Flat Plate Riggings

[jwwright]

Been quite a bit of discussion about riggin types and positions lately, which is how it usually is when saddle makers and cowboys get together..........especially coming from widely varying cattle cultures and geographies. It's been great reading.

One of the draw backs, at least from my experience, with a flat plate rigging is the additional leather under the leg......although I have always appreciated the more even pull on the bars and stability they afford. I would like to hear other's thoughts on the construction of the plate itself, as well as skirts, etc...............methods you have found helpful to minimize the extra bulk associated with a flat plate rigging. Thanks in advance.

[bruce johnson]

JW,

After doing my first plate probably 5 years ago, I don't go back except on repairs or for a specific purpose. I like them, and find at least how I was taught to put them in, no significant issues with bulk. I see some guys who have used a deep skirt pattern. They make a relatively shallow plate pattern and the ring is on top of the skirt. That looks bulky, and I am sure is not traditional (i.e. "dropped plate rigging"). A shallower skirt pattern or butterfly pattern skirt, and the rigging dropping below that is less bulky. Using good leather, and longer tapered skives on the liner can help with the bulk issue. I am attaching a pic of my wife's saddle. It has little shallower skirts, and the plate drops off the skirts. I have got on and schooled quite a bit in this saddle, and I really couldn't have told you there was a plate rigging in it. Where I hit with my legs and feet is below the rigging.

After you put a few plates in, and then go back and do a dee ring rigging, the dee set up looks pretty anemic.

[jwwright]

Thanks Bruce. I spent many years running cow outfits, in addition to training horses. My cowpunching saddles have usually had plate rigs for the added strength and stability, and my saddles I use for performance horse training have always had D rigs. I have always felt like a plate rig was a better rigging, but all of them I have had were pretty bulky under the leg. I think what you pointed out about having some substantial drop below the skirts ( or lack thereof) has been the problem. What I have built thus far has been D rigs, and I have only limited experience repairing flat plates. I am currently building a saddle that will be a multi purpose wood............cowpunching, some performance horse schooling, and ranch horse competition. I am going to try a plate rig on it, and appreciate your thoughts, and those of any others, that will help me keep the bulk down. Thanks again.

[Bob]

It seems to me that an inskirt rigging build into a butterfly skirt would be really hard to beat for having the least bulk. Also having the most freedom to move your fenders forward without binding. I surely do like the flat plate rigging. However, if you can accomplish the same thing without the bulk and extra weight.

Just my thoughts

bob

[jonwatsabaugh]

Good comment about the inskirt Bob. I primarily use flat plate and inskirt rigging. If done properly, inskirts are very rugged, and will allow your fenders forward easily. Always use good leather in your skirt as well as the rigging leather. You will notice the bulk difference and a nice smooth flow from butt to heals. AS far as the flat plate, I use 9/10 Herman Oak For both the front piece and liner. Cut all these pieces out of the butt and you will end up with a very thin but very substantial rigging. I know this requires a lot of leather, but as I always say, "just good enough, just isn't good enough". Here is a pic of an inskirt I recently did.

Jon

[Hidemechanic]

I may get a flamin here but there are times when issues are brought up when they really are not the issue. I'm not implying that is happening here with you guys but this is one of those subjects( bulk v.s. close contact, forward swing ect..) that gets talked about by horse people and the focus strays away from any solutions.

When I hear the subject of bulk come up I have to ask why it is an issue for them.( sometimes it almost turns into more of a psycological issue, because they think it , therefore it must be)

I think Jordan said it well in the motorcycle post about seat comfort and it applies with saddle comfort too.

How a person sits the seat, the length of the stirrup leathers, the geometry between the joints from the toes to the pelvis,including the length of the femur and the tibia.

The width of the seat in relation to the spacing between the thigh bones at the pelvis.

The difference between these things determine how the leg 'hangs' from the seat to the stirrups.

A person with a short femur will be more likely to have issues with feeling bulk because their knee is positioned near the front rig,(rigging placement also being a factor) especially if they use a knot in the latago rather than a tongue chincha.

I know many may get tiered of hearing me bring this up but a rider's posture and proper adjustment of the stirrup leathers will change the leg position usually moving the knee away from any bulk that would normally be detected with a different adjustment. My point here is that for many people proper adjustment is uncomfortable at first and we change things for comfort sake but actually cause more discomfort. Many of us learn bad habbuts but think the are right, then blame the saddle design. Does that make sence?

Some folks ride with their toes pointing out away from the horse which forces the knees into the saddle putting more presure in the femur area. This is made worse if they sit on their pockets,this usually forces them to shove their feet into the stirrups to keep from losing them because weight has been transfered too high up the leg.

Lets say instead that the rider rolls his pelvis forward so it is upright, adjusts his stirrups to a point where the back edge of the stirrup is just behind the ball of the foot and the angle of the foot is maybe just a hair below level, the knee with a slight bend.

If I have explained this correctly what we have is a balenced proprtion of weight and suspention from the toe(ankle and knee) to the hips with the fulcrum at the toe. (kind of like the Springer suspention on the old motorcycles)

How this relates to the bulk issue is that this set up in most cases alleviates any significant presure between the femur, knee and the saddle 'bulk' in a properly built saddle,and as such will make irrelevant what rigging you used. I am talking in generallities here, an avarage person with an average horse.

As to preferrence I too like building the plate rig. Respectfully GH

[jonwatsabaugh]

I still think a customer appreciates the attention to detail in these areas, ballanced riding ability or not. I'll still take mine with less bulk please.

Jon

[D.A. Kabatoff]

Hi JW,

I'm sure this subject is going to get talked to death so instead of giving all my thoughts on flat plate rigging, I'll just mention a couple of points I've noticed over the years.

First, bulk is an interesting topic in that a working cowboy who has spent most of his time in a rig with a correctly built flat plate rigging is going to have a different perception of bulk than someone who has spent most of their time in a cutting or reining saddle and then is suddenly dropped into a buckaroo rig with a flat plate. Many people get used to what they ride and given enough time will tell you that even a poorly shaped seat feels good to them; This may be part of what Gerald was mentioning as the "psychological issues". Dale Harwood once mentioned that on a fishing trip he was on, the saddles that the guide provided were some of the worst built rigs he had ever seen, but by the end of the whole trip they felt just fine. Perhaps people adjust their riding style to the saddle or perhaps some people have just never experienced a properly built saddle, either way the bulk of a properly built flat plate shouldn't be an issue for most people.

The other point I wanted to mention touches on skirt depth and how deep the flat plate is... it is quite important to give thought to your rider's body style. If you have a rider who is quite tall with long legs, you have more options as far as how deep you can make the flat plate. If your rider is on the short side, a dropped flat plate that has a knot tied in the latigo can start to interfere with stirrup leather swing. If you look at the photo Bruce posted an notice where the blevins buckle keeper is in relation to where the knot in a latigo would be, you can see there would still be a space between the two. If that same saddle was for someone with short legs (with shorter fenders and leathers) the blevins buckle would be on top of the knot which would probably cause the stirrup leather to catch on the knot. For someone with very short legs you would be better off not dropping the flate plat as low which means you'd need skirts that weren't quite as deep to keep the rigging and latigo knot off the skirt. You may also have to keep the twist in the stirrup leather as low as possible as well.

Darc

[Hidemechanic]

Darc, I always know that though I take a long time to get something said others will fill in what I was getting at.

I do want to clarify that the highest majorety of working coweboys I know, know how to ride and if any ever had an issue with bulk it was that he was a stringbean that need bulk in his thigh muscles.

Darc, you also said what I was thinking about styles. Again a motorcycle analogy, but when you go from a dirt bike to a cruiser you have to re-adjust your entire style of balence, but given a few miles you get the hang of it. :horse: GH

[jwwright]

Thanks for the thoughts folks. Much appreciated.

Darc, you are correct......."First, bulk is an interesting topic in that a working cowboy who has spent most of his time in a rig with a correctly built flat plate rigging is going to have a different perception of bulk than someone who has spent most of their time in a cutting or reining saddle and then is suddenly dropped into a buckaroo rig with a flat plate." As someone who has lived it all my life from both sides, so to speak.......working cowboy and trainer of performance horses, I can sure understand your point, and I may have a little different perspective than a feller who has primarily only done one or the other. Your advice concerning depth of rigging versus leg/blevins placement also is very helpful, Thanks.

Bob and Jon, Thanks for your thoughts also. I have a fella that wants me to build him an inskirt rig later this coming spring.......if spring ever gets here. Your thoughts and photos are helpful.

GH, I appreciate you taking the time to comment, and I get what you are saying. I think I ride pretty well, or maybe the horses all perform at a high level in spite of me.......could be..........no offense meant or taken, I understand. Bulk, as I am defining it is referring to the amount of leather between me and the horse's sides from the thigh just above the knee down........or maybe better said, the percieved bulk there. Thanks for your thoughts.

Back to the shop to work these ideas into my plate rig pattern.

[kseidel]

JW, There are more thicknesses of leather under your leg in a flat plate versus an in-skirt. The skirt and skirt plug, as well as two thicknesses of flat plate rigging leather. An in-skirt has the thickness of the skirt and the rigging layer, and no more. No need for skirt plug or rigging liner. Also, only one thickness of leather outside the tree as opposed to two with flat plate. The photo from Jon shows a good rigging design, but I would advise combining the front and reat riggings together in one piece of leather. If constructed properly, I believe the in-skirt to be stronger and more comfortable than any other.I have specs on depth if you want more info. Keith

[timjtodd]

Keith,

Why no skirt plug? And I would be interested in the specs on depth. Also, do you have any photos?

Edited February 14, 2008 by timjtodd

[kseidel]

Keith,

Why no skirt plug? And I would be interested in the specs on depth. Also, do you have any photos?

Timjtodd,

The skirt only needs to be two thicknesses. The layer of the skirt on the bottom plus the layer of the rigging on the top gives you the two thicknesses that the skirt needs to be finished. There is no need for a skirt plug. You do need to plug the back corner of the skirt behind the rigging.

It is best to drop the rigging below the depth of a normal skirt. About 6 inches below the bar of the tree to the bottom of the rigging ring minimum, to a maximum of 8.5 inches. Dropping the rigging too low can interfere with the horses performance. Not low enough and the rigging does not wrap around the barrel of the horse far enough to avoid contact with the riders leg. (stirrup leathers rub on latigo wraps) On a shallow skirt you may need to cut the skirt shape to be dropped in front similar to a flat plate. There is quite a bit of leeway here, but these are my findings from hundreds of various in-skirt and flat plate riggings.

Attached are a couple of pictures of in-skirt riggings. Hard to see with stirrup fenders in the way. All the saddles pictured are drop front in-skirt rigged.

[jwwright]

Thanks a million Keith.

[timjtodd]

Thanks Keith. Great info.

[tnestes]

Been quite a bit of discussion about riggin types and positions lately, which is how it usually is when saddle makers and cowboys get together..........especially coming from widely varying cattle cultures and geographies. It's been great reading.

One of the draw backs, at least from my experience, with a flat plate rigging is the additional leather under the leg......although I have always appreciated the more even pull on the bars and stability they afford. I would like to hear other's thoughts on the construction of the plate itself, as well as skirts, etc...............methods you have found helpful to minimize the extra bulk associated with a flat plate rigging. Thanks in advance.

Hello,

I've heard arguments against the flat plate rigging (which is anything but "flat) from several circles. It is undeniably very strong, but the facts are that it adds not only bulk, but additional weight, too. Herb Bork makes a number 100 ring rigging that's a combination dee and "o" ring that I really like, (more importantly, should I say, that my customers like!). The supporting leather (that attaches to the tree) wraps around a flat section of the ring for even "pull" when cinching up or roping- like a regular dee. But the rest of the ring is round with a huge connector for the leather going to the cantle and back ring. I connect mine with four stainless steel screws on each side of the front of the tree, along with a few nails. For strength, I'd put this up against anything. Also, I like to to observe saddles in retrospect. There have been more cows and steers roped of of saddles with rings and dees than plate rigged saddles ever thought about. I don't have anything against a flat plate rigging, it's just that I don't think it's necessarily the "only" way to go.

Ted N. Estes

www.estessaddlery.com

[tnestes]

Hello,

I've heard arguments against the flat plate rigging (which is anything but "flat) from several circles. It is undeniably very strong, but the facts are that it adds not only bulk, but additional weight, too. Herb Bork makes a number 100 ring rigging that's a combination dee and "o" ring that I really like, (more importantly, should I say, that my customers like!). The supporting leather (that attaches to the tree) wraps around a flat section of the ring for even "pull" when cinching up or roping- like a regular dee. But the rest of the ring is round with a huge connector for the leather going to the cantle and back ring. I connect mine with four stainless steel screws on each side of the front of the tree, along with a few nails. For strength, I'd put this up against anything. Also, I like to to observe saddles in retrospect. There have been more cows and steers roped of of saddles with rings and dees than plate rigged saddles ever thought about. I don't have anything against a flat plate rigging, it's just that I don't think it's necessarily the "only" way to go.

Ted N. Estes

www.estessaddlery.com

I'm going to add this in here, too. I FULLY DISAGREE WITH ANYONE SAYING THAT AN "INSKIRT" RIGGING IS THE STRONGEST RIGGING!!! I have NEVER heard that until reading this forum. Ray Holes was noted for advising people wanting working saddles to stay away from in-skirt riggings. I agree, and it does not really matter "how" they are put in in the long run. They will eventually pull out under heavy use. I lost count of how many I've repaired and replaced, and they were all constructed using different methods, but the one thing they ALL had in common, THE RIGGING PULLED OUT- PERIOD. I believe they are the WEAKEST rigging. As a saddle maker, though, I'll say this, too. The in-skirt rigging is the easiest method on the maker. HMMMMMMMM???