# What action does a hanging snaffle give?



## Tangaroo (16 January 2012)

I am thinking of trying my coloured boy (in my sig) in a hanging snaffle. He presently goes in a very thin single jointed  snaffle.  He is quite heavy in my hand and will eventually give me a soft contact after about 10mins but even then its sometimes hard to keep it consistent.  I have tried him in mylers, french links, kk ultras, JP snaffles, and the thin single joint is what he goes best in. I just wondered what sort of action a hanging snaffle has and whether it might make a difference.  I have had him 10 yrs since he was just broken and he has always been the same, its not for want of trying different things. He is quite thick set through the jaw so doesnt find it easy to be flexible. He wears a flash noseband and taking the flash off isnt an option cos he gets his tongue over the bit! What ever bit it is. (Another trait he has had all his life)  He has his teeth done every 10months so thats not a problem


----------



## ellie_e (16 January 2012)

Hanging Cheek 

The Hanging Cheek is also known as the Filet Baucher. It uses pressure on the poll as the cheek piece has an extra ring above the snaffle ring where the bridle cheek pieces are attached to, this poll pressure encourages the horse to lower the head and come on to the bit especially useful for horses that have a high head carriage. This cheek has proven one of the most popular cheeks with various mouthpieces. It is a fixed cheek bit, which may be useful for horses that are unsure of the bit, as it doesn&#8217;t move around too much in the mouth. It may prove a suitable alternative to a snaffle, for children riding ponies that need an extra bit of help to stop, or horses that are slightly too strong in a snaffle.


----------



## zxp (16 January 2012)

###########**********Big QI style noises**************#########

Sorry, but there is no poll pressure exerted with a hanging cheek. You can only get poll pressure with leverage, and as the rein is level with the mouth there is none (but for some reason it is an old-wives-tail that is does).

The hanging cheek does provide a very stable and secure contact as the rein attaches at a differnt point to the cheek peices. So lots of horses like it and will take a better contact as a result.  

I have the 5 yr old in one (french link happy mouth), as she was very fussy in the mouth and it has been a wonder-bit for her and she takes a lovely contact in it.


----------



## Dirtymare (16 January 2012)

zxp said:



			###########**********Big QI style noises**************#########

Sorry, but there is no poll pressure exerted with a hanging cheek. You can only get poll pressure with leverage, and as the rein is level with the mouth there is none (but for some reason it is an old-wives-tail that is does).
		
Click to expand...

Really sorry to argue, but this is wrong. EVERYTHING I have read on this clearly states that it DOES give some poll pressure. Not a huge amount, like a Pelham say. But it does give poll pressure.

BTW, I use one with my mare who goes very nicely in it.


----------



## zxp (16 January 2012)

Haha, no need to argue! But I'm not wrong 

But 'tis true I'm afraid. The modern research is that it exerts no more poll pressure than a normal snaffle. It is all do do with moments (physics!). And the fact that there is no fixed point bellow the "centre"  means that there is no rotation. And no rotation means no "poll pressure". It is all about fulcrum points and leverage. They have tested it with pressure pads and found they exert no more poll pressure than other snaffles.


----------



## TarrSteps (16 January 2012)

Yup. 

I don't know how it's gone so wrong but there isn't any poll pressure in a hanging cheek (not all hanging cheeks are Bauchers, just like full cheeks aren't Fulmers but that's another thread . . . ) and it was certainly not designed to have any. In order to have leverage, the force (rein) must be applied below the fulcrum (mouthpiece) and the lever must have two arms, but this is not the case unless you have a bottom ring or hook which holds the rein "down" the cheek piece. No lower fixation of the rein, no leverage.  That's why it is legal for dressage.

The action of the bit can cause the cheekpieces to "balloon" if the horse is not carrying the bit properly (this can happen with many type of fixed cheek bits) but, if you think about it, this is the exact opposite of poll pressure. 

Weirdly, this idea that it provides leverage is very recent.  (Failure of our school systems perhaps?  )

The bit was designed for the French Light School (hence named after one of its leading lights) with the idea that, when the horse is going correctly - at least in that school of thought - the bit would hang in the mouth, not rest on the tongue, providing, as close as possible, a completely neutral feel.  It's possible this is what some horses like but very few people in our system ride that way, so it's likely more the stability.

It seems to be a common feeling that if a horse is more rideable in a piece of tack it's because it's harsher? Who says? Sometimes you get more flies with honey? The exception is leverage devices - they ALWAYS increase force, thereby making the aid feel lighter to the rider and harsher to the horse.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 January 2012)

zxp said:



			###########**********Big QI style noises**************#########

Sorry, but there is no poll pressure exerted with a hanging cheek. You can only get poll pressure with leverage, and as the rein is level with the mouth there is none (but for some reason it is an old-wives-tail that is does).

The hanging cheek does provide a very stable and secure contact as the rein attaches at a differnt point to the cheek peices. So lots of horses like it and will take a better contact as a result.  

I have the 5 yr old in one (french link happy mouth), as she was very fussy in the mouth and it has been a wonder-bit for her and she takes a lovely contact in it.
		
Click to expand...


Aggree with this wholeheartedly with this, when you use the rien the bit lifts slightly in the mouth relieving tongue pressure slightly this is whe some horses love them so much


----------



## ace87 (16 January 2012)

I ride my 8yo Connemara in a hanging cheek as it gives him stability in the contact and when he's accepting and forward in a correct frame he's as light as air in my hand. I used to ride him in a NS verbindend, trans angled, copper/sweet iron loose ring etc but he just didn't like them where as he does go beautifully in the hanging cheek. Would be interested to try him in a NS baucher though.. 
A hanging cheek is not a bit which excerts much poll pressure - i believe studies show it to be similar to a regular eggbutt snaffle - the point of rein and point of mouth are level there for there is no rotation and no more pressure implied on the poll.


----------



## MissMistletoe (16 January 2012)

My mare goes happily in an Eggbutt or a hanging cheek.
She definately dosent lean on the HC as much as she does in the eggbutt though.
I think the fact that the tongue pressure is reduced helps this.

Also, shoot me down if you must!!
But, becuase the HC fastens higher on the head, it means I can use it with a FS bridle and not have to upgrade to XF size cheeks (she is a pony as well with a very long Irish head!)


----------



## MandyMoo (16 January 2012)

one of mine has it for flatwork - he goes very well in it as it maintains a regular contact - but does not, as most people think - give poll pressure as the rein is level with the mouthpiece (as others above have said  )


----------



## LEC (16 January 2012)

Why do you never see pure dressage horses in this bit? 

Personally if I see a baucher/hanging cheek I expect to see a horse who is not very good in the contact. 

I am not a fan and I think it was Carl Hester who at Badminton was going on and on about them saying that the horse could avoid a true contact and being worked into the bridle in a hanging cheek. I see so many horses behind the verticle in them as well.

Stilton have you tried a metal straight bar snaffle? Can often be quite good for horses who sit on your hands?


----------



## Tangaroo (16 January 2012)

Well, i didnt expect this thread to turn into a debate Anyway, thanks for all the advice. 
Lec no i havent tried a straight bar snaffle. I might give that a go. I have brought a hanging snaffle home from the saddlery shop i work in just to try, so will give that a try first, but thanks for the tip


----------



## zxp (16 January 2012)

stilton said:



			Well, i didnt expect this thread to turn into a debate )
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - that might be me. I dont think the other poster appreciated my QI noises 

I am pretty laid back about bits. Whatever works for you ad your horse. But IMHO I find allot of horses with "contact issues" are dramatically aided by the stability of the hanging cheek. It works for us


----------



## Dirtymare (16 January 2012)

Baucher/Fillis/Hanging cheek/Drop cheek 
The correct position of the baucher, with the smaller rings attached to the cheekpieces of the bridle.Type of Bit: snaffle

Action: The baucher has an eggbutt-like ring at the mouthpiece for the rein, with an upper cheek that has a ring at its end, to which the cheekpieces of the bridle are attached. The mouthpiece does not slide on its ring (which would have put the bit in the gag bit category instead of the snaffle). This bit lies flat against the horse's face, and is quite fixed in the mouth and concentrates pressure on the bars. This bit results in slight poll pressure.

Advantages: will not be pulled through the mouth.

Mouthpieces: All types.

This has been taken directly from Wikepedia. Are you saying that they are wrong too?
Not wanting to debate/argue


----------



## TarrSteps (16 January 2012)

There is no debate about the action. 

Re wether or not they are 'good' for dressage or not, it us true the bit is not designed for the Modern Competitive school but it's legal and it is used. Dressage people seem to spend a lot of time trying to read judges' minds about what they will think of this or that piece of tack, which I think does inform some people's choices. Carl may indeed have a point but then not everyone rides like Carl or has his type of horses - perhaps there are other situations in which he wouldn't be quite as pedantic.  I wouldn't imagine he has many horses going in mullen mouths either. 

Anyway, to answer the question, the bit is designed to hold the snaffle mouth more still and 'up' in the mouth. As such, it is probably not the ideal bit to teach a horse the soft, elastic carrying of the bit we consider ideal. But experience suggests it can be more comfortable for a horse put off by too much movement, especially here/in dressage, where few people seem keen on full cheek or D ring snaffles.


----------



## TarrSteps (16 January 2012)

By the way they definitely DO encourage horses behind the vertical/contact/bridle/hand - that is sort of what they are for. So that, of course, must be watched for and guarded against. I'd argue that's exactly why you want to know how any piece of tack works - so you can be mindful of any potential risks or 'false positives'.


----------



## PapaFrita (16 January 2012)

zxp said:



			###########**********Big QI style noises**************#########

Sorry, but there is no poll pressure exerted with a hanging cheek. You can only get poll pressure with leverage, and as the rein is level with the mouth there is none (but for some reason it is an old-wives-tail that is does).
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this; the rein slides on the large ring, so no poll pressure. Compare with a dutch gag and you'll see the difference. I believe the hanging cheek sits more quietly in the mouth and a lot of horses like this v much. 
It's a great bit, but it doesn't work the way a lot of people think it does.


----------



## PapaFrita (16 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			This has been taken directly from Wikepedia. Are you saying that they are wrong too?
Not wanting to debate/argue
		
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is not exactly the font of all knowledge is it? It can be edited by anyone and is notoriously inaccurate.


----------



## *hic* (16 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			Baucher/Fillis/Hanging cheek/Drop cheek 
The correct position of the baucher, with the smaller rings attached to the cheekpieces of the bridle.Type of Bit: snaffle

Action: The baucher has an eggbutt-like ring at the mouthpiece for the rein, with an upper cheek that has a ring at its end, to which the cheekpieces of the bridle are attached. The mouthpiece does not slide on its ring (which would have put the bit in the gag bit category instead of the snaffle). This bit lies flat against the horse's face, and is quite fixed in the mouth and concentrates pressure on the bars. This bit results in slight poll pressure.

Advantages: will not be pulled through the mouth.

Mouthpieces: All types.

*This has been taken directly from Wikepedia. Are you saying that they are wrong too?*
Not wanting to debate/argue
		
Click to expand...


Yes.

There are many many errors in Wikipedia, this is one of them. Any knowledge of physics should tell you there can be no poll pressure.


----------



## PapaFrita (16 January 2012)

From Sustainabledressage.net

"This bit is usually falsley described as creating poll pressure. Most baucher bits don't. In order for it to put pressure on the poll, the ring which the rein attaches to, needs to have a drawn-out oblong shape so that the rein stays at a certain position on the ring. If the ring is oblong, the rein will want to stay at one end, and thus pulls this end up towards the hand/rein. If the ring is round, so that the distance from the mouth bars to the rein is constant at all angles, the rein will slide. "


----------



## JLav (16 January 2012)

Those that say there is no poll pressure with the Hanging Cheek are correct because, as already stated, there is no fixed point for the rein to attach to that is below the mouthpiece. No leverage means no poll pressure.

As a judge I actually see alot of horses competing in them in pure dressage at all levels and they can also be used in conjunction with a weymouth as a double (only seen that once). I personally don't make any judgement about the horses training based on what bit they might be in....a hanging cheek will not make a poorly trained horse do a better test.

Like all bits some horses like them and some hate them...if it works for you then use it, if not then don't.


----------



## TarrSteps (16 January 2012)

PapaFrita said:



			From Sustainabledressage.net

"This bit is usually falsley described as creating poll pressure. Most baucher bits don't. In order for it to put pressure on the poll, the ring which the rein attaches to, needs to have a drawn-out oblong shape so that the rein stays at a certain position on the ring. If the ring is oblong, the rein will want to stay at one end, and thus pulls this end up towards the hand/rein. If the ring is round, so that the distance from the mouth bars to the rein is constant at all angles, the rein will slide. "
		
Click to expand...

Which would also make it, technically, not a Baucher, although it would be a hanging cheek. 

This is also why the Mylers with hooks and various other "fixed rein" set ups are not legal for dressage.


----------



## only_me (16 January 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			By the way they definitely DO encourage horses behind the vertical/contact/bridle/hand - that is sort of what they are for. So that, of course, must be watched for and guarded against. I'd argue that's exactly why you want to know how any piece of tack works - so you can be mindful of any potential risks or 'false positives'.
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly, YO's horse would often go behind the vertical and was suggested that an ordinary single jointed hanging snaffle would help deter that, I think because of the nutcracker action and the stability of the bit helped him stay in front of the vertical and he went much better with this bit.

Has the half cheek/spoon snaffle gone out of fashion? Was wondering as don't often see them around anymore, although I did see someone using a rugby pelham with roundings which I haven't seen before...!


----------



## kerilli (16 January 2012)

the only way it can exert poll pressure is if you put it on upside down. Yes, I've seen this. 
I, too, don't think you can get a true contact with one, I think there's just a bit too much too much movement/bagginess from the hanging cheeks, fwiw. but if it suits the way the rider rides, and the horse goes happily in it, then great.
as for Wikipedia being a reliable resource, hmmmmm. cross-check everything!


----------



## BombayMix (16 January 2012)

Just to throw it out there: I know technically it isn't PC but is there any reason you can not used a hanging cheek upside down?


----------



## PapaFrita (16 January 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			Which would also make it, technically, not a Baucher, although it would be a hanging cheek. 

Click to expand...

I've always used the names synonymously. Is this wrong?


----------



## TarrSteps (16 January 2012)

They have come to be used synonymously so I am just being pedantic, even for me, but historically it was a very specific single jointed snaffle so technically, you can't have, say, a Baucher waterford. I think it only bothers me because it's someone's specific invention and bears his name.


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (16 January 2012)

I got shot down, jumped on and set fire to on another forum a couple of years ago for saying a hanging cheek did not exert poll pressure, so have secretly believed myself but never again brought it up publicly. Thanks for making me feel less crazy guys!


----------



## *hic* (16 January 2012)

kerilli said:



			the only way it can exert poll pressure is if you put it on upside down.
		
Click to expand...

It still cannot exert poll pressure as the cheekpiece is then free to rotate around the ring, it is again likely to cause less poll pressure and bag the cheekpieces. All that happens is you rotate the mouthpiece in the mouth.


----------



## kerilli (16 January 2012)

Dee O'Dorant said:



			It still cannot exert poll pressure as the cheekpiece is then free to rotate around the ring, it is again likely to cause less poll pressure and bag the cheekpieces. All that happens is you rotate the mouthpiece in the mouth.
		
Click to expand...

Ah okay, i see your point. Hmm. I was thinking, if it was used with a drop noseband, that would give stability... hmmm.

BooM, as long as the mouthpiece wasn't angled or shaped to use one way and not the other, probably not... but it wouldn't be dr legal i think.


----------



## PapaFrita (16 January 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			They have come to be used synonymously so I am just being pedantic, even for me, but historically it was a very specific single jointed snaffle so technically, you can't have, say, a Baucher waterford. I think it only bothers me because it's someone's specific invention and bears his name.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see. Thanks


----------



## luckyhorseshoe (16 January 2012)

Op my mare is very fussy in the mouth and prefers the hanging cheek. I agree with those that have said it keeps the bit stiller in the mouth.
Hehe - Carl Hester is welcome to ride my mare in another bit, show me how it's done


----------



## Mike007 (16 January 2012)

The purpose of the hanging cheeks is to stabilise the position of the bit in the horses mouth. A loose ring bit is particularly prone to dropping onto the tongue. Even an eggbut snaffle will tend to , But because the hanging cheek is.....hanging, it cant. Also makes it harder for them to get their tongue over the bit. It DOES NOT PRODUCE poll pressure. Incidentaly my general definition of poll pressure ,as used by most people is" I havnt a F++++++ clue how this bit works but if I say poll pressure everyone will nod and agree,(cos they havnt a clue either )"An awfull lot of what passes for poll pressure is in fact the bit rolling onto the tongue and applying pressure.


----------



## meardsall_millie (17 January 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			I'd argue that's exactly why you want to know how any piece of tack works - so you can be mindful of any potential risks or 'false positives'.
		
Click to expand...

No direct criticism of anyone but this is the key comment to take from this thread (along with what Mike said at the end of his post).  

So many people use tack because someone suggested it, because they've seen someone else use it, because it's the latest trend, etc, etc, without ever having any idea of what action it's likely to have.

Everyone should take the time to research the basics before sticking a big chunk of metal in their horses mouth (or using any other piece of tack for that matter!)


----------



## Elfen (17 January 2012)

Tried one on my boy and he felt very wooden - he's fussy in his mouth but ive found that now my contact is better so is his fussiness  I use the ns verbindend.


----------



## *hic* (17 January 2012)

meardsall_millie said:



			No direct criticism of anyone but this is the key comment to take from this thread (along with what Mike said at the end of his post).  

So many people use tack because someone suggested it, because they've seen someone else use it, because it's the latest trend, etc, etc, without ever having any idea of what action it's likely to have.

Everyone should take the time to research the basics before sticking a big chunk of metal in their horses mouth (or using any other piece of tack for that matter!) 

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you. The problem is that when people come to do their "research" they come across threads like this, giving direct and incorrect quotes from the fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, as well as other incorrect "info-pinions".


----------



## Dirtymare (17 January 2012)

Dee O'Dorant said:



			I absolutely agree with you. The problem is that when people come to do their "research" they come across threads like this, giving direct and incorrect quotes from the fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, as well as other incorrect "info-pinions".
		
Click to expand...

Agree with part of this staement.
However, if you dont have a trainer to suggest the correct bit for your horse (as my trainer did for my horse) then where do you go?
I have researched this bit and wherever I go I find the same statements for this type of bit - such as this from Horse Riding UK -
"This causes poll pressure (dressage legal as a Snaffle or as a Bradoon used in conjunction with a Weymouth). When a contact is taken the upper arm is angled forwards causing the mouthpiece to lift - thereby suspending it in the mouth and reducing the pressure across the tongue and the bars - this is often beneficial for cases of over sensitivity. Any extension above the mouthpiece causes poll pressure - this in itself has a head lowering action. However, if the horse is going forward into a contact and active behind this will encourage a rounding action and help tremendously with the outline. I have recently sought clarification from BD and in turn the FEI regarding the legal limit on the Baucher arms and there actually was none!! From the 1st Feb 2005 the maximum height of the baucher/hanging cheek snaffle will be approximately 12cm - this is from top to bottom - not just the upper."

Tell me then, where does one go for the *correct information* if you cant trust Wikepedia or any other site that gives information on this subject?


----------



## Dotilas (17 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			This has been taken directly from Wikepedia. Are you saying that they are wrong too?
		
Click to expand...

I snorted very loudly at this, and then edited the part of the article about poll pressure.


----------



## Dotilas (17 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			Tell me then, where does one go for the *correct information* if you cant trust Wikepedia or any other site that gives information on this subject?
		
Click to expand...

Sites that aren't written by people who have been informed incorrectly.

You can't trust anything on the internet, information can be published by anyone and noone can say whether it is correct or not, you would need to look in a good, well researched book for that.


----------



## kerilli (17 January 2012)

Dotilas said:



			I snorted very loudly at this, and then edited the part of the article about poll pressure.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant!


----------



## Dirtymare (17 January 2012)

Dotilas said:



			I snorted very loudly at this, and then edited the part of the article about poll pressure.
		
Click to expand...

Was there any need for this?
I'm truely interested to know why everyone thinks that saddleries publish so called wrong information on this subject. Surely they would be open to some sort of legal action for mis- selling products?
The same can be said for books. People can publish any old rubbish (and do) in books.

If I have got it dreadfully wrong all these years, I thank you all for pointing this out (albeit some of you not very politley!)


----------



## Tangaroo (17 January 2012)

Ah well, didnt realise i would cause quite such a reaction by asking this question ! 
I think i will just try it next time im schooling him and see what he feels like.


----------



## zxp (17 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			Was there any need for this?
I'm truely interested to know why everyone thinks that saddleries publish so called wrong information on this subject. Surely they would be open to some sort of legal action for mis- selling products?
The same can be said for books. People can publish any old rubbish (and do) in books.

If I have got it dreadfully wrong all these years, I thank you all for pointing this out (albeit some of you not very politley!)
		
Click to expand...

I think it is just a bit of folk-law. And a very common misconception. I dont think anyone is ever going to sue a saddlery for saying it has poll pressure! But it would be defying to laws of physics! 

FWIW, I have no problem  with people quoting websites / citing internet references. But Wikipedia is essentially an uncontrolled gossip-column! Probably not the best place to reference for anything!


And as for politenes... there was no need for your capital letters in response to my original post, but I will write it off as misinterpretation on my half !


----------



## TarrSteps (17 January 2012)

I think you mean folk lore. 

Which gives us a perfect example of how things get turned around sometimes. Perfectly understandable misconception, even makes a sort of sense. 

I'm sorry if I offended anyone but my issue was with the idea that natural laws are debatable. There seems to be a lot of that in horses - we decide which result we want, then we make up reasons to support the practice. If something works, it works.  But knowing HOW it works is important. Leverage devices are particular bug bears of mine because they do what they say on the tin - they make the rider FEEL like the horse is lighter but they do it by making the rider feel MUCH stronger to the horse. If you think the pull in your hand is the pull in the horse's mouth, you're wrong. It doesn't mean it's a good or bad choice.

The hanging cheek debate is the opposite. If people want to believe the increased force is doing the trick, I guess that's sort of a good thing - the rider gets the benefit of believing he/she is using more force, the horse doesn't get the risks. But it also confuses the rider's understanding. To be completely blunt, MAYBE the bit works better for some because it 'muddies' a moving hand? If so, the real solution is not in the bit.


----------



## Luci07 (17 January 2012)

However, even when you research and found a bit that will suit your horse ( theoretically) it often still doesn't work. I have collected a lot of bits over the years and sometimes it's a question of trial and error!


----------



## zxp (17 January 2012)

TarrSteps said:



			I think you mean folk lore. 

Click to expand...

Hehe, thanks. I dont think I've ever hand to write it down before! 

And to some extents I agree. If the bit is making the horse work into a more confident contact then the problem is probably the riders hands. But no-one is perfect  and there are much worse "aids" masking riders imperfections than a hanging cheek snaffle!


----------



## *hic* (17 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			Was there any need for this?
I'm truely interested to know why everyone thinks that saddleries publish so called wrong information on this subject. Surely they would be open to some sort of legal action for mis- selling products?
The same can be said for books. People can publish any old rubbish (and do) in books.

If I have got it dreadfully wrong all these years, I thank you all for pointing this out (albeit some of you not very politley!)
		
Click to expand...

I'd have thought yes, there's every need. As a result the Wiki article has been corrected so that others looking for enlightenment on what can be a very useful bit are now getting the right information.

This is a good thing


----------



## TarrSteps (17 January 2012)

Oh, no argument zxp, if it improves the situation, it's a good thing. Just saying, you could see the thought process - that leverage bit that's legal for dressage worked so well, of things start to go downhill again, the obvious answer is MORE leverage.  Whereas if the answer was more stability, then you might go a different way. 

As Luci says, bitting is hardly an exact science. Not every horse reacts the same way for the same reasons, not every horse has the same conformation/history/rider etc. And bits are just as much for riders as horses - people tend to have a feel they like, so the bit you like a horse in might not be the one I like the same horse in. Plus, a bit may produce a temporary improvement in a situation that isn't really about the bit, or it may have a long term negative consequence. 

And some of it is fashion. There are go to bits in one school/discipline that are unpopular in others. You never see a D ring here, and yet many people in North America consider it the default cheek piece for green horses. Look how drop nosebands have come back 'in'. 

The thing that entertains me about the Baucher is that it was invented for such a specific purpose and was very contentious at the time. Now it's used for reasons so far from the original. Like all the western bits remade for the english market - and cheerfully promoted by people who would lie down in the road before they put a cowboy bit on their horse.


----------



## vallin (17 January 2012)

Nothing constructive to add. However I feel a slight need to defend wikipedia (G-d help me!  ). 

It is an incredibly useful resource and along with Google Scholar has so far got me first in neuroscience  And from the look of some of the articles on there a lot of my lecturers use it as 'reference material' for the lectures too  

Yes, not 100% of everything on there is 100% accurate, but as long as you cross-reference with other sources is a damn good starting point!


----------



## zxp (17 January 2012)

vallin said:



			Nothing constructive to add. However I feel a slight need to defend wikipedia (G-d help me!  ). 

It is an incredibly useful resource and along with Google Scholar has so far got me first in neuroscience  And from the look of some of the articles on there a lot of my lecturers use it as 'reference material' for the lectures too  

Yes, not 100% of everything on there is 100% accurate, but as long as you cross-reference with other sources is a damn good starting point!
		
Click to expand...

Haha, yes, I have had a few lectures (vet) where Wikipedia has featured heavily. But God-forbid us referencing it. Ever. For anything. I agree, when cross referenced, it has its uses. But there is no denying it can be edited by anyone at any point, and if you reference info from it today, there is no guarantee it will still be on the website tomorrow!


----------



## vallin (17 January 2012)

zxp said:



			Haha, yes, I have had a few lectures (vet) where Wikipedia has featured heavily. But God-forbid us referencing it. Ever. For anything. I agree, when cross referenced, it has its uses. But there is no denying it can be edited by anyone at any point, and if you reference info from it today, there is no guarantee it will still be on the website tomorrow!
		
Click to expand...

Ah but that's why don't reference it directly, you click on the little number buttons that take you to the source, read the abstract then reference that


----------



## Jesstickle (17 January 2012)

I do love you guys 

I ride in a hanging cheek and constantly tell people it doesn't give poll pressure. They just look at me like I'm mental. The only person who believes me in RL is my OH as he understands physics!

Phew. I'm not alone at least. I use it as my horse seems to like it. The other thing he likes is a full cheek with keepers so I assume that he isn't keen on the bit moving about in his mouth. I CBA to mess around putting keepers back on his bridle when I clean it as I can't ever do it right first time so he wears a hanging cheek.  Horses for courses and all that


----------



## ester (17 January 2012)

vallin yup wiki can def be good but is def not gospel either . I think the poll pressure thing has come from people considering it a smaller gag or smaller pelham rather than what it actually does. 

It seems to have been the key to mum mum's mare with a mullen mouth, she responds very well to the fact that it stays so still (she is v. fussy in her mouth generally)


----------



## Dotilas (17 January 2012)

Dirtymare said:



			Was there any need for this?
I'm truely interested to know why everyone thinks that saddleries publish so called wrong information on this subject. Surely they would be open to some sort of legal action for mis- selling products?
The same can be said for books. People can publish any old rubbish (and do) in books.

If I have got it dreadfully wrong all these years, I thank you all for pointing this out (albeit some of you not very politley!)
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I wasn't intentionally impolite. It was just the way you asked, almost incredulously, that someone might suggest Wikepedia is not to be trusted. My first comment wasn't based on your perception of a hanging cheek snaffle, but on your comment about Wikipedia. This is why I did not quote all of your original post, but only the part that I was referring to.

I have just found this, and not only does it explain how Wikipedia works, but it goes into the reliability of the site. Here is the link, and feel free to have a smile at the irony... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia  

This is a pretty cool bit I have just pulled from the above article: 'In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."' Which pretty much sums up the general feeling about Wikipedia.

It also reiterates my previous point about books and publishing them. I would suggest doing some reading into the process. I am aware of self publishing, and that it is a major exception to my point. 

And in answer to your question, yes, I am sure that you could open up some sort of legal case against a saddlery who had described an item on the website incorrectly. If your instructor recommended you needed a bit with poll pressure and you purchased a hanging-cheek snaffle from a saddlery, specifically because they advertised the bits as providing poll pressure; You could subsequently perform a physics experiment, proving the bit could not provide this pressure and hence the product is not as described and hence not fit for purpose. 

This is not a very good metaphor, but bear with me: if you bought some window locks on eBay, under the guarantee they would keep your windows tight shut, but when you put them on the windows, you found that the locks allowed the window to open when even in place properly, you would be entitled to return the window locks as they had been incorrectly described and not fit for purpose. It would turn out that they are for keeping windows ajar and preventing them from flapping open in the wind. Only a very slightly different purpose, but maybe a huge misconception in the window world, who knows?  

I also think that many saddleries have pre-prepared blurbs for the products on their sites. If you contacted them, they would probably change it PDQ. And also, it would not be a commonplace misconception, if the misconception was not to be commonly found! 

If you guys bear with me, until I have these exams out of the way, I might hunt down a hanging cheek and do some simple force and motion based physics on the bit, and share it with you guys on here. It shouldn't be hard to do.


----------



## zxp (17 January 2012)

Dotilas said:



			I'm sorry, I wasn't intentionally impolite. It was just the way you asked, almost incredulously, that someone might suggest Wikepedia is not to be trusted. My first comment wasn't based on your perception of a hanging cheek snaffle, but on your comment about Wikipedia. This is why I did not quote all of your original post, but only the part that I was referring to.

I have just found this, and not only does it explain how Wikipedia works, but it goes into the reliability of the site. Here is the link, and feel free to have a smile at the irony... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia  

This is a pretty cool bit I have just pulled from the above article: 'In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."' Which pretty much sums up the general feeling about Wikipedia.

It also reiterates my previous point about books and publishing them. I would suggest doing some reading into the process. I am aware of self publishing, and that it is a major exception to my point. 

And in answer to your question, yes, I am sure that you could open up some sort of legal case against a saddlery who had described an item on the website incorrectly. If your instructor recommended you needed a bit with poll pressure and you purchased a hanging-cheek snaffle from a saddlery, specifically because they advertised the bits as providing poll pressure; You could subsequently perform a physics experiment, proving the bit could not provide this pressure and hence the product is not as described and hence not fit for purpose. 

This is not a very good metaphor, but bear with me: if you bought some window locks on eBay, under the guarantee they would keep your windows tight shut, but when you put them on the windows, you found that the locks allowed the window to open when even in place properly, you would be entitled to return the window locks as they had been incorrectly described and not fit for purpose. It would turn out that they are for keeping windows ajar and preventing them from flapping open in the wind. Only a very slightly different purpose, but maybe a huge misconception in the window world, who knows?  

I also think that many saddleries have pre-prepared blurbs for the products on their sites. If you contacted them, they would probably change it PDQ. And also, it would not be a commonplace misconception, if the misconception was not to be commonly found! 

If you guys bear with me, until I have these exams out of the way, I might hunt down a hanging cheek and do some simple force and motion based physics on the bit, and share it with you guys on here. It shouldn't be hard to do.
		
Click to expand...

PMSL! Dotilas. I think I just fell in love with you! 

****ZXP "lol"'s all the way back to re-read the Reliability of Wikipedia site just for entertainment's sake ****


----------



## meardsall_millie (17 January 2012)

Dotilas said:



			If you guys bear with me, until I have these exams out of the way, I might hunt down a hanging cheek and do some simple force and motion based physics on the bit, and share it with you guys on here. It shouldn't be hard to do.
		
Click to expand...

That would be really interesting - while you're doing that could you also do the same test on a 3-ring gag/snaffle (whatever we're calling them these days.....?)


----------



## Dotilas (17 January 2012)

meardsall_millie said:



			That would be really interesting - while you're doing that could you also do the same test on a 3-ring gag/snaffle (whatever we're calling them these days.....?)
		
Click to expand...

I actually could, I could solve the actual "poll pressure" problem very easily, but would probably want to go into more detail with tongue pressure from different mouth pieces also included. The mouthpieces would be more complicated, I would need to find a way to measure action of the bit on the mouth area.


----------

