made a while back that came with a little to much sway or belly for lack of a better term. It wasn't noticeable when you looked at the under side from the front. But they were sure enough putting some serious white marks on right under the center of the saddle. I took these apart and fixed them myself by taking out the back side of the stirrup slot. Now I order my trees that way. In another conversation it was mentioned about having some relief or clearance in this area. How much are talking about?

DMcLean

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Doug,

Other terms we have heard for the curve front to back on the bar are rock, rocker and bow. We use rock because that what we are used to, but bow might be more descriptive. Whatever you call it, there is not a consistent amount that will fit all horses. It is very unusual to get white marks in the middle of the bar. Usually if there is too much rock, the tree will be pulled down harder at the front and you will see problems from the front of the bar back to the center of the bar. But if the back cinch is done up snug as well (which is what we like, by the way) then if there is way too much rock the center can cause problems. I guess if we had this question come to us I would first of all say to put the saddle on the bare back of the horse with the white marks and then feel on the bottom of the saddle just over those white marks to see what you feel there. Are the white spots under the bar or under the skirts, rigging rings etc.? What part of the bar exactly is over the white spots? Are there any lumps or bumps for any reason? And don’t forget to check the padding. Some people use shims and all sorts of things in their pads and then blame the saddle for the problem. And don’t forget the horse. If they are young, or mules, or just “odd” horses, they may have a very flat back which requires a flatter than normal bar, and the normal bar would fit the majority of horses. And I am assuming the white marks were on both sides. Just one side brings in a pile more options. Lots of things to check out…

If it is too much rock in the bars, it is not because it is a “Wade” bar. A Wade bar, in general, has greater surface area because the bars are a bit deeper and the front bar tip a bit longer to accommodate the extra stock thickness in the Wade fork. It has nothing to do with the amount of rock in the bar. And every tree maker makes them differently. I don’t know what type of trees you are using, but talk to the tree maker and tell them what trees had too much rock. Ask for less rock in your next bars and see what they can do. But in our opinion, if you had to go one way or the other, you are better with a bit too much rock rather than too little. A bridging tree – hitting front and back only – will sore your horse more easily than the extra rock tree.

As for taking out the back stirrup groove – yes, in this case you removed some rock from the tree, but it is not a good long term solution for every tree. This is the distinguishing mark of an Arizona bar – the lack of a back stirrup groove. This was discussed a bunch on the posts that are temporarily out of order, but here is a few of the comments we made back then:

We have asked a number of people who know nothing about trees if they see a problem with putting a piece of leather under a bar, making a groove for it at the front but not the back, and then sitting on the tree when it is on a horse’s back. Their response is generally, “Won’t that make a lump at the back of that leather that will hurt him?" Even if the bar is made to give relief for the back of the stirrup leather, you end up with an area behind it that has no contact with the horse, reducing surface area.

We have good pictures of the upper side of a set of skirts and the under side of a bar that had an Arizona bar tree in it, which I have attached below. You can see the area of pressure under the stirrup leather, and how it gets deeper towards the back. Then you see the area of total lack of pressure behind the stirrup groove for a bit, and the pressure gradually building back up again. You don't want an area without contact anywhere along the bar, except for the relief built into the bar edges. That lowers surface area and increases the pressure everywhere else, especially along the back of the stirrup leather. It is much better to have even pressure the whole way through. This is why we never have made, and never will make Arizona bar, because of the compromise in the fit this gives, and a lot of other hand made tree makers feel the same.

As to your question – how much rock is right? The answer is – it depends on the horse. Not that you want to micro fit for one horse, but young horses have flatter backs than older horses - as a rule. Mules are much flatter than horses – as a rule. Depending on the work they are used for and how they are ridden, the rock in their back will change. Most tree makers build for what they consider “the average” and change when requested for specific reasons. The only way to know is to try the trees on a bunch of horses and see how they fit. But to re-iterate, your experience is the opposite of what is most common. Generally more severe problems occur from bridging saddle than ones with too much rock. Since our own experience is what generally drives what we do, I would caution you to make sure you don’t order bars that may be too flat for most horses. And no – there is no number or term that describes the amount of rock. One of the drawbacks of the current system of terminology.

PS. The original reason for an Arizona bar was because of breakage at the back of the stirrup groove – the weakest place on the tree. Taking away the back groove left more thickness to the bar and so increased the strength. But there are other ways to make it strong – better wood, better rawhide, greater bar width. This saddle was brought into a friend's shop because it had a broken tree - through both bars right where the back stirrup groove would have been...

[Doug Mclean]

Thank you for your response. That is an interesting picture. I wil have to tear that saddle down and look at the wear pattern now just for curiosity. The horse that we sored was one of our own and he had a very nice back. But he also put in some grueling hours the summer this happened. I have come to the conclusion that if you want to think you have everything just right wait till fall and that will tell you.

This brings up a couple of ????

1. When you place a bare tree on a horse to check the fit. How much do you have to allow for skirt and blanket thickness? There must be a certain amount of change from bare back / bare tree to finished product. What is the rule of thumb?

2. When you are ordering a tree and you want a certain amount of rock front to back how do you explain this to the tree maker?

Thanks again for your response.

DMcLean

[David Genadek]

Here are a few hand outs I use at my clinics that may help you put rock into perspective. I do not agree with making a tree bridge so the horse has to round up. If you know anything about how muscles function it becomes clear that such a practice would fire the muscles on the top line and prevent bascule (unless your dealing with a very skilled rider)from happening. Secondly the back does not stay convex all the time in movement. An important concept to understand is that horses do not move away from pressure they move toward comfort. As the back rounds you will loose bearing surface but the horse's posture makes it easier fo him to bear the wieght.

A dry spot in the middle can indicate too much rock if that is the case the rigging is doing the job as intended if the saddle tips forward when there is too much rock then that indicates the rigging is an issue as well. Often times dry spots toward the middle are caused by rider error which is either from them not knowing how to ride or the way the ground work has been put in.

The tree could also be perfect for the horse but it may be being placed in a position it was not designed for.

David Genadek

rigging_configuration.pdf

thetree.pdf

rigging_configuration.pdf

thetree.pdf

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

1. When you place a bare tree on a horse to check the fit. How much do you have to allow for skirt and blanket thickness? There must be a certain amount of change from bare back / bare tree to finished product. What is the rule of thumb?

Honestly – there is none. We know of makers who won’t fit a bare tree to a horse at all feeling that it doesn’t represent what the final fit is anyway. Our opinion is that putting the bare tree on the back is the best way to see if the curves of the bars match the curves in the horse’s back. Trying to check with a blanket in between you severely limit what you can tell about the shapes fitting. So we use bare trees to check fit.

Our opinion is that if the shapes match well, padding won’t make a lot of difference unless it is excessive. Let me explain. Yes, a tree that is too narrow plus extra padding makes the problem worse. So it would seem that a tree that fits well without padding would be too tight with the padding. BUT – you are not only checking the width between the bars, but the angle of the bars compared to the flatness of the horse’s back. If you get the angles matched, then adding padding will only cause the tree to sit a bit higher on the back, but the shapes will still fit. Widening it out a little wouldn’t hurt, but you don’t want to change the angle that works – and unless you are ordering a completely custom tree, you don’t get the option of separating bar angle and bar width in your order. (You do with most hand makers.) And unless the rider is a “super padder”, which negates the fit of the tree anyway, the amount the tree sits higher on the back is minimal.

2. When you are ordering a tree and you want a certain amount of rock front to back how do you explain this to the tree maker?

Bad news again – there is no set way. The tree maker will know what he does to make the rock he has. Once you have had one of his trees, you can ask for more rock or less rock in the next one and they can make them that way if they are willing and able to it. Sending back drawings taken specifically under where the bar goes can show the tree maker what you are looking at for horses, but you have to be careful to get them correct and with the horse standing with his head in his normal “working” position or it will change the picture considerably. This is where Dennis Lane’s system shines. (I may need to repost those pictures if the old posts take much longer to rise from the rubble.) It has a way of communicating the shape of the horse’s back under the bar from saddle maker to tree maker. But it still doesn’t give the tree maker “a certain amount of rock from to back”. That would also vary with bar length and a few other factors, so communicating the shape of the horses, or how one of that maker’s trees needs to change, in general terms<to fit these horses is the best way to go.

Often times dry spots toward the middle are caused by rider error which is either from them not knowing how to ride or the way the ground work has been put in.

David, I am not clear how a tree that fits the shape of the horse’s back correctly would have problems in the center of the bar caused by rider error. At the back bar tips – yes, as the horse improperly hollows out his back due to the way he is being ridden, resulting in bridging. Or over the entire back bar pad area if the rider’s weight is thrown back, especially if it is one sided due to them leaning to the side as well. But I don’t believe a horse can “over round” his back enough under load to create enough increased pressure under the center of the bar to cause problems. So I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. Could you please explain more?

[David Genadek]

David, I am not clear how a tree that fits the shape of the horse's back correctly would have problems in the center of the bar caused by rider error. At the back bar tips – yes, as the horse improperly hollows out his back due to the way he is being ridden, resulting in bridging. Or over the entire back bar pad area if the rider's weight is thrown back, especially if it is one sided due to them leaning to the side as well. But I don't believe a horse can "over round" his back enough under load to create enough increased pressure under the center of the bar to cause problems. So I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. Could you please explain more?

Rod,

Over the years I have learned that middle doesn't always mean middle it often means where the stirrup leathers are. Doug said "I took these apart and fixed them myself by taking out the back side of the stirrup slot."

That could be done with out really effecting the rock. I haven't seen it so I'm not saying one way or the other but I did want to bring up the point that often because the seat is not level it forces the rider to put too much wieght in the stirrup which at times will cause either the stirrup leather to create a dry spot or some times the edge of the stirrup slot will cause a problem. Customers will refer to that as the middle It can often be resolved by creating a level bowl for the pelvis in the ground work and or teaching the rider a better position to sit in. I have also seen horses with trees that fit fine with large areas of dry right where you want the pressure because the were over tightening the cinches.

"But I don't believe a horse can "over round" his back enough under load to create enough increased pressure under the center of the bar to cause problems." I totaly agree. I think it is critical that when we are looking at saddle fit that we probe for the truth of the situation and don't jump to the conclusion that it was our mistake.

David Genadek

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

it forces the rider to put too much wieght in the stirrup which at times will cause either the stirrup leather to create a dry spot or some times the edge of the stirrup slot will cause a problem

David,

Unless the bar if flexible (really bad idea, and I believe you agree) then putting the weight in the stirrups rather than on the seat will shift the proportion of weight more forward than backward, but the bar will still distribute the weight over the whole bar surface. It won't be concentrated under the stirrup leather as it goes under the bar. So we don't see it causing the problems you are describing. In the same way, the edge of the stirrup slot shouldn't cause any more problems with weight in the stirrups versus the seat either as we see it.

have also seen horses with trees that fit fine with large areas of dry right where you want the pressure because the were over tightening the cinches.

Agreed here. Overtighening the cinch will increase the PSI under the bars and can definitely cause problems. The cinch may need to be tightened to rope or for a fast arena run, but should be loosened off again for basic riding. If it needs to be that tight to hold the saddle in place, it doesn't fit.

[jonwatsabaugh]

It seems as though the subject of micro-fitting is being discussed without saying the word. I thought everyone was trying to distance themselves from this practice. How far beyond your baseline standard will you venture and still consider your trees practical for those oblivious to what is sandwiched between the leather? What happens to that saddle 10 years down the road after it has been traded or sold and the information regarding the type of horse it fits has been long forgotten? I have the desire to get Dennis Lane's card system, but to only use it for sampling purposes. I know this is a bit off the subject but I felt all the information was leading up to this.

Jon

[David Genadek]

David,

Unless the bar if flexible (really bad idea, and I believe you agree) then putting the weight in the stirrups rather than on the seat will shift the proportion of weight more forward than backward, but the bar will still distribute the weight over the whole bar surface. It won't be concentrated under the stirrup leather as it goes under the bar. So we don't see it causing the problems you are describing. In the same way, the edge of the stirrup slot shouldn't cause any more problems with weight in the stirrups versus the seat either as we see it.

Rod,

I see this issue all the time where the rider is so braced against the cantle that they put so much pressure on the stirrup leathers that it does cause a problem. I've seen it on well designed trees and everything in between. Keep in mind I do a lot of clinics where I see a lot novice horseman. I can undersstand how for your clients such a notion might seem odd.

David Genadek

[David Genadek]

It seems as though the subject of micro-fitting is being discussed without saying the word. I thought everyone was trying to distance themselves from this practice. How far beyond your baseline standard will you venture and still consider your trees practical for those oblivious to what is sandwiched between the leather? What happens to that saddle 10 years down the road after it has been traded or sold and the information regarding the type of horse it fits has been long forgotten? I have the desire to get Dennis Lane's card system, but to only use it for sampling purposes. I know this is a bit off the subject but I felt all the information was leading up to this.

Jon

Jon,

I'm not sure where your getting mircro fitting out of this conversation but I will say that my objection to Dennis Lanes Card system is that it promotes micro fitting. There are only so many back types but there are a million ways for the rider to distort the horse's conformation. Because his sytem is not based on key anatomical points, to use it would be to micro fit. Some might feel that is thier job to fit a given horse in a given point in time but I have always found that to be a mistake. Just another choice we all have to make as we choose the markets we are going to target. For the industry to move away from microfitting will mean saddle makers must become versed in horsemanship, anatomy and gait analysis. Personally I send customers packing if I don't feel they have somewhat of grasp on proper horsemanship or at least are willing to learn. If they don't understand the paradigm of straightness you can be assured they will have problems with any saddle.

David Genadek

[jonwatsabaugh]

Dave

In my reference to Dennis's card system, I meant that I would use it for my information only, using it to sample many horses, possibly two hundred or so only to fine tune my baseline standard. I am pretty confident though that this procedure would validate what I am presently doing. I would be interested to see if someone like Steve Mason orders his trees with varying factors on the bottom side of his bars, or if he prefers a standard set of dimensions and angles for all his trees. This may be something he may or may not be willing to discuss. I would completely understand if he defers discussion on this subject. Also I recently spoke with Jeremiah Watt and he is proposing the idea of putting together a saddle tree makers round table discussion. I would hope we could all leave such a meeting encouraged and inspired, minus the bloody noses!

Jon

[Hidemechanic]

This conversation actually stirs up a few of issues that have plegued saddle and treemakers.

1. what is a standard of measurement(width, rock, twist, lenth,end flare)

2. Micro-fit or not to micro-fit.

3.Rider education, that is, teaching riders how to use(recognize propper fit) a propper fitting saddle as opposed to going to extremes to make an ill fitting saddle work.

As for #1.It's all educated guessing at this point because there is no standard for breeds in this country(USA). In other countries there has been a tradition of breed standards. If a horse's conformation is not up to standards that horse is put down.

In America we have a history of mixing breeds to achieve a specific conformation which in and of itself is a method of improving a breed's usefullness for a specific purpose. But there was little control over who can breed what, and we have become a nation of 'back yard' breeders and are losing the standards within many breeds.(not to mention the sentiment that "we can't kill a poor horse just because it's shaped a little funny, it's part of the family!!"

That makes it more difficult nowadays for tree makers to set a standard of measurements.

As to micro fitting, I worn people ahead of time that if they bring me a horse that is not 'standard' and wants a tree to fit it's special confirmation, they need to no that when that horse is no longer rideable they will have as much trouble finding another horse to fit their custom fitted saddle as they had finding a saddle to fit their special needs horse. If that is not an issue for them, we move on.

I know that your previous conversations on 'micro-fit' (I missed) probably addressed more precise fitting of a horse which brings up other questions, to that I will just restate what I've mentioned in another post, that we are trying to fit a stiff slab of wood to a fluid surface and hoping to hit a happy medium between the different shapes a horse's back goes through when in action, and have the horse still be comfortable doing so with 250+# of top heavy weight on it's back.

#3. I agree that there are different riding stayles within the western disciplines, I have though, seen many riders that think that because they haven't fallen off their horse much that they are great riders.

But they are surprized when they come to me with a problem that they think is related to their saddle and I tell them that it is their riding style that is causing their problem.

I agree that a riders style can directly effect the horse's performance abilities, but that the ride's position in the seat has nothing to do with soring a horse.

In many cases if we could get riders to position their pelvis properly use their stirrups differntly and built up their upper leg muscles and use them all together as a finely balanced suspention mechanism, they become suprized at how their horse's performance improves.

Back to the tree fitting issue I agree with Rod/Den that for the most part the bare tree fit on the back is the best way to judge the contoures between the two. Adding hide, fleese and padding when done correctly will not change or obscure those contoures, they follow them.

As for DougM's situation, I don't want to presume what you have or haven't tried as to padding( not that that has anything to do with your white spots at the stirrup slots) I have found with packers and working cowboys (hours on the range) that a 1" felt pad between a folded quality wool blanket has had great success in most cases. The combiation together gives good padding without over padding as well as heat and moisture wicking, and cleaning the pad and blanket is easier too.

We wind up having to become inventive and imaginetive when trying to communicate with our tree makers to achieve a satisfactory end for each situation, but like with what I think you were getting at with the micro-fitting I think sometimes we get caught up over anylizing that we miss the simple solutions.

Good topic. GH

[David Genadek]

Dave

In my reference to Dennis's card system, I meant that I would use it for my information only, using it to sample many horses, possibly two hundred or so only to fine tune my baseline standard. I am pretty confident though that this procedure would validate what I am presently doing. I would be interested to see if someone like Steve Mason orders his trees with varying factors on the bottom side of his bars, or if he prefers a standard set of dimensions and angles for all his trees. This may be something he may or may not be willing to discuss. I would completely understand if he defers discussion on this subject. Also I recently spoke with Jeremiah Watt and he is proposing the idea of putting together a saddle tree makers round table discussion. I would hope we could all leave such a meeting encouraged and inspired, minus the bloody noses!

Jon

Jon,

I have done thousands of tracings but they are all based on key anatomical points so that I have a basis of comparison. If you willy nilly pick points you really aren't getting useable data. The system can help you get it right for a given horse at a given moment in time but it does not help you build a base line for normal. That base line is what we all should be pushing for. I have three basic bar shapes right now. I know I will add a few more but they will be for small niche breeds like Icelandics.

David Genadek

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

There is microfitting for a particular horse at a particular moment in time which, from previous posts, nobody is really thrilled with doing whether they decide to do it or not. And then there is recognizing that there are varying sizes and shapes of horses and one size doesn’t fit all. Dennis’s system is nothing more than what we have all been doing for years in getting back drawings sent to us – trying to communicate the basic shape of the horse’s back from one person to another. The advantage of his system over the back drawings are consistency and reproducibility.

Dennis uses his system as we hope to use it once we have had it on enough horses to be comfortable with it – to tell us what style of horse this tree is being built for. How we build that to fit as we see best is up to us. We aren’t planning on changing how we do things. We just need to correlate how what we are currently doing matches some of the shapes. Sounds like you are of the same mindset.

how far beyond your baseline standard will you venture?

There have always (?) been different widths and angles to trees which the saddle maker can order from. But there has never been a way to discuss rock, and horses do vary in the amount of rock in their backs. We don’t make wild variations, but if we know the saddle is going to someone who trains 2 and 3 year olds, we will make the rock a tiche less. There are some breeds or styles of horses that have quite a rise up to the loin. Would we prefer they weren’t built that way? Sure, but they are and they are being ridden, so you have to be careful not to bridge on them and add a tiche extra rock. Are these variations enough to negate the fit on most other horses? We don’t think so, or we wouldn’t do them. The same goes for the profile of the bottom of the bar. How round do you make it, and do you think you need to or are you willing to make a few variations to fit different shapes? That is the question every tree maker has to answer as he puts his name on a tree.

1. what is a standard of measurement(width, rock, twist, lenth,end flare)

The truth is that there just isn’t one, and I doubt there ever will be. There are just so many variables and that pesky third dimension (which seems to be six some days) that you would need a whole slew of numbers just to get one point defined. And then there is shaping after that. That is why the best solution we can see is labeling the horse shape rather than the tree shape. Then all the tree makers can build a tree to fit an X shaped horse or a Y shaped horse, and use whatever measurements or angles they need to in order to get the final product to fit. Then the fit of trees could really be compared. If two trees are shipped out to fit an X shaped horse, then put them on an X shaped horse and see how they both fit. That is the only way we see that you would be comparing apples to apples. Now, what is the best way they should sit to fit? I doubt there will ever be total agreement there either.

Hidemechanic,

We disagree a bit that the rider’s position has nothing to do with soring a horse. We think that a rider who habitually leans back, leans forward or leans to one side will concentrate pressure in those areas and can lead to soreness even with a good fitting tree. But it has to be a major and habitual weight shift to do this and we still don’t think that would happen in the center of the tree. It would certainly affect performance long before it causes soreness.

we are trying to fit a stiff slab of wood to a fluid surface and hoping to hit a happy medium between the different shapes a horse's back goes through when in action, and have the horse still be comfortable doing so with 250+# of top heavy weight on it's back.

I have found with packers and working cowboys (hours on the range) that a 1" felt pad between a folded quality wool blanket has had great success in most cases. The combination together gives good padding without over padding as well as heat and moisture wicking, and cleaning the pad and blanket is easier too.

I think sometimes we get caught up over analyzing that we miss the simple solutions.

Great summary statements of a bunch of topics…

David,

Dennis's system is built on anatomical points. I will try to repost the explanation this evening if I can.

[JRedding]

I'm not a treemaker but I'm trying to get something out of this anyway. There's talk about a baseline standard, but how could that ever really be established more accurately than it is ? Like I said I'm not a treemaker but I've sure bought a lot of them and sold them all over the U.S. and a few abroad. I've learned the baseline standard in Texas is vastly different from that in Idaho, and everyones riding the same breed basically, I don't do anything for rare breeds.Horse conformation varies widely by region. If you never sold a saddle outside your immediate area it would be one thing but taking calls from every state it's another. And some of this has to depend on what you're using it for, what seems to be improved engineering for some lady rider in a round pen back east may be the worst idea ever for some cowpuncher in Farson Wyoming, and that cowpunchers rig likely wouldn't serve too well at a California cutting.They're all different horses, with different riders, in diifferent types of country being used for different jobs. How do you baseline standard that ? So I guess my question is how much better can it be done ?Or is this just a circular conversation that's going nowhere?

Edited February 4, 2008 by JRedding

[Hidemechanic]

I think for me at least, in all of these saddle tree and saddle fit topics we are trying to articulate things that normally don't get addressed much outside the custom saddle world. We are trying to make these issues more understandable for those less knowlegable of trees and fit problems.

Three makers I have worked with are aware of what is typically being ridden in particular areas as well as being able to recognise the oddballs in any region.

BruceJ has just started another post to find out what each tree maker does to be sure the customer is getting what he needs. That is going to get as close to 'base line' as I think we can get at this point. Cheers ,GH

[David Genadek]

I'm not a treemaker but I'm trying to get something out of this anyway. There's talk about a baseline standard, but how could that ever really be established more accurately than it is ? Like I said I'm not a treemaker but I've sure bought a lot of them and sold them all over the U.S. and a few abroad. I've learned the baseline standard in Texas is vastly different from that in Idaho, and everyones riding the same breed basically, I don't do anything for rare breeds.Horse conformation varies widely by region. If you never sold a saddle outside your immediate area it would be one thing but taking calls from every state it's another. And some of this has to depend on what you're using it for, what seems to be improved engineering for some lady rider in a round pen back east may be the worst idea ever for some cowpuncher in Farson Wyoming, and that cowpunchers rig likely wouldn't serve too well at a California cutting.They're all different horses, with different riders, in diifferent types of country being used for different jobs. How do you baseline standard that ? So I guess my question is how much better can it be done ?Or is this just a circular conversation that's going nowhere?

There's talk about a baseline standard, but how could that ever really be established more accurately than it is ? The trick is to fit the horse and not the poor effects of the training.

"They're all different horses" If you study the origin of the species you will find the reasons why we have different shapes but you will also discover that there are fewer actual shapes than we are brought to beleave. But it is a personal choice weather you decide to fit the actaul animal or the human effects to his body. I have made a chioce to fit the actual anatomy of the animal and have found that it actually allows room for much of mans negative effect.

In regards to different jobs the bio-mechanics do not change by changing your hat.

David Genadek