Fish Mouth/ Grand Prix

[Jaye Perry]

Here is one today of a horse that needed an over sized shoe and some lateral support. I "REALLY" thought the horse needed some support:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise030.jpg


http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise036.jpg


A half-assed attempt with a pair of Grand Prixs:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise038.jpg

[Jaye Perry]

Here they are nailed up; feet were awful!

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise041.jpg


http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise045.jpg

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s120/ferrous2007/Paradise%202/Paradise046.jpg

[calshoer]

Broken pelvis or what? How was his stance and movement before and after the shoeing? What was so awful about the feet?

[Jaye Perry]

Broken pelvis or what? How was his stance and movement before and after the shoeing? What was so awful about the feet?

EPM; I just didn't like the integrity:cool:

[calshoer]

EPM and he didn't fall over on you....nice work. :)

[Jaye Perry]

EPM and he didn't fall over on you....nice work. :)

Hell, she is jumping and getting lead changes!:eek:

[Bill Adams]

I have a few that I put onion heels on. They are gona graduate to fish mouths.

[Ronald Aalders]

It took me some time to realize that the mere shape of a shoe does a about all for lateral support. Meaning that there is no need to forge out the branch with the risk of not being able to get out enough or getting the slope too close to the heel.

Just by shaping the shoe for (lateral) support you can do a whole lot more to provide abaxial support. Way more than you could ever hope to achieve just widening the lateral branch forging wise that is.



Ronald Aalders

[Rick Burten]

Why was a fish-mouth heel indicated?

[Jaye Perry]

Why was a fish-mouth heel indicated?

Slightly over shod and a forging excercise!;)

[Phil Armitage]

It took me some time to realize that the mere shape of a shoe does a about all for lateral support. Meaning that there is no need to forge out the branch with the risk of not being able to get out enough or getting the slope too close to the heel.

Just by shaping the shoe for (lateral) support you can do a whole lot more to provide abaxial support. Way more than you could ever hope to achieve just widening the lateral branch forging wise that is.



Ronald Aalders

I disagree Ronald. Widening the branch adds more ground surface and provides more support than a shoe with the same width and reshaped. The benefit of doing this is the shoe can be fit without having excess shoe beyond the hoof capsule which is a must in muddy paddock unless you like going back and replacing shoes.

[Ronald Aalders]

I noticed before that you also appear not to agree to the reasoning behind reducing break over forces (DP) either Phil.

Where a excessively long break over length compared to the support length has heels pushed into the ground, simply because the amount of foot surface in the posterior part of the foot is bigger than the anterior part (if and when the COA is not the middle between support and break over) from a DP point of view, likewise will a wider laterally supported foot "float" more than the medial part in the LM view. Simply because the surface on the lateral side is bigger. The foot/sole itself supports too.

Now for the amount of surface we can easily calculate that the few millimeters added by widening the lateral branch are greatly outweighed by reshaping the lateral branch, offsetting it and allowing more support to the lateral side. Have a look at the picture and try and find the COA here too. With a few anatomical differences (the width of the joint for one) that COA is the natural/normal middle of support for LM purposes also.


Ronald Aalders

[bumfoot SHOER]

EPM; I just didn't like the integrity:cool:
looking at the pics besides the epm is this an older horse?

[Phil Armitage]

I noticed before that you also appear not to agree to the reasoning behind reducing break over forces (DP) either Phil.

Where a excessively long break over length compared to the support length has heels pushed into the ground, simply because the amount of foot surface in the posterior part of the foot is bigger than the anterior part (if and when the COA is not the middle between support and break over) from a DP point of view, likewise will a wider laterally supported foot "float" more than the medial part in the LM view. Simply because the surface on the lateral side is bigger. The foot/sole itself supports too.

Now for the amount of surface we can easily calculate that the few millimeters added by widening the lateral branch are greatly outweighed by reshaping the lateral branch, offsetting it and allowing more support to the lateral side. Have a look at the picture and try and find the COA here too. With a few anatomical differences (the width of the joint for one) that COA is the natural/normal middle of support for LM purposes also.


Ronald Aalders

You also have to factor in the thickness of the shoe. I can see where reshapeing the branch would offer support, but not as much in my opinion as increasing the width of the material. Width and thickness are part of the equation. I am glad you brought up breakover in this discussion. I also think the width of the shoe in the toe has the same effect as the width of material in the heels. Ground reaction forces, width and depth of the shoe and fit effect the mechanics of a horse.

Take a broad toe with increased width in material, you now have a toe weighted shoe that offers more float when it impacts the ground. This may be what you want depending on the situation with the horse, however it could also exasperate another problem.

Reduceing the width of material is also another tool, when you are attempting to figure out a package.

I do not think this is simple at all. May I suggest running this by someone like Hayden Price who has looked at a variaty of shoes with gate analysis. I am still learning ground reaction forces and conformation.

[BPethick]

You also have to factor in the thickness of the shoe. I can see where reshapeing the branch would offer support, but not as much in my opinion as increasing the width of the material. Width and thickness are part of the equation. I am glad you brought up breakover in this discussion. I also think the width of the shoe in the toe has the same effect as the width of material in the heels. Ground reaction forces, width and depth of the shoe and fit effect the mechanics of a horse.

Take a broad toe with increased width in material, you now have a toe weighted shoe that offers more float when it impacts the ground. This may be what you want depending on the situation with the horse, however it could also exasperate another problem.

Reduceing the width of material is also another tool, when you are attempting to figure out a package.

I do not think this is simple at all. May I suggest running this by someone like Carl Hayden who has looked at a variaty of shoes with gate analysis. I am still learning ground reaction forces and conformation.

I think you mean "Hayden Price"?

[Phil Armitage]

I think you mean "Hayden Price"?

Thats the guy thanks. :D

I should also add that you would be a good one to talk to about gate analysis and ground reaction forces. We need a good book shoes, conformation and application. I can afford a good book vs. the cost and time on gate analysis software. :)

[lonestar]

You also have to factor in the thickness of the shoe. I can see where reshapeing the branch would offer support, but not as much in my opinion as increasing the width of the material. Width and thickness are part of the equation. I am glad you brought up breakover in this discussion. I also think the width of the shoe in the toe has the same effect as the width of material in the heels. Ground reaction forces, width and depth of the shoe and fit effect the mechanics of a horse.

Take a broad toe with increased width in material, you now have a toe weighted shoe that offers more float when it impacts the ground. This may be what you want depending on the situation with the horse, however it could also exasperate another problem.

Reduceing the width of material is also another tool, when you are attempting to figure out a package.

I do not think this is simple at all. May I suggest running this by someone like Hayden Price who has looked at a variaty of shoes with gate analysis. I am still learning ground reaction forces and conformation.

I'm confused with respect to the comment regarding a broad toe. How does widening the toe of a shoe increase the weight ? i.e. make it a toe weighted shoe.

[Jason Maki]

Did"nt "carl Hagen" right some inane book about nothing called Dyametrix? Or was that Carl Sagen?:rolleyes:lol

[tbloomer]

Have a look at the picture and try and find the COA here too. With a few anatomical differences (the width of the joint for one) that COA is the natural/normal middle of support for LM purposes also.


Ronald Aalders
Ron,

Points of clarification (adding to the confusion?). COA=Middle of Support in regards to ground forces. COA is the center of a cantilevered axle in both A/P and M/L directions of articulation. Ground forces converge upon and are transmitted to the COA through a central point of "weight bearing" in the center of mass of P3.

Extra credit: What is the common name for the central point of weight bearing in the center of mass of P3?

[tbloomer]

Did"nt "carl Hagen" right some inane book about nothing called Dyametrix? Or was that Carl Sagen?:rolleyes:lol
Maki, you're such a geek. Coming from me, that's a compliment and not an insinuation that you're also a "liberal." :D