SafetyMax Box collar

[Riley Crosby]

Jan, I am still in high school, but it is against the rules to vault at our school with school equipment during the off season so I have been training with Coach Hysong from Glendale Community College. He bought one a few weeks ago. and thanks for the double sided tape suggestion.
-Riley

[~jj~]

That is fantastic. Tell Cranny to wait until he see's what we do next to improve box safety.

~jj~

[Riley Crosby]

How about you just spill the beans now

[charlie]

The safteymax collar is a GREAT idea, but the common sense is what SPIRIT has finally done to their newer pits. I talked to a rep at the pv sumit 2 years ago and , simply put from a coach and vaulter of 50 years (make the pit to FIT the BOX), and except for the back ; the sides could have a Less slant!!! You also see more HS kids falling SHORT, because of the rule of pole to body weight, and you could pull the front pads in to match the width of the front of the box, and catch the kids that don't penetrate!!!!!!! I have 3 pits that have front pads that come out in front of the box 12' and you actually have a 2' SPACE TO GO THROUGH, and plenty of foam if they don't penetrate!!!!!! The security that it gives a kid moving to a bigger pole and higher grip is enormous!!!!!

[KirkB]

... except for the back ; the sides could have a Less slant!!! ...

I agree with that, Charlie! It seems that the mfrs have set all 3 angles at 60 degrees for aesthetic purposes. Fact is, if you land near the bottom of a side-slant, it doesn't give you much protection to land feet first ... you're better off to have more mat there to land on.

My other pet peeve is the lack of rounding of the top corners of the box. Put a half-inch radius corner on all top edges, and it's still going to be HARD, but the impact will be distributed over more of your body part (foot, shoulder, head, or whatever body part you land on). This is true whether you have 2-4 inches of foam on top of the edge or not. At least with ROUNDED edges, the impact is distributed over a wider body area ... so you won't draw blood as easily.

If you make the radius too big, then that effectively provides LESS flat surface area to land on ... not a good idea either. It needs to be a happy medium ... something less than an inch but more than what they are now.

Kirk

[bel142]

Charli, I'm curious, would you elaborate on making the pit fit the box, I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you talking about extending the front buns? or are you suggesting to have thicker front bun with less of an angle into the box? if that is true, then when the pole bends and moves in the box, a square front bun rather than a tapered one may get in the way of a swinging bent pole, and that would cause more problems than it would prevent. As someone who has gotten stood up and landed short on the thin slant, with my feet in the box, although it is a thin part of the pit and the stop is a little bit more hard but is does protect the vaulter. If it were any thicker you get into a problem of hitting that part with your back and your feet have to keep moving inducing a more dangerous situation. Any thoughts?

[~jj~]

Kirk is right. Being able to distribute force over a greater area is a good thing. Additionally, being able to slow a falling body down over a greater distance is the absloute key in this equation.
Additionally, we need to allow the pole to bend uninhibited, allow the pole to slide down the sides of the pan if necessary. Plus we to eliminate as many hard surfaces in the box area as possible and we need to be able to use a simple box plug (just like the ones currently in use),to make the planting box go away in mulit purpose facilities.
....and it would be perfect if all these criteria could somehow be met via a retrofit.
I'm in Chicago right now but
Soon i'm going to post a video of the second half of this box collar project that might change everything........
~jan~

[charlie]

I'll try to explain the safety of a box that is made in a cone shape and a pit that is made the same way, i think there were some pits that were made that way. I think they were called PRO PIT. Don't know if they are still in business. This would in no way inhibit the movement of the pole in and to the left. The front extensions should be no further apart from each other than 2', and tapered very little. The newer ucs pits are made in the middle to the exact dimensions of the box., so you would have to land in the center to cause injury. I designed a pit for fisher 30 years ago with that design and have 2 of them at my facility. Hope this helps!! By the way, was just looking at old 8mm film 40 years ago at Clifton Park, in Baltimore, md clearing 13' and landing on the GROUND. Some of these kids need to try that on for size.

[KirkB]

Kirk is right. Being able to distribute force over a greater area is a good thing.

Thanks for your support on this, Jan. It's nice to know that someone with some "pull" will influence the mfrs to make these types of improvements.

Regarding Charlie's idea of reducing the angles on the front buns, I might have a slightly different conception of that then he does ... I don't know. So I'll draw something and post it, to see if we're on the same wave length or not. Bel, my diagram should clarify this a bit for you. The idea ... as Jan says ... is to NOT interfere with the normal bending of the pole, whilst providing more padding EVERYWHERE ELSE (everywhere that isn't in the way of the pole or your body).

Jan, I'm also VERY interested to hear what you have planned for Phase 2 of the SafetyMax!

Kirk

[KirkB]

I decided to show 3 different drawings. This first one is a normal pit, with normal 60 degree angles on the front buns.

This is a PLAN VIEW ... a bird's-eye view. It might look like an isometric drawing, but it's not. It just looks that way becuz the part of the front buns marked by "(4)" is sloped at 60 degrees. (1) is the box, of course, (2) is the normal FLAT part of the pit, and (3) is the part of the pit sloped at 60 degrees in front of the box.

Standard Pit with Standard Front Buns.JPG (13.67 KiB) Viewed 5145 times

I'm giving you this simple diagram first, so you can see what I changed in the next 2.

Bear with me on the quality of these drawings. They're not to scale, and they're VERY rough. Just use your imagination a bit.

Kirk

[KirkB]

This next drawing is how the pit would look with 90 degree angles on both front buns. As Bel pointed out, this wouldn't work so well, becuz the lack of a slope on the sides will interfere with the bending of the pole. In this diagram, only the part in front of the box (3) is sloped. The arrow pointing to (4) is meant to indicate where the 90 degree slope is on the side buns. In this PLAN VIEW.

(1) is the box.
(2) is the flat part of the pit.
(3) is the front slope - 60 degrees.
(4) is the side slope - 90 degrees.

Pit with No Slant on Front Buns.JPG (11.64 KiB) Viewed 5145 times

Kirk

[KirkB]

This next drawing is how I THINK Charlie meant for the pit to look ... with 90 degree angles on both front buns, but sufficient room "cut out" for the pole to bend. At least this is how I was envisaging this.

Remember that this is still a PLAN VIEW.

Pit with Slant on Only Part of Front Buns.JPG (13.3 KiB) Viewed 5144 times

(1) is the box.
(2) is the flat part of the pit.
(3) is the front slope - 60 degrees.
(4) is the side slope - 90 degrees.
(5) is the "cut out" side slope (60 degrees) - to allow the pole to bend.

The 90 degree slope (4) goes all the way along the edge of the box, to the point where it coincides with section (5). At this point, the 90 degree slope goes to the left (drawn as a horizontal line). This horizontal line is approximately 3" towards the runway from the bottom of the stopboard in the box. This is so that the normal bend of the pole (which is say 1.5" in diameter) has ample room to bend. The MAXIMUM bend will normally be along the line that separates part (3) and part (5).

At first glance, you might think that this 90 degree corner (just described) will interfere with the pole. It won't while vaulting., However, if the vaulter stalls out, hangs on, and swings over the front bun, then the pole will touch the front bun a lot earlier than on a standard pit. But in this case, he can let go a lot earlier, becuz there's sufficient padding for him to land safely A LOT CLOSER TO THE BOX!

It's quite important to NOT taper off this "corner" for aesthetic reasons. It might cost SLIGHTLY more to manufacture (more cuts, more foam, more sewing), but the closer this corner can be to FULL HEIGHT (same height as the rest of the pit), the more soft, flat surface the vaulter has to land on!

Charlie, was this what you had in mind?

Kirk