Now we turn to the big question: Are any of the aspects of the FIE homologation standard (EN13567) actually relevant to our needs in HES? This question is tricky to answer fully, and is one reason I am hoping to get folks interested in better understanding the protective needs of our community. This blog is part of that effort.
As mentioned earlier, standards are developed with a
specific intended working environment for an item in mind. Based on the CEN standard
described in previous sections, I think we can rest assured that most HES
applications are quite different than the environment of Olympic fencing (except
perhaps the later period point weapons). For starters, most of our longsword
and even rapier trainers weigh two to three times what the Olympic fencer’s
weapons weigh, and cutting is quite common (as opposed to only with the saber
in modern fencing). Further, based on measurements of actual HES trainers the
blade stiffness may be three to five times higher than the acceptable range for
Olympic fencing (see References 3 & 4). This is before we even get into things like
the possibility of grappling and strikes. Though, to be fair, there is also the
fact that not all fencing masks are created equal (EN13567 is a lower limit).
Certainly, prices and features vary widely even amongst FIE homologated masks
(quick search turns up a price range of $145-$500).
Let’s look at the applicability of the CEN (and therefore
FIE) standards based on equipment, and discuss a bit of the current trends in HES:
Body protection
(jackets, leg coverings)
Currently, I’d classify the trend in body coverings in HES
into 3 categories:
1)
Historical/Historically inspired garments
2)
Modern fencing garments modified based on
experience to suit HES
3)
Minimalist (t-shirt, sweats, etc.)
The first two are most common in competitions and fencing. In
both cases, the garments can be either homemade, custom produced by a clothing
manufacturer or produced commercially. There is a wide variation in the
construction of these garments. The last category is mainly present in drilling,
in which contact is minimal, or the users are willing to give up some
protective qualities. Some groups advocate wearing modern fencing equipment
under something more like (1), as a sort of intermediate solution.
For some weapons practiced in HES, such as the smallsword or
rapier (largely thrusting weapons, with possibility for cuts), it becomes a
pretty straight projection to EN13567 as possibly being sufficient. Those
weapons still differ from those that the FIE body coverings are intended to
protect against. The flexibility and size of point, for example, are not the
same as the weapons used in sport fencing. Further, the penetrator used in EN13567 is similar
to the minimum dimension of a foil (~3mm square with chamfered corners), a
rather different cross-section than that of a typical rapier trainer’s blade
form (1-3mm x 9-10mm diamond profile).
For other weapons, such as the longsword, arming sword and
other primarily cutting weapons used in an ‘unarmored’ context, an extension of
EN13567 is a bit less clear. First, as is abundantly obvious to practitioners,
modern fencing clothing provides very little in the way of blunt impact energy
reduction, especially against the sorts of cuts that may be readily delivered
with a 3.5 lb steel longsword trainer. For this reason padded garments are
usually preferred, if only to take the edge off most blows and reduce bruising.
From a standard standpoint, there is no requirement for energy reduction in FIE
homologated garments, only penetration resistance. But penetration resistance is
still the more reasonable safety limit to put into place as ‘allowable pain and
injury’ from cuts, and even the energy required to cause injury is quite variable.
Therefore, EN13567 can act as a good start to developing a penetration
resistance standard. Like the rapier compared to the foil above, however, the
cutting weapon trainers have a different typical cross-section, varying levels
of flexibility, etc., that would need to be accounted for in any newly
developed tests or standards.
In Olympic fencing garments, the combination of the jacket
collar and the bib of the mask protect the throat, with no rigid defense
present or required. However, due to certain techniques in HES that
specifically target the throat and neck, as well as the increased stiffness of
HES trainers, this is one other area where EN13567 may not be sufficient. In
practice, many practitioners wear a rigid, padded or combination defense on the
throat and base of the neck. Some even extend to cover portions of the clavicle,
sternum and cervical vertebrae. In SCA heavy combat and rapier, there are rules
outlining additional neck defenses, the heavier of which requires rigid
coverage of the throat and cervical vertebrae. Many HES events, practitioners
and schools follow similar rules.
A final important point: in Olympic fencing, not all weapons
have the entire body as a target. Typically in HES, all weapons allow strikes
to all areas of the body. Therefore, it is prudent to take this aspect into
account when considering the applicability of EN13567 to HES equipment. While the
protective zones outlined would likely make a suitable minimum, a recommendation
for greater coverage would be prudent. Examples of additional coverage would be
shin protection or additional protection for the elbows and knees, an area
where some organizations, such as the SCA and some HES groups, stipulate hard
protection when cutting weapons are being used.
Head/face protection
(mask)
Much like the body coverings, there are several trends for
head protection in HES:
1)
Historical/Historically inspired full head
protection (steel helmets and padded liners with formed steel or perforated
plate face protection)
2)
Fencing Masks (with no additions)
3)
Fencing Masks with additional protection added (e.g.
padding to the top, back of the head coverage, padded cap under mask, etc.)
4)
Custom/repurposed protection (perforated plate
fencing masks, tactical gear, etc.)
5)
No protection or eye/nose protection only.
As with body coverings, there tends to be a wide variety of
the particular protection used, but the trends are fairly few. Few groups favor
options (2) and (5) outside of drilling
or special conditions fencing (such as that between two highly experienced
fencers). Option (4) and (1) gained some traction in the last few years as
readily available commercial options that weren’t custom made armor appeared.
For option 4, which appears to be the most common arrangement based on event
pictures, the base mask is typically a ‘3-weapon’ mask, though not always an
FIE homologated one. To the base mask can be added a combination of: a padded
cap (coif) under the mask, a ‘coach’s mask protector’ (add-on padding with a
cloth or leather outer layer that is slipped onto a regular fencing mask), and
some form of back-of-head protection.
For the additional padding added to the standard fencing masks,
there is no corresponding portion of EN13567, as the standard requires the mask
itself to pass. Further, these protectors are not allowed in FIE competition,
so their homologation becomes completely unnecessary. Similarly for the
back-of-head protection: these are not something used in sport fencing
competition. In other words: we have no standard on which to base our judgment
of these items.
For the creation of a rule for back of the head protection,
a good start would be the garment penetration requirements of EN13567. The
padded covers and coifs, however, would be entirely a new thing for which the
only relevant aspects of EN13567 is that the fit is not adversely affected, and
that it does not allow the mask to come into contact with the wearer’s face.
Much like padding in garments to reduce the impact of blows, a new
recommendation based on energy reduction would likely prove useful. This
recommendation would also prove useful for padding and suspension systems in
the other types of head protection. In the development of a new standard, information
from other activities, such as kendo or SCA heavy combat, may be of limited use
as the nature of their weapons, targets and strikes differ significantly and therefore
the equipment rules may not be entirely relevant to HES.
No comments:
Post a Comment