FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sensors (Basel) / Comparing the Difference in Traction Between the Bare Hoof, ...
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025; 25(19); 5975; doi: 10.3390/s25195975

Comparing the Difference in Traction Between the Bare Hoof, Iron Horseshoes and Two Glue-On Models on Different Surfaces.

Abstract: The interaction between equine hooves and various ground surfaces is a critical factor for injury prevention and performance in modern equestrian sports. Accurate measurement of surface grip is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of different hoof protection systems. This study introduces the Vienna Grip Tester (VGT), a novel sensor-based device developed to quantify rotational resistance-an important parameter for assessing hoof-surface interaction. The VGT utilizes a torque wrench and spring-loaded mechanism to simulate lateral hoof movements under a standardized vertical load (~700 N), enabling objective grip measurements across different conditions. Twenty combinations of hoof protection (barefoot, traditional iron shoe, and two glue-on models) and surfaces (sand, sand with fiber at 25 °C and -18 °C, frozen sand, and turf) were tested, yielding 305 torque measurements. Statistical analysis (repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction) revealed significant differences in grip among surface types and hoof protection systems. Frozen surfaces (SDAF (31 ± 8.9 Nm and SDF 33 ± 8.7 Nm, < 0.001) exhibited the highest grip, while dry sand (SDA (18.3 ± 3.3 Nm, < 0.001) showed the lowest. Glue-on shoes (glue-on grip, 26 ± 10 Nm; glue-on, 25 ± 10 Nm) consistently provided superior grip compared to traditional or unshod hooves (bare hoof, 21 ± 7 Nm). These results validate the VGT as a reliable and practical tool for measuring hoof-surface grip, with potential applications in injury prevention, hoof protection development, and surface optimization in equestrian sports.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-09-26 PubMed ID: 41094798PubMed Central: PMC12526972DOI: 10.3390/s25195975Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Comparative Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study developed and used a new device called the Vienna Grip Tester (VGT) to objectively measure the grip (rotational resistance) between horse hooves and various surfaces under different hoof protections.
  • It compared grip values among bare hooves, traditional iron horseshoes, and two glue-on horseshoe models across several surfaces, finding that frozen surfaces had the highest grip and glue-on shoes provided better traction than traditional shoes or bare hooves.

Research Context and Importance

  • Equine hoof interaction with ground surfaces is crucial for the safety and performance of horses in sports.
  • Proper grip prevents slipping and related injuries by stabilizing the hoof during lateral movements.
  • Different hoof protection systems (bare hoof, iron shoes, glue-on shoes) and surface types affect traction, requiring precise measurement methods.

The Vienna Grip Tester (VGT)

  • A novel sensor-based device designed to measure rotational resistance, reflecting the grip between hoof and surface.
  • Utilizes a torque wrench combined with a spring-loaded mechanism to simulate the sideways movement of a hoof.
  • Applies a standardized vertical load of about 700 Newtons to replicate the force applied by a horse hoof.
  • Enables consistent and objective measurement of grip across different hoof protections and surfaces.

Experimental Design

  • Tested 20 combinations involving:
    • Hoof protection: Bare hoof, traditional iron horseshoes, glue-on models (two types).
    • Surfaces: sand, sand with fibers at both 25 °C and -18 °C, frozen sand, and turf.
  • 305 torque measurements were collected to ensure statistical reliability.

Key Findings

  • Significant differences in grip were found among surface types and hoof protection systems (validated statistically using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction).
  • Surfaces with frozen sand (SDAF and SDF) showed the highest rotational resistance, with average torque values around 31-33 Nm.
  • Dry sand (SDA) exhibited the lowest grip, with average torque roughly 18.3 Nm.
  • Glue-on shoe models consistently provided better grip (approx. 25-26 Nm) compared to:
    • Traditional iron horseshoes (lower than glue-on but exact values not specified in abstract)
    • Bare hooves (approx. 21 Nm)

Implications and Applications

  • The VGT is validated as a reliable and practical tool to quantitatively assess hoof-surface grip.
  • Results assist in understanding how different horseshoe types and surface conditions contribute to safety by improving traction.
  • Findings can guide:
    • Injury prevention strategies by selecting optimal hoof protection based on surface conditions.
    • Development or improvement of hoof protection products, especially innovative glue-on shoes.
    • Optimization of equestrian sports surfaces to balance grip and horse welfare.
  • Provides a scientific basis for equine sports professionals to make informed decisions on shoeing and surface management.

Cite This Article

APA
Siedler C, Zinkanel YM, Schramel JP, Peham C. (2025). Comparing the Difference in Traction Between the Bare Hoof, Iron Horseshoes and Two Glue-On Models on Different Surfaces. Sensors (Basel), 25(19), 5975. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25195975

Publication

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
NlmUniqueID: 101204366
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 25
Issue: 19
PII: 5975

Researcher Affiliations

Siedler, Claudia
  • Department for Small Animals and Horses, Centre for Equine Health and Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Zinkanel, Yuri Marie
  • Department for Small Animals and Horses, Centre for Equine Health and Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Schramel, Johannes P
  • Equine Clinics, Movement Science Group, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Peham, Christian
  • Equine Clinics, Movement Science Group, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / physiology
  • Hoof and Claw / physiology
  • Shoes
  • Surface Properties
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Torque
  • Adhesives / chemistry

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 19 references
  1. Imhof U. Die Chronologie der Hufeisen aus Schweizer Fundstellen. Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilkd. 2004;146:17–25.
    doi: 10.1024/0036-7281.146.1.17pubmed: 15025201google scholar: lookup
  2. Cheramie H.S., O’Grady S.E.. Hoof repair and glue-on shoe adhesive technology. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2003;19:519–530.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00021-Xpubmed: 14575172google scholar: lookup
  3. Peterson M.L., Roepstorff L., Thomason J.J., Mahaffey C., McIlwraith C.W.. Racing Surfaces White Paper, 2012. .
  4. Redfern M.S., Marcotte A., Chaffin D.B.. A Dynamic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Device for Shoe/Floor Interface Testing. J. Saf. Res. 1990;21:61–65.
    doi: 10.1016/0022-4375(90)90003-Tgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. . Surfaces for Sports Areas—Indoor Surfaces for Multi-Sports Use—Specification. .
  6. Peham C., Schramel J.. Method and Device for Determining the Coefficient of Friction Between the Surface of a Test Object, in Particular of a Base and the Surface of a Test Body. Patent EP3141886A1, European Patent Office. 2017 March 15.
  7. Zinkanel Y.M.. Comparing the Difference in Traction between the Bare Hoof, Iron Horseshoes and a Glue-On Model on Different Surfaces. Master Thesis. University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna; Vienna, Austria: 2022.
    pubmed: 41094798
  8. Tan H., Wilson A.M.. Grip and limb force limits to turning performance in competition horses. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011;278:2105–2111.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2395pmc: PMC3107634pubmed: 21147799google scholar: lookup
  9. Horan K., Kourdache K., Coburn J., Day P., Carnall H., Harborne D., Brinkley L., Hammond L., Millard S., Lancaster B.. The effect of horseshoes and surfaces on horse and jockey centre of mass displacements at gallop. PLoS ONE 2021;16:e0257820.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257820pmc: PMC8610270pubmed: 34813584google scholar: lookup
  10. Brommundt E., Sachs G., Sachau D.. Technische Mechanik: Eine Einführung. 4th ed. Oldenbourg Verlag; Munich, Germany: 2007.
  11. Holden-Douilly L., Pourcelot P., Desquilbet L., Falala S., Crevier-Denoix N., Chateau H.. Equine hoof slip distance during trot at training speed: Comparison between kinematic and accelerometric measurement techniques. Vet. J. 2013;197:198–204.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.02.004pubmed: 23489849google scholar: lookup
  12. Horan K., Coburn J., Kourdache K., Day P., Carnall H., Brinkley L., Harborne D., Hammond L., Millard S., Weller R.. Hoof slip duration at impact in galloping Thoroughbred ex-racehorses trialling eight shoe-surface combinations. PLoS ONE 2024;19:e0311899.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311899pmc: PMC11469542pubmed: 39392818google scholar: lookup
  13. Harvey A.M., Williams S.B., Singer E.R.. The effect of lateral heel studs on the kinematics of the equine digit while cantering on grass. Vet. J. 2012;192:217–221.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.003pubmed: 21752677google scholar: lookup
  14. Linke P.. Vergleich der Rutschfestigkeit von Reitplatz- und Stallböden. Master Thesis. University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna; Vienna, Austria: 2016.
  15. O’Grady S.E., Poupard D.A.. Proper physiologic horseshoeing. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2003;19:333–351.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(03)00020-8pubmed: 14575163google scholar: lookup
  16. Semmelrock S. Auswirkungen der Bodenfeuchtigkeit und des Zusatzes von Holzspänen auf die Mechanischen Eigenschaften (z.B. Elastizität, Rutschfestigkeit) Eines Modellbodens für Reitplätze.. Master Thesis University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna; Vienna, Austria: 2017.
  17. Martino J, Pourcelot P, Falala S, Camus M, Holden-Douilly L, Chateau H, Crevier-Denoix N. Estimation of longitudinal hoof slip displacement at the canter on two different track surfaces using accelerometric and kinematic methods: A preliminary comparative study with one horse.. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2013;16((Suppl. S1)):139–141.
    doi: 10.1080/10255842.2013.815979pubmed: 23923884google scholar: lookup
  18. Crevier-Denoix N, Pourcelot P, Holden-Douilly L, Camus M, Falala S, Ravary-Plumioën B, Vergari C, Desquilbet L, Chateau H. Discrimination of two equine racing surfaces based on forelimb dynamic and hoof kinematic variables at the canter.. Vet. J. 2013;198((Suppl. S1)):e124–e129.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.046pubmed: 24360756google scholar: lookup
  19. McMahon J, Fleming P, McGowan H, Forrester S. 1 A comparison of two rotational traction test devices for artificial turf.. Sports Eng. 2025;28:13.
    doi: 10.1007/s12283-025-00490-ygoogle scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,048 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.