[QUOTE=Guilherme;7879737]
All rigid tree saddles “flex” to some degree. They are designed to do so as the back of a horse is a constantly changing “landscape” and the saddle must conform to those changes. A heavy “steer roping” saddle will flex less than a light weight “pleasure saddle” but both will have some “give” in them. Well engineered saddles take this account; they are usually more expensive but quality doesn’t cost, it pays.
The first patents for “flexible tree” saddles date to the 1840s. Multiple inventors tried to make them work successfully. In 1912 both the U.S. and British cavalries introduced “flexible tree” saddles. The U.S. abandoned the effort after the Punitive Expedition where the 1912 Experimental Saddle demonstrated the twin vices of failing in field service and soring horses’ backs. The British abandoned their version fairly quickly but Aussies used it until after WWI. Then they returned to a treed saddle.
Regarding weight, note that the standard load carried by a U.S. horse was 230-250 lbs. and the British load was 280-300 lbs. (their tack and weapons were slightly heavier than the U.S. equivalents). The load on German and Austrian horses during the Great War often ran to 325 lbs. plus. The McClellan, UP, and Armeesattels of the day were rigid tree and demonstrated reasonable success in the field.
Because rigid trees “flex” the argument that they “sore” backs because of pressure points at the corners is very questionable. A major problem with “treeless” saddles is that they don’t effectively distribute weight so that the rider in one of these has effectively traded four “corner” pressure points (which may or may not even exist) for two giant pressure points under their butt. This does not, to me, seem much of a trade. Nor does my horse think much of it. 
How about a “corrective pad” under the flex tree/treeless saddle to correct the “non-distribution” flaw? That might work but it seems to me to be adding a level of complexity, and expense, to the problem. The KISS principle still has merit when it comes to saddle selection.
No “flex tree” saddle ever achieved commercial success during the Age of Horsepower. I’ve yet to see a modern take on this idea, which has consistently failed over time, which effectively addresses the flaws inherent in the “flex” theory and practice.
G.[/QUOTE]
This was really interesting, and I never would have thought that a traditional tree flexed at all, given how heavy and solid they are. But the way you put it, it makes sense!!
I currently weigh in at a hair under 220lbs. Add in the fact that my balance is poor compared to last year due to being out of the saddle for most of the last year due to my injury, and now I don’t have the best use of the (now healed) injured leg. Even if I was under 200lbs I know that I am in no way a candidate for a treeless, even if one interested me. But the flex tree concept has been suggested by many to try for my gelding, and I worried that the issue I would have with a treeless would be the same with a flex tree.
Aktil: the flexible tips actually seems like a good idea to me. What is it that makes you think it is not? (Honestly wondering because it seems smart to me!)
