Re: The "Reactor-Panel" saddle

[wsabg@t-online.de (Wolfgang Schwingenheuer)]

Kathy Mayeda wrote:

Hi Kathy,

> snip....  There is considerably LESS with the RP under the stirrup bars.

this is correct, but in the German brochure they compare the RR with a
traditional saddle, one of those multi-purpose ones. These are not first choice
for endurance, IMO. Here in Germany the ratio of show-jumper or dressage rider
is much higher than endurance rider. We only have about 2500 registered
endurance rider (and only about 50 of them are real endurance RACER). So the
German brochure and the representative, Mr. Meyer, are not really endurance
related. One has to compare the weight distribution between a RR / RP and a
saddle made for long distance (not for riding in a show circle).

> My first hand experience is that a lot of the shock absorption in the
> stirrup bar area is distributed over the flexible panels.  My previous
> saddles caused a lot of muscle damage and wasting away behind the scapula.

Then your previous saddle was to narrow there!

> After I started riding in the RP, the muscle damage was reversed, almost
> immediately!!!!  And his movement was so much freer - his stride increased
> really dramatically you've never seen such a happy smile in a rider.  So I
> don't believe your model that the RP places more pressure under the stirrup
> bars at all.

Haven't said that. I said that one can see that the pressure is distributed over
a larger area with the rider sitting in the saddle (static) but this area is
drastically reduced when the rider is standing in the stirrups. So the concpet
of saddles like RR /RP and many others is not optimized for the "standing
rider". With a few minor changes in the concept it is possible to distribute the
weight over the whole panel.

> If the panels were stiffer, there would be more "bounce".  When I ride in an
> Orthoflex, I immediately notice how "hard" it is compared to the shock
> absorption of the RP.

I don't think this is a problem of the panels. The OF has a stiff connection
between saddle-tree and panel, concentrating the pressure on a thumbnail. The RR
/ RP has a shock adsorbing connection, which is larger then the OF's one.

> I am a lot less fatigued riding in an RP.

Could be the shock adsorbtion, could be a different riding position.

> I have no doubt that weight distribution MAY be better in the static situation
> with a
> stiffer panel, but in a moving dynamic situation, the flexibility does
> absorb a lot of shock.

Agreed.

> And don't forget, as a stiff panel moves, there is
> pressure on the loins and at the withers to accommodate the pressure in
> between.

This is when you take a fence plank as panel. But if the panel is formed the
right way and the padding is ok, there will be virtually no pressure - except
the saddle doesn't fit the horse and has a four-point contact, laying hollow in
the middle.

> This in itself can cause a lot of problems with our short-backed
> Arabs.  I have heard of an OF owner talking about machining off the ends of
> her panels because it was causing damage in the lumbo-sacral area.  I don't
> dislike Orthoflexes - I know that there are a lot of happy OF owners out
> there.  It's just the contrast between the OF and the RP was so apparent to
> me that there is no question in my mind which saddle I prefer to ride in.

If I had to choose between OF and RP, I also will take the one with fewer
problems.

> I have to admit, I don't ride like you do.  In my experience, pressure in
> the stirrup bars DECREASES the horses ability to move freely because you
> apply pressure to the muscling behind the withers.

Agreed 100%! Weight distribution over the whole panel is the key.

> But that's another discussion that I really don't want to get into right
> now....

But that's the problem occuring with to flexible panels.

> I'm a firm believer in "whatever works for you is okay by me."
>
> Kathy Mayeda

Me too,

Wolfgang