by Sofia Tomov
Homeschool, Knoxville, TN
Second place
Have you ever wanted to see a fencer’s face after she flicks the opponent’s blade and thrusts to victory? The Olympic committee threatened to eliminate fencing unless the fencers’ faces could be made visible. Engineers are developing new technologies to modernize the centuries-old sport of fencing by designing masks that would allow spectators to see the fencers’ faces, thereby making the sport more engaging to an audience. In solving the problem of minimal visibility of fencers’ faces to spectators, sports and materials engineers used the engineering design process to ask, imagine, plan, create, and improve their design of a transparent polycarbonate mask. Although experiments showed that these masks were sturdier than common metal mesh masks, a polycarbonate mask shattered on impact at a tournament, resulting in a minor injury to the fencer. As a result, the International Fencing Federation banned polycarbonate masks. As a fencer, I agree with this decision, and believe that safety is the first priority. Spectators can appreciate the elegant lunges, swift parries, and charging attacks without seeing the combatants’ expressions. To satisfy the audience’s demand for feeling more involved with the sport when they watch it on television, I propose that a small video camera be mounted on a fencer’s mask so a spectator can watch the sport from the fencer’s perspective.
Sports and materials engineers are developing transparent masks in response to the pressure from the Olympics and television networks to see fencers’ faces while in combat. According to materials engineer Dr. Mike Jenkins, “The pace of development has quickened in recent years due to threats from the International Olympic Committee to exclude fencing from the games unless it modernized itself.” This is significant motivation for development, since the exclusion of fencing from the Olympics would deal a significant blow to the sport’s prestige and popularity. Television networks also insist on the visibility of fencers’ faces with the belief that spectators feel detached from the sport if they cannot see the fencers’ face. Competitions have been televised where the fencers wear transparent masks, and, according to one commentator, “I like how...you can see their faces between the touches. You can see what they are feeling and thinking.”
After sports engineers imagined the solution to the question of how to improve the visibility of fencers’ faces, materials engineers planned how they could create a safe solution. Their design involved two layers of the polycarbonate Lexan, known for optical clarity and strength. The whole mask is not made of the Lexan sheet; it consists of the Lexan sheet embedded in a metal frame. One of the Lexan layers is 3mm thick, and the other, outermost layer is 0.5mm thick. This thin layer prevents the base layer from cracking. The layer is also replaceable, in case of blade scratches. Prior to their introduction to competitive fencing, the Lexan visors alone were tested for safety. It was tested by dropping a 2.4kg steel spike from a 55cm height. Not only did the visor surpass safety standards, it also proved to be stronger than the metal mask. For example, the point penetrated the metal mask, whereas it only left an imprint on the visor. Similar tests were repeated on the complete masks, and the Lexan masks did not deform, while the metal masks deformed to an extent deemed sufficient to injure a fencer. However, despite the visor masks’ outstanding performance in tests, one of these masks was penetrated by a normal blade during a competition, resulting in a cut to the fencer. On investigation, the mask was proven to be labeled as Lexan but made of an inferior polycarbonate. According to leading fencing gear manufacturer Leon Paul, “It is essential that the mask is made with a visor made from Lexan not a generic polycarbonate,... made in such a way that there are no sharp edges in contact with the main visor,” and “made with a coated visor to help protect it.” The damaged mask was not properly made, and lacked some of these basic standards.
In creating transparent masks, engineers faced the constraints of safety, comfort, and visibility for the fencer, as well as visibility for the audience. Although they met the constraint of visibility for the audience and the fencer, some polycarbonate masks are neither safe nor comfortable. While I have never used a polycarbonate mask, I have participated in discussions about transparent masks, in which several people stated that they were much hotter than mesh masks, and even caused breathing discomfort. For these reasons, I believe that transparent masks should not be implemented, especially since the use of multiple materials poses greater opportunity for flaws that could result in serious injury. Instead of using transparent masks, I propose that a small video camera be clamped to the top of a mask to allow spectators to watch from the fencer’s position. Unlike mesh masks, polycarbonate masks are made of two different materials attached together - the Lexan visor and the metal frame. This may result in jutting edges that could cut a fencer or pop out on impact if poorly attached. According to the chair of the NCAA fencing committee, "the safety and well-being of [fencers] are always paramount." I believe that polycarbonate masks do not place the fencers’ safety and well-being as the first concern, especially since transparent masks were not advocated by fencers. In contrast, they were promoted by the media, and prioritize the public’s enjoyment of watching the sport. Even though I think the media’s motivation is unnecessary, I do not think it should be ignored. This motivation can be addressed by attaching a smaller, lighter version of a GoPro video camera to the top of a mask, where it could not be hit or cause any discomfort to the fencer. Although the fencers’ face would still be obscured, this improvement would cause a viewer to feel more engaged in the sport by watching it from the fencers’ perspective.
In my opinion, there is no need for fencing to be “modernized” by allowing visibility of the fencer’s face. The visibility of a player’s face is not essential to people’s enjoyment of a sport. For example, most Americans enjoy watching football, where the players’ faces are also hidden by helmet. Why should it be different for fencing? Someone can appreciate the beauty and grace of fencers’ lunges and parries without seeing their faces. If engineers develop a lighter video camera that can be easily attached to a mesh mask, the concerns of the media would be addressed by allowing spectators to feel more engaged, and would not put the fencers’ safety at risk.
Bibliography
Farrell, Keith, “Construction of a Fencing Mask” http://www.historical-academy.co.uk/files/research/keith-farrell/Construction of a Fencing Mask.pdf
Fencer Discussion Forum http://www.fencing.net/forums/thread37433.html
Harkins, Craig, “FIE Bans Visor Mask for Foil and Epee” http://www.fencing.net/1527/fie-bans-visor-mask-for-foil-and-epee/
Harkins, Craig, “FIE Halts Visor Mask Requirement http://www.fencing.net/397/fie-halts-visor-mask-requirement/
Holmes, Richard, “Improving the Optical Characteristics of a Polycarbonate Fencing Mask.” http://www.academia.edu/779287
Jenkins, Mike, “Advanced Materials in the Sport of Fencing” http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=179
”NCAA Fencing Committee Bans Transparent Masks” http://ncaanewsarchive.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/aWide/
ncaa_fencing_committee_bans_transparent_masks.html
“Transparent Masks put New Face on Fencing” http://www.rediff.com/sports/2004/aug/04oly-fen.htm