While standing in the booth at AETA watching the video for the Invictus pad, they flashed a pretty interesting graph. This one, to be exact:
Here’s the entire blurb from the Invictus website about their results (super complimentary of themselves, of course, but if you can set that aside the science is interesting):
We conducted the tests starting with 5 Joules of impact energy to determine the Peak Transmitted Force through the protective layers. (PTF is the pressure that can be felt through a material.) The impact energy was increased in 5J increments to a total of 40J. We show on the right side of the graph how we assign the impact energy in the tests to pressure that is felt under saddle. Pads, which reached maximum PTF at a given energy, were eliminated from further testing, because they could offer no further values. The tests were conducted under EN1621 tests standards.
In the range from 5J – 25J, the tested pads recorded from 123% to 329% more PTF (Peak Transmitted Force) than Invictus
In the range from 25 – 40J – the tested pads recorded up to 123% more PTF than Invictus
Our tests show that, while high quality memory foam pads like Ogilvy® and the Equi-Fit pad provide good protection at all energy ranges, both are considerably thicker and only conditionally breathable. This translates into diminished contact and a less than ideal heat/moisture balance. The Invictus pad showed the overall best protection values with the least displacement, convincingly delivering on all points, from superior all-round performance to ergonomic and sleek design.
Gel – both oil-based and regular – as well as the Thinline® material cannot come close to providing sufficient protection at the same thickness. Water based gel only performed to 20J before bottoming out. Oil-based gel did a little better, but also only showed low protection values and dropped out at 30J. Thinline tested a little better to 40J impact energy but it can’t come close to the standards of the Invictus D3O® XT Mesh with intelligent molecules.
This kind of information is far more interesting (and helpful) in my mind than things like The Truth Tack Review lady who likes to test impact protection by dropping a bowling ball on things. That irritates me. A lot.
Half pads are one of those items that people always seem to have strong opinions about and even stronger preferences for. Some people will argue for Thinline until they’re blue in the face, and the same for Ogilvy. Or the reverse – those who absolutely hate a certain pad with a fiery passion. If you’ve ever been to a horse message board, you’ve seen it.
I personally used Thinline for years and had no complaints, then decided to try Ogilvy. Henry the princess said that he preferred the Ogilvy (which should surprise exactly no one) so that’s what I’ve stuck with. I have no passionate feelings either way, personally.
Side note: wouldn’t it be nice if some tack shop set up a half pad trial program so you could demo several different ones? How do we make that happen? They do it for bits and stirrups so surely half pads wouldn’t be much different. I digress…
I have always wanted a comparative study between the different pads, so the Invictus one has got me pretty fascinated. Mostly because of two main things:
- It makes the Invictus pad look pretty intriguing (of course) especially for those that don’t have a saddle with enough extra width to accommodate something thick like the Ogilvy.
- Memory foam seems to offer way more impact protection than I might have thought. I mean… Henry’s positive reaction to the pad told me that he preferred it, but seeing numbers to back up my own personal observation is captivating. I want to see more. Also interesting that the Equifit didn’t perform all that differently considering how much thinner it is than the Ogilvy.
So, half pad users, what say you? What do you think of this study and it’s results?