Submitted by: Marc Johnson
Current wording:
At ADS-Recognized events, there are no required track widths…
Suggested wording:
At ADS-recognized events, with the exception of Small Pony and VSE entries,
Advanced and Intermediate Dressage carriages will be required to comply with
the carriage widths specified in the above chart effective January 1, 2022.
Preliminary Dressage carriages will be required to comply with the specified
carriage width effective January 1, 2023.
Reason for change:
The result of measuring carriages and setting cones at different width has resulted in
frequent inaccuracies, including at our North American Championships. We require too
many volunteer hours setting cones for an unreasonable amount of time, making it
physically difficult for some and making it difficult to run the cones arena on schedule. In
England, the drivers were given two years to comply. It got done quite easily. By having
a staggered effective date, it will be easier to implement, and drivers will have time to
organize modifications to existing carriages. Training division Dressage carriages will be
exempt from this change and may still use the Training Standardized Settings in article
973.1.9. The Intermediate and Preliminary Standardized Settings will be phased out
accordingly.
Another good change, everyone complained when this happened at the Advanced level but in the end people made it work. This also helps the shows as volunteers are harder and harder to get.
ReplyDeletehatsbykatie@gmail.com
Making it mandatory to have two carriages at Training and Prelim levels will severely limit the number of competitors at those levels. I feel training and prelim to be “entry level” levels, and to require them to have two carriages will cause so much more expense to the competitor, from buying a new carriage, to getting a new trailer to carry it, to getting a new truck to haul the new trailer. We already have “ standardized measurements” that are close enough to have everyone competive. Leave it the way it reads now.
ReplyDeleteMuffy Seaton 4611
Diane Kastama 7713 #8
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this proposal. I suggest we do what the Dutch do. They have the 2 standard widths. see chart below. This would allow people to use their current marathon vehicle. No measuring needed except for VSE's and possibly training level. Less room for error. as you have only two possible measurements for the class. and actually for everything but pair horse and horse 4.. Page 19 of Dutch rule book link here. https://www.knhs.nl/media/17901/wedstrijdreglement-mennen-2020.pdf
division wheels min width standard setting for marathon type vehicle standard width for presentation type vehicle
single pony 2 of 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm for class
Pair pony 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm cm for class
Tandem pony 2 of 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm cm for class
Pony 4 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm for class
single Horse 2 of 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm for class
Pair Horse 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 150 cm + cm cm for class
Tandem Horse 2 of 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 140 cm + cm cm for class
Horse 4 4 125 cm 128 cm + cm for class 160 cm + cm for class
Member Name: Kathleen Schmitt
ReplyDeleteMembership#: 12297
RCP # 8. Phasing in the FEI required minimum track widths
It is no secret that the driving sports are having difficulty attracting “new blood” and retaining current members. It is an expensive sport. Why would we make it more of a financial burden? If this rule change is implemented, many competitors who use the same carriage for all 3 phases would be faced with either finding a way to convert their current marathon carriage to an extendable axel (not an easy feat if it can be done at all depending on the vehicle) or purchasing a presentation vehicle which fulfills the requirements. I can only speak for myself but I do know several other competitors who have voiced the same concerns I have. Like most of the people competing in combined driving, I currently compete at the Training/Preliminary level. I may or may not eventually move up to Intermediate. Advanced is distant goal but I will cross that bridge if and when I get there.
I do not want to invest in another very expensive piece of equipment. If I purchase a presentation carriage, I will likely need a presentation harness as well. If I purchase and need to transport an additional carriage, I will need a larger trailer. If I purchase a larger trailer, I will likely need a new truck. Sorry, as much as I enjoy competitions, I just can’t justify the additional expense for a hobby. I would most likely just stop competing in CDEs and find something else to do with my ponies.
If I did need to eventually sell my current carriage to help finance the purchase of an FEI compliant carriage, I can only imagine it would be a hard sell. Suddenly there will be many non compliant used carriages on the market and few buyers. All the buyers will be scrambling to find carriages with extendable that can fulfill the FEI requirements.
We do not need to align ourselves with the FEI. The vast, vast majority of ADS members will never compete in Europe. We are not Europe. Our access to competitions and driving resources are much more limited than they are in Europe. This rule change does nothing to improve safety or promote carriage competition in the US.
Respectfully,
Kathleen Schmitt
Member Name: Donene McGrath Membership #: 7649520 RCP#: #8
ReplyDeleteThe proposed change is: Suggested wording: At ADS-recognized events, with the exception of Small Pony and VSE entries, Advanced and Intermediate Dressage carriages will be required to comply with the carriage widths specified in the above chart effective January 1, 2022. Preliminary Dressage carriages will be required to comply with the specified carriage width effective January 1, 2023.
My response to this is: Really? We're concerned about the dwindling number of drivers in our sport and now we're going to make them buy new carriages? While I'm sure it worked easily in England, I'm not convinced that instituting it here will have the same effect. My understanding of the ADS is that it's about encouraging driving and making it accessible to all. Most of us devote our time and energy to spending time with our equines...not making modifications to our carriages. This proposed rule change is more suited to FEI competition - which your rank and file membership does not aspire to.
I am opposed to the RCP and the plan to phase out our current system of not requiring FEI dressage carriage width. Many of our competitors do not have FEI widths dressage carriages, and many compete with marathon carriages. They all would have to get modified axles for those (or new carriages). Yes, it can be done, but is costly. Yes, they did it in England, but there the sport has many more drivers than we do, and loosing a few there who then decided not to compete at recognized events anymore was not that harmful to the sport there. We have fewer drivers in our sport here and are spread out so much more over our large country. I believe we cannot afford to lose any of our competitors here. I also believe our current system of using "standard cones settings" per Art 973.1 & 974.1 works sufficiently.
ReplyDeleteIf we really want to eliminate the cones setting work, rather than requiring FEI width dressage vehicles, or extendable axles, we should allow people again to switch carriages between dressage & cones, and then go to just using marathon carriages for cones. They are ALL (except VSE) the same width = basically 125 (+ 1 or 2 cm) regardless of horse or pony, single, pair or team, and on top of that, they are much safer for fast cones rounds too. So that would be the way to go in my opinion.
Thank you
hardy zantke
ADS # 1187
Rule Change Proposal #8 Bonnie Fahrner 10775
ReplyDeleteThis rule will require two carriages for a Preliminary Driver —a 125 cm and a 138 cm. Many Prelim drivers use the marathon carriage for all phases. Requiring a second carriage goes far beyond a single purchase. Usually it requires a larger trailer which in turn requires a larger truck, often it requires a second harness , and on and on. Between Rule 7 and Rule 8 — I am afraid Preliminary will be decimated. it will particularly adversely effect those with limited funds.
Hello. Please consider my comments regarding the proposed changes. The ones I am commenting on are, in my opinion, only a hindrance to those considering our chosen discipline and will cause hardship for those of us already competing.
ReplyDeleteRCP #8 Article: CD 937.3b
I strongly disagree with the requirement of required carriage widths. Carriage driving is already an expensive sport. Asking competitors to spend money retro fitting existing vehicles or expecting them to have the means to afford new, compliant vehicles is only going to further diminish the number of participants. Honestly, not all of us are trust fund babies or have careers that pay comfortable salaries. Some of us sew our own aprons, get our jackets from thrift stores, and scrimp and save to have safe vehicles, afford training, and enter events. There will also be a reduced market for the vehicles that people will sell in order to be compliant.
Deborah North
ADS member #20161038
JDNorth Farm
Hello All,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the work that you do! Here are my comments on three of the proposed changes.
Michele Harn ADS # 1130751
RCP #8 Article 937.3b This change refers to the chart in 037.3 that designates a MINIMUM vehicle width. In theory (and indeed in practice much of the time) presentation vehicles are manufactured at this minimum width thus making the volunteer job easier. But this specific width is not necessitated by this chart as written. I believe there is a great risk to the number of entries if this change is implemented. My experience is that many lower level drivers use only their marathon vehicle for all phases and would be forced to increase the axle width by 10-13 cm. I personally have a high level of concern for the safety of these modified vehicles especially once they are used in the marathon. Drivers are unlikely to purchase a second vehicle due to the expense and difficulty of transporting two vehicles to an event. I am against this rule change.
I oppose the proposed change.
ReplyDeleteWe agree that trying to simplify the process of cones setting would have the advantage of decreasing volunteer time demands and improved accuracy. But especially in today's economic crisis, the proposal grossly underestimates the burden of compliance even when phased in over a two year period.
1. Respectfully. the geographic distances over which you have to obtain and transport used vehicles are orders of magnitude higher in US than in England. "United Kingdom is approximately 243,610 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 3,937% larger than United Kingdom."
2. As many new carriages are produced in Europe and imported into US, the shipping distances, time and costs are also proportionately larger., longer and higher.
3. In the current and foreseeable future, the movement of people across long distances is particularly challenging.
4. Owners of vehicles smaller than required track widths will be unable to compete and will have difficulty selling their carriages to anyone else who might want the option to compete in future.
Marcy Eades #14025
Mark Eades #14025a
Carol Ilacqua
ReplyDeleteADS# 12037560
RCP #8
Article: CD 937.3b- Track widths
I agree with the proposed change.
RCS#8 DO NOT SUPPORT AT THIS TIME. We need to do a survey of membership asking what their current track widths of vehicles used NOW is. Let's get some solid facts before we craft a RCS.
ReplyDeleteDana Bright ADS # 4436
Standardized carriage widths. If you really want to reduce the “errors” or hassle of moving cones, then have two standard widths. One based on Presentation carriages, and one based on marathon carriages. Then group the people together when driving cones so you only have to move the cones once between the two groupings. But most “modern” carriages are built on the standard 140 cm for ‘presentation” and 120 (I think) for marathon carriages so except for the unusual antique carriage, (which IMHO should not be driven in a “modern” cones course) people should fit in one of those two groups already with what they already own. And also this way you don’t have to drag two carriages to a show if you don’t want to, nor will you force people to buy new carriages, and you still accomplish your goal of reducing how often you have to “move” cones or how the measurement is determined.
ReplyDeleteMary Mott Member ID: 5674
The wording states that wheel measurements for preliminary must conform to the standard wheel widths by 2023 at all ADS dressage events. That may be fine for combined driving, but what about pleasure shows that may have additional dressage and cones. My antique trap which may be the only vehicle I plan on bringing may not fit the designated wheel width . Does that mean I cannot enter dressage at a pleasure show? This rule is designed for the convenience of the measuring committee. At a pleasure show we should be allowed to use whatever cart, or carriage we are planning on showing with that weekend. Some of us do not have 48 foot trailers and staff to get multiple carriages ready . This is a bad rule.
ReplyDeleteLeigh Semilof ADS #9296
Member Name: Carl Zimmerman Membership # 9904: RCP#: 7 and 8
ReplyDeleteI am strongly opposed to RCP 7 and RCP 8. In both cases, the likely result will be to reduce overall participation in ADS events. It would certainly reduce or even eliminate my participation as I do not have a groom reliably available to assist at competitions nor would I be willing to purchase a new competition carriage.
Janet Oliver
ReplyDeleteADS Member # 9355930
RCP #8
Again - money. I just bought a new marathon carriage. I'm not going to buy another. I'll give up competing before I do that. The sport is already suffering. This would do us in.
I think the argument that it saves time might not be valid. Don't the widths need to be checked before each driver anyway? So that if a cone has been dislodged with or without the ball dropping it can be reset before the next driver.
RCP#8 I don't know enough about this topic to know whether this rule change would eventually require many competitors to change their carriages or not - but if it did then I would vote no. Most folks simply cannot afford to purchase new or modify existing vehicles. While it is true that cones setting requires many volunteers I don't believe that carriage width is the limiting factor in keeping cones courses running accurately and on schedule.
ReplyDeleteCarol Hunter
ADS #12335
Member ID: 12021730
ReplyDeleteEmphatic NO!
I do not understand expecting drivers to sell their old, now diminished value carriages and buy new, demand priced, expensive carriages just to save the number of volunteers at an event.
This is a sure way to lose ADS entries and see non-sanctioned events increase in numbers.
Sheila Goodman
Lynda Jowers. #7659
ReplyDeleteI have been a member for 22 years and actively engaged in showing both in CDE’s and pleasure for that whole time. I am absolutely against rules 7 & 8. I have shown without a groom throughout my career and have never had or seen a situation where a groom on the carriage was needed. If needed in dressage then it would also be needed in cones with the groom seated. On a marathon which many of us use a seated groom can cause a turnover on turns since they are not allowed to move. We are losing drivers and especially now rules that make it harder to compete are very detrimental to our sport. This same argument goes for rule 8, let’s not discourage people from entering or staying in this sport by making it any harder or more expensive than we have to.
RCP#8
ReplyDeleteAnother, if it ain't broke don't fix it item.
1. I venture to guess that the majority of competitors are participating in the Preliminary division; have a job that they are required to be at on a daily basis; their vacation time is used for competitions; do not have the room to transport or funds available to purchase a second carriage for competitions.
I have volunteered many times and have been a "cones pusher" . I find the task to be pleasant and the camaraderie enjoyable. Many folks I have met are horse enthusiasts but have never competed at a driving event, but love the spectacle.
I think we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water if wheel widths were to be standardized. Why not group competitors by wheel widths? Order of go in dressage would set the stage and like sized width carriages could be grouped together.
I am sorry that there was a measurement mistake in the North American Championship, but I am sure that standardizing wheel widths will not eliminate all errors. To penalize many, because of the few, does not seem fair.
And, if this means I need to purchase another carriage, you can count me out in 2 years for sure! I just purchased a new carriage...if I am forced to sell it to comply with the new rules who is going to buy it?
Sue Gregorio Member ID: 11768
In order to understand this, I opened my 2020 rule book to look at “the above chart”. The chart immediately above 937.3b (the quoted current wording) specifies “no minimum weight or width". This doesn’t make sense, as it would not constitute a change. I’m guessing the RCP meant to refer instead to the FEI chart above that, but rules are interpreted exactly as written, no guessing.
ReplyDeleteAside from unclear wording, and assuming this is intended to require minimum track width, I do not support this change. At the lower levels, most competitors own just one carriage, a marathon carriage with track width of ~125 cm, which would no longer be legal for dressage and cones. So this would require purchase of a second carriage. And most of those folks do not own a trailer big enough to transport 2 carriages. Consider for a moment the cost of a carriage AND new trailer. Events are already struggling to attract enough competitors to cover costs. The last thing we should be doing is putting competitions out of reach for more members.
I do understand that the idea is to make cones simpler, and require fewer volunteers, which would be an advantage. If Training level is exempted, this change would not reduce the number of required volunteers, and so the primary advantage of the change will not be realized.
It comes down to weighing the cost to competitors vs. simplifying the running of the cones competition. I do not think the advantage comes even close to outweighing the disadvantage.
Please vote NO.
Virginia Miner
ADS# 3611
This is Hilary Miskoe, ADS #9717
ReplyDeleteRCP #8 - no
If this is passed many people will be forced to either not compete or buy a new carriage that meets the guidelines. I don't have another suggestion but I don't like this proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in.
Hilary
> Member Name: Gail Thomas
ReplyDelete> ADS # 14350
RCP #8
> Proposal: At ADS-recognized events, with the exception of Small Pony and VSE entries, Advanced and Intermediate Dressage carriages will be required to comply with the carriage widths specified in the above chart effective January 1, 2022. Preliminary Dressage carriages will be required to comply with specified carriage width effective January 1, 2023.
>
> This proposal will make it difficult for competitors to start in our sport. Carriage driving is one of the most expensive sports in the world and this proposal makes it worse. New carriages are expensive. Let’s make an effort to help drivers afford the sport.
RCP #8 – I do not support this change.
ReplyDeleteThis change would require replacing my new carriage $10k, and my new trailer ($60k) and would likely require a new truck as well. If this change is adopted, it will push me out of the sport.
Rebecca Burkheart
Member Name: Patricia Anselm ADS# 13621
ReplyDeleteRCP #8 – I am strongly opposed to this change. While I understand the difficulties in setting courses and getting enough volunteers, this rule change would place a tremendous financial burden on the base of the ADS competitors. Implementing this rule change would prevent many competitors from moving up from Training to Preliminary because of the financial burden in an already expensive sport.
RCP#8. Article:CD 937.3b
ReplyDeleteReason not change. 1) Drivers at Preliminary and Training level are not willing financially able to change carriages to meet this rule Remember we are dealing with a dying sport Robin and Wilson Groves Member ID: 13149 and Member ID: 13149-A
Name- Jillian Stroh ADS # 11226
ReplyDeleteRCP #8- Please keep the rule as is, I do not support the change. Requiring carriages to be all one width will most definitely hinder turnout numbers. The ADS is seeing a decrease in attendance anyway because of costs- now you want to require us to spend more money? Drivers will have to buy a new carriages or have their current carriages modified- all which costs money and isnt obtainable for many even if given a few years to comply. I understand from a show managers perspective why this rule change would be helpful, but I fear the result would be less shows from less people can come because they cannot comply with the new rules.
Support. As previously stated, we are losing shows due to lack of volunteers. If we retain drivers but lose shows, what have we gained. It’s quite possible to compete with one carriage AND meet the width requirements. I haven’t bought a new carriage without that option since this discussion came up the first time.
ReplyDeleteHelen Heinzer, #4240
ReplyDeleteI support all proposals except:
RCP #8, I support the current Rule.
I spent a lot of time reading this proposal and re-reading the ADS rule book.
While I empathize with the time and number of volunteers it takes to measure carriages and set cones, I can not change my standard size Kutzman marathon carriage at 125cm to meet the new standard size of min 138cm.
I am also not in a position to bring two carriages to a CDE to comply with this proposal.
~ Many of us at the lower levels use our truck beds to transport carriages, 125cm works, 138 and higher gets tough.
And there is no clarity that I can find where the NEW standard size cones would be set at for all the competing levels.
This proposal would definitely effect my ability to compete at CDE’s. Leaving me no option but to go Pleasure.
Tracey Morgan
ReplyDeleteADS # 13258
RCP #8 opposed
Volunteer cones setters will still have to be present to reset cones and balls hit by Drivers. The extra time to set cones has not been a limiting factor for Organizers in accepting entries.
Deborah Bevan. Member 4712
ReplyDeleteRCP # 8
I strongly disagree with requiring standard width carriages for training and prelim competitors
— these are the divisions that support our US shows with their entries. Many people at this level only do a few shows a year and this rule would put a financial burden on them to purchase another carriage. There are many safe older carriages out there that people use which do not have the required axel width.
— yes sometimes measuring errors occur as we rely on willing volunteers in our sport but I do not see this as being a big enough problem to require a rule change that mostly like would bump several competitors out of the sport.
— Does ADS really want to make it harder for people to enter shows? Our base are training and prelim people. As organizers we often encourage new people to enter our sport with what ever they have.
— if the ADS sees measuring errors as a problem, then at Championship classes make it a requirement to have a set wheel width but don’t make this a unlateral rule
GladysAnn Wells Membership #: 102560 RCP#:8
ReplyDeletePlease, this change would disqualify too many drivers and our sport can't afford to make driving competitions harder or more expensive.
EXP #8 Article;CD 937.3n. At ADS recognized events,with the exception of Small pony and VSE entries,advanced and intermediate dressage carriages will be required to comply with the carriage widths specified in the above chart effective Jan 1,2022 Preliminary dressage carriages will be required to coMply with the specified carriage width effective Jan 1,2023
ReplyDelete-- Below are survey questions you need to answer and send in to Rulebook@americandrivingsociety.org American Driving Society. 2016 Park St Ste,Cross Plains ,SO 53528.
1) Are you an ADS member. 2) What level do you compete. 3) Do you have a carriage that can carry a groom. 4) Is your carriage regulation width. 5) Are you willing to acquire.new carriage and equipment to meet the proposed rule change. 6) Are you able to transport more then one carriage. 7) Would you keep competing if you have to invest in these changes. 8) Would you remain an ADS member if you cannot make the new changes. . .
1. Life Member
2. Training through Intermediate - Horse, Large Pony and VSE
3. Yes - when I was competing with Horse and/or Pony
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. I am a life member. But, I could not afford to make the proposed changes if they applied to VSE.
In my opinion as a competitor and a volunteer the use of standardized width in cones works well.
Susan D, Lathrop ADS # 6775
EXP #8 Article;CD 937.3n. At ADS recognized events,with the exception of Small pony and VSE entries,advanced and intermediate dressage carriages will be required to comply with the carriage widths specified in the above chart effective Jan 1,2022 Preliminary dressage carriages will be required to coMply with the specified carriage width effective Jan 1,2023
ReplyDeleteKate Bushman Member ID: 10895
Eileen Davis Member ID: 8148
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to the RCP #7 & 8
I am strongly against these rule changes. The the state of the world (covid19) and the total lack of any meaningful events across the country why is the ADS trying to make things harder for current and possibly new drivers.
What is the ADS's need to conform with the FEI/USE and every other countries whim?
For all of the current drivers who are competing with vehicles that are different width I feel this would be a burden on them to purchase new vehicles. I can see people trying to extend or reduce their existing vehicles and accidents happening when they drive in an event. (and I have seen this happen) Who is liable when that happens?
This will discourage new drivers because we know that the vehicles that are the FEI/USE widths are made by the larger carriage companies and they are vastly more expensive. Not a good way to encourage new drivers!
As for the volunteer hours needed that is just part of the organization doing the event. They can use a standard setting for all vehicles for doing cones, and if stated in the omnibus then all competitors will know ahead of time and it will be their choice to bring whatever carriage they want.
The whole of the ADS members that do this sport for fun outweighs those that are wanting to get to the FEI/USE level so why punish them for the sake of the few.
Member Name: Penny R nicely
ReplyDeleteMembership #: 4259
RCP#:8
The use of the standard measurement for cones has been an option for
several years. There are some organizers who do not choose to use it
and their competitors prefer to be measured. Since the option is
available, it doesn't seem necessary to try to force everyone to do
something that they simply don't see the need to do. I have worked
quite a number of events since this became an option, and have only seen
it used once - for an Int II class. Lets not become too dictatorial with
rules that really don't affect the competition, have no bearing on
safety and certainly should be left to the discretion of the individual
organizers. If I had a vote(not that I do) I would not vote to approve
this RCP. Its totally unnecessary.
Rochelle Temple
ReplyDeleteADS Life Member #5096
RCP 8: Do not agree
Liz Goldmann
ReplyDelete2:12 PM (12 minutes ago)
to rulebook
Member Name: Elizabeth Goldmann Membership #: 12020670 RCP#:8
Nope. I use a marathon vehicle for all phases at our CDEs. I am not in a position to buy another, and those who twiddle with adjusting a currently engineered carriage are asking amateur drivers to mess with true engineering. If some modern carriage have adjustable axles that is nice, but do not disallow those of us with one cherished vehicle to compete. Please do not pass this proposed change. If I ever get up to FEI level (not likely) I'll buy a lottery ticket and a new buggy. Until then, let us who contentedly enjoy this sport at the lower levels do so without penalty. Thank you.
RCP #8
ReplyDeleteGayle Heiring ADS number 7278
I’m going to comment on this rule being effective for Preliminary level. Training and preliminary should be welcoming divisions that allow someone to be in the sport on a budget. Passing this rule for prelim is just burdening the entry levels of the sport with unnecessary expense. I can understand this rule for more advanced divisions but drivers should be able to participate in training and preliminary in the carriages they have already purchased unless it is a safety issue. This is not a safety issue. Encourage people at the entry levels!
Julie
ReplyDelete7:22 PM (46 minutes ago)
to rulebook
Member Name: Julie Kirchhoff Membership #: 20181543 RCP #7 & #8
I am strongly opposed to RCP 7 and RCP 8. I believe the likely result
in both cases will be to reduce overall participation in ADS events
especially at the training level and preliminary levels. The cost for
equipment and grooms would increase the cost of competing at these
competitions substantially. It would certainly reduce or even eliminate
my participation as I do not have a groom reliably available to assist
at all competitions.
Esther R Wright ( Boots)
ReplyDeleteLife member #5200
#8 no
Roger Cleverly
ReplyDeleteADS Membership # 37720
RCP #7
Grooms on dressage carriages
Reason for change? No reason has been stated by the proposer. Without a clearly stated reason, I am very much against this proposal. Whilst Presentation Vehicles have the facility for a bolt on dickie seat, Marathon Carriages are not designed for grooms to be seated, so it seems rather unnecessary for single horses and ponies. The proposal also adds another level of expense for competitors.
RCP #8
Dressage carriage wheel widths
The RCP, as drafted, refers to dressage carriages, presumably as defined in Chapter 7, Article 936 where reference is made, under the Dressage category, to Dressage Carriages and Marathon Carriages.
In Chapter 13, Article 973.1.9 vehicles are referred to as Presentation Vehicles and Marathon Vehicles.
May we have a clear definition of a ‘Dressage carriage’? I doubt that most ADS members could make that definition.
Do I detect a move to disallow marathon carriages for the dressage and cones phases? This needs to be made clear to the membership. Most amateur competitors, such as my clients, compete in two or three ADS recognized CDEs in a calendar year and would find it hard to justify the expense of not only the ‘dressage carriage’ but also a serious upgrade to their transport to move two vehicles.
If the long-term aim is to set one, standard width, cones course for each Division, then I fear it will foreshadow the end of Combined Driving in the USA. If standardized width courses are the aim, then consideration must be given to a new Class for those using just one marathon carriage for all three phases, or entries will melt away.
To make it quite clear, I OPPOSE RCP #8.
RCP #8
ReplyDeleteSome of us show ADS only because it is more affordable and we do not have aspirations of international competition. if you require 2 carriages for everybody at Preliminary and above, if will certainly limit entries. Everyone has a marathon carriage at that level, and with the speeds required, we could drive cones in that carriage with a standard distance between cones. For 2 day shows, you would just need to tell the secretary that you needed to switch carriages. You would not need to switch clothes.
Gloria Ripperton
12020050
RCP #8, Kathleen Carey, ADS #10474 - Disagree. Requirement would create additional expense and may reduce participation.
ReplyDeleteADS number 12039070 - Leslie Granger
ReplyDeleteRCP#8 - Disagree - requiring standard widths puts too much financial burden on competitors to get a new vehicle.
Kevin & Marcia Fetherston - ADS Member # 3797240
ReplyDeleteRCP#8. Article CD 937.3b
I disagree. I believe that at ADS events, there should be no required wheel track widths.
The grass roots of the ADS organization are not the elite few, with unlimited finances. The grass roots of ADS are everyday families, who love driving and want to be able to afford competing in the sport.
From what we have experienced here in Arizona, most lower level drivers are not going to spend the money to retro-fit or go purchase new vehicles, in order to comply. The majority of drivers in Arizona are frugal, working folk, who love the sport, and want an economical way to enjoy combined driving. Most look toward purchasing used vehicles (probably not compliant with the new proposed ruling). With so few ADS events on the West coast, we have to travel over 16 hours to compete at the nearest ADS CDE or HDT.
If this rule is implemented, I imagine you will see more organizers dropping their ADS sanctioned events, not wanting to sacrifice losing their existing competitors with non-complying carriages.
If you suggest that drivers can “modify” carriages, you are not taking into consideration that not every driver has ready access to the equipment needed, or a nearby company available to safely make such modifications in existing carriages. If using an out of state company, you would have to bear the costs of shipping your carriage to and from the carriage repair company & lose use of the carriage for a lengthy period of time. Would these modifications be safe, in the long run? An “after market” modified axle will inherently be compromised, regardless of the quality of workmanship. If you have ever had car repairs done (after a wreck) you understand that dilemma. It is never as strong as the original part. What happens if modified carriages begin suffering catastrophic failures, because ADS required changes in wheel widths?
Did you consider that those drivers having non-complying carriages will no longer have the ability to easily to sell their non-complying carriages. That means if you did purchase a new compliant carriage, you might not be able to sell your older "non-compliant” carriage, or would have to sell it at a significantly reduced price.
As for volunteers, you still have to have them to reset and recheck cones widths. Organizers generally group similar wheel width carriages here, and we have never had a problem working through competitors.
I feel that this is an unnecessary rule, which will not benefit competitors and works to the detriment of the sport. Why introduce another expensive and unnecessary rule, to push people away from ADS.
Member: Marcia Geil
ReplyDeleteMember #: 314480
RCP #8 - Opposed. Right now, I'm driving training - and looking at Preliminary. I do not have a "FEI width" carriage - nor the ability to upgrade to be able to compete with one. I drive a Frey marathon carriage - asking drivers to spend another 8K to 15K is not reasonable with the economic hits that the entire world has had due to COVID-19. We have standardized settings available now in order to not require the cones course to be reset for each drive.
--
ADS Member - Gale Pellegrino
ReplyDeleteADS # 11029
RCP#8 - No
Although my carriages do meet these requirements. I feel you would be limiting several people from competing as this would endure a large expense to buy a new vehicle for this purpose. I can see where advanced requires this however the training to intermediate should not.
Submitted by Ann McClure ADS #1190
ReplyDeleteArticle RCP # 8 – I’m strongly opposed to both RCP#7 and RCP#8. I only see a decline in competitors or recognized events. Personally, a similar type rule resulted in me not participating in FEI events. As an Organizer having cones measured is always a problem. This problem might be better addressed by how we measure cones. Diane Kastama had a good suggestion. I fear requiring cones to be driven] with the marathon vehicle will results in other problem.
Submitted by Carole Grimsley, member number 167100
ReplyDeleteRCP #8
Article: CD 937.3b
My comment: there is a large body of competitors who are active but stay at the Training or Preliminary levels for their entire driving career. In order to move up to Intermediate and above, it has become understood that a competitor must have 2 carriages, a presentation and a marathon carriage, plus all the transportation issues which accompany the additional equipment. My input is to leave the Preliminary levels out of this rule change for carriage width requirements, to allow those levels to continue to compete with a wider range of vehicles that they already own.
Comments on various proposed rules by Bill and Kim Allen (ADS #13146)
ReplyDeleteRCP #8
We are opposed to this change. This is unnecessary and only serves to increase the cost of competing. As long as the lower levels are still using variable-width carriages, organizers must provide staffing for that, which limits the potential to reduce the number of needed volunteers. With only a few exceptions, existing carriages cannot be modified to meet this change. This will reduce the number of shows we are able to enter.
Member name: Susie Weiss
ReplyDeleteADS Lifetime member # 4704
RCP # 8
I disagree! With the low number of CDE’s that are available in our (Midwest) area it is not worth the cost of a new carriage. But I can see where if everyone had the same width carriage, you would not need as many volunteers to measure widths where needed. But if you arranged the entries where all the same width carriages run back to back and then change the cones for the next width carriages, it would save some time in measuring cones.
With our soft economy right now, it looks like carriage dealers are looking for ways to sell new vehicles!
Name: Cindy Baehr
ReplyDeleteADS#: 12025280
RCP#: 8
This change has the possibility to require that a competitor replace their carriage. Some carriages have a non-conforming wheel widths. The rule would only be in effect for classes above training, but some of us spend a lot of time training our horses to advance to higher levels of competition. This change might require some to buy a new carriage.
For me, a new carriage would not be possible. I cannot afford to buy a carriage. I am only able to train and compete because of help from friends who have supplied me with a carriage. I love to compete, but I would not want to have to stay at training level because my perfectly safe and cared for carriage becomes obsolete. I cannot expect my friends to purchase a new carriage for me. They have their own expenses.
As competitions become more expensive, I have had to reduce the number of times I can compete during the year. If I had to add the price of a new carriage, I would have to stop all together. If these rules go into effect, the ADS would be effectively be saying that I was no longer welcome, and I would have to discontinue my membership.
Cheryl Pratt Rivers ADS# 032720 on proposed rule changes for 2021
ReplyDeleteI write to comment on proposed rule changes for 2021. I am a long time driver who has competed in both Pleasure Shows and CDEs from the training to the advanced level and have competed in Europe as well. I have attended several world championships as a spectator as well.
I am embarrassed that I have never paid much attention to rule change proposals before. This year though you have gotten my attention and I am writing with a sense of urgency and a deep disappointment at the direction of a couple of the changes. I appreciate the effort that people put into these changes, and support most of them. I oppose those that I believe will discourage and reduce participation in our sport which I believe is at risk for survival.
RCP#8- This is another proposal which will discourage participation. It is breathtakingly insensitive to
the realities faced by many drivers. I am an organizer and I routinely an easily deal with multiple widths
of carriages. The logistics of transporting multiple carriages to events is difficult. I have a four horse
trailer, but I like it much better when I can go to an event with one carriage. Then there is room for the
golf cart. When I take multiple carriages I either have to make multiple trips or incur the expense of
renting a golf cart. Resources are a reality for most drivers. Please do not make this into a sport for only
the wealthiest of competitors. Combined with proposal number 7, this is a sport killer.
Meghan Richey/Chuck McGrath, Member ID: 12030930
ReplyDeleteRe: EXP #8: ...Preliminary carriages will be required to comply with the specified carriage width effective Jan 1, 2023.
Is ADS going to buy me a new carriage by Jan 1,2023? I already have 2 carriages and 2 carts. I cannot afford another many grand for yet a 5th vehicle.
Name: Tracey Turner
ReplyDeleteADS # 2181656
RCP #8
While I think this too could potentially make competing more difficult and more costly for people without the means to purchase a new vehicle that is compliant with the new regulation, I understand that it will make running a show more efficient and able to run with fewer volunteers, I am concerned about the added cost of this for those who want to compete….as well as disposing of the carriages that don’t comply….who would buy them? It would have to be someone with no intention of showing, thereby reducing the market for those non-compliant carriages.
The sport of carriage driving, specifically CDEs is already expensive. If we hope to attract more people to the sport and keep a vibrant competitive schedule of events, this change would negatively impact that goal.
I do not support this change.
I am against the rule change #8.
ReplyDeleteStandardized widths would be great if we all had the money to upgrade our carriages. Adjustable axle carriages are probably beyond the means of most competitors and we want to encourage new drivers, not make an expensive sport even more costly.
Diane Kern
#3620
'Pamela Miller' via Rulebook Committee
ReplyDeleteMon, Aug 24, 11:06 PM (6 hours ago)
to Rulebook
Pamela Miller 8007 RCP# 8
Opposed. This rule is a step toward ending the ADS. People will have to get a new cart and likely take two carts. Bigger trailer and bigger truck. This adds a lot of expense. We need to attract new members to the fun of competition.
Organizers that put on CDE need participants to make it profitable. There will be less sanctioned events and less people at the sanctioned events. Less sanctioned events less incentive to join the ADS.
Getting enough qualified cone setters is a problem. I think Hardy Zanky’s idea of going back to letting people use a different cart for cones and dressage or combined with Diane Kasama’s suggestion we use the Dutch 2 width rule would reduce the number of adjustments.
I would also point out the entire area of Europe could fit in just the Pacific Region. We are much less densely populated with Driving competitors. What works in England is not a model for what will work here. We are not the same as the FEI or USEF. They need us to provide entries level rules that are inviting to new members.
Katie Twohy ADS Membership number is 624800
ReplyDeleteRCP #8
I strongly oppose this rule change proposal for the many reasons that have been well presented by other members.
8. No. It will require many buy new carriages and it is usually the beginners in the sport that have older hand-me-down carriage with won’t meet the requirements. It is a sport killer. It doesn’t change the requirement for cones pushers by much. Do not pass this.
ReplyDeleteBarbara Akers, ADS #3186, RCP#8
ReplyDeleteStrongly opposed. For the past 25+ years, we have run an event where we have 6 to 8 cones pushers at no cost, free! (And they come back every year) To retrofit an existing vehicle to the specified carriage widths or to buy a new one to meet the specs = $$$$$. Not very cost effective and would most likely put most competitors out of the show ring.
Gail C. Williamson ADS# 9265 ( Life Member)
ReplyDeleteI strongly oppose RCP#8 .
The strongest argument AGAINST has been stated by most of the other members.
ie Financial Burden.
The Standardized Track Width Change may have been easily implemented in Britain
mainly due to the small size of the country, the Much Greater Number of drivers
and the ready availability of parts from near-by Europe.
I would venture to say there are many more carriage dealers and workshops in Britain as well.
As far as the actual Cone Setting Process, yes, there ARE probably inaccuracies
but those are spread evenly through the entire competition and do not favor any driver in particular.
Cone Setters Volunteer and are happy to do the job - one gets to watch every cones round and
get a bit of exercise and socializing as well.
If ASKED if they Care/Mind 'inaccuracies' in cones setting- usually meaning a few >CENTIMETERS<
in one direction or the other I think that Drivers are much more forgiving of The Process
because the Volunteers who are there setting cones enable the drivers to Compete,
no matter what the level of competition.
Moreover, If asked the Choice between having to buy a new vehicle with Required Standardized Track Width
VS risking Slightly Inaccurate Cones Settings while being able to keep driving their existing vehicles,
I'm Fairly Sure what most of the answers would be.
The American Driving Society was formed to promote the sport of carriage driving in the US.
and, as the Governing Body, MUST be Allowed to encourage and Help drivers participate
safely and enjoy the sport with the resources they have readily available.
For Most US drivers, Being in Lockstep with Europe/ FEI is simply unnecessary and irrelevant.
NAME: ERICA ROBB
ReplyDeleteADS#: 6951990
RCP# 8: OPPOSE. Sadly, ADS continues to find new ways to squeeze out the average “happy competitor”. Advanced and Intermediate drivers are competing for different reasons and probably should get equipment appropriate to those goals. I have no issue with a requirement for those levels, although I question whether it is necessary to mandate what they drive. But this rule will prevent Training level competitors from trying to move up to Preliminary. Does that mean Training level will get bloated with those who really should move up? And Preliminary will include only an elite class who can afford to buy a new vehicle when they think they are ready to move up. Again, this rule will further shrink the sport. (PS: again, what exactly is a “Dressage carriage” – I have searched the current Rulebook and don’t find the term defined. Shouldn’t an RCP outline what the revised rule will actually say?) (PPS: the “reasons” stated are insufficient. I was volunteer organizer for a driving trial for several years and cones volunteer spots were a hot commodity with local 4H clubs. And driving in England & Europe is simply not like driving in the US on a number of levels, including number of active drivers, distance and frequency of events, and availability of affordable carriages.)
Alice Simpson: ADS #11501: RCP #8
ReplyDeleteNO. If the ADS is deliberately trying to deliver a coup de grâce to an already dying sport, this rule change will do it. If it passes, 2021 will be the last year I will be able to compete as I am now competing at the Intermediate level. Dropping back to Preliminary would only buy me one more year. I am a master of the art of carriage driving on a shoestring, because I am not made of money. I only have one carriage and it’s a marathon carriage. I don’t have a big enough trailer to haul the carriage, so I winch it into the bed of my 1995 Ford F250. It fits between the wheel wells with a quarter inch to spare on each side. The ability to extend the axles on my carriage is zero as far as I know, and there is zero chance I can afford to purchase a new marathon carriage with extendable axles any time soon, or a presentation carriage (and harness to go with it) plus a bigger trailer to haul it in, plus a bigger truck to tow the bigger trailer. I have no desire to compete at the Advanced Level and I will never be competing in national much less international competition. I am getting on in years and I just want to have a good time, and have something challenging to do with my horses when the day comes that I am no longer physically capable of dressage riding which is my main passion. If this rule change passes, when that day comes, you will deprive me of that opportunity. Pleasure driving does not interest me, and there are no pleasure shows left where I live anyway. And with the ADS on its current path of passing ever more rules and restrictions, there soon won’t be any combined driving events either. We have already lost most venues and are down to only two in California, and the number of competitors keeps dropping. Keep this up, ADS, and you will succeed in killing off this sport entirely, at least in the West.
Nor is this rule change necessary. Cone setters are needed whether cones widths are changed or not, to recheck widths if a cone is hit, and I have never found cone setting to slow down a show. Nor does it require nearly as many volunteers as does the marathon phase. This Rule change is a solution in need of a problem.
Kasey Ashley, my ADS member number 11536.
ReplyDeleteRCP No. 8.
I strongly disagree with these rule change proposals. Many other members have indicated the same opinion as my self. I agree with all their comments. Also as stated in my introduction, be mindful of the economic impact to your drivers. Without drivers, there is no sport.
Kasey Ashley, my ADS member number 11536.
ReplyDeleteRCP No. 8.
I strongly disagree with these rule change proposals. Many other members have indicated the same opinion as my self. I agree with all their comments. Also as stated in my introduction, be mindful of the economic impact to your drivers. Without drivers, there is no sport.
RCP#8
ReplyDeleteTasha Wilkie ADS #8572
Oppose
Member Name: Membership #: RCP#:
ReplyDeleteSheri Haviza #13248
RCP #8
People do not have the finances to purchase new vehicles, nor may they have the ability to change the structure of their present vehicle to accomodate this rule. Once again, this will be a hardship for some drivers that will choose to quit the sport.
I am expressing strong disapproval to both RCP #7 and RCP #8. Each of these changes makes it very difficult for new and casual competitors to compete. None of my current vehicles are compliant with RCP #8 and I would be excluded from ADS sanctioned events. I acquired these vehicles from other drivers who were upgrading or retiring. Competing at ADS competitions is complicated enough, without these rules. Needless to say, if I am no longer able to compete at ADS events, I will no longer maintain my ADS membership.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the ADS has betrayed competitors like me. Not so long ago, ADS split from USEF in part because USEF ignored low level competitors like me. Now it seems that ADS has become decidedly unfriendly to those same drivers. If these two rules are approved, I suspect you will loose casual competitors/drivers and smaller local events.
Barbara Estey #10461
Norma Katz ads#9273
ReplyDeleteI oppose rcp#7 & rcp#8
Not all carriages can accommodate a groom - not all carriages are regulation width. I believe that if competitors are forced to buy different carriages - it will negatively affect entries. I also believe that events will withdraw from ads sanctioning and if enough events do that, ads will suffer and ads membership will suffer.
Sterling Graburn
ReplyDeleteADS #1670
RCP #7
Agree. This does NOT mandate two carriages. One carriage with an adjustable axle will do it.
Correction. This referenced rcp 8
Delete