We tested 10 brands of open-front tendon boots to evaluate their performance across four key areas: Impact protection, Dry weight, Water absorption, and Insulation. These aspects are crucial when assessing the effectiveness and practicality of tendon boots in real-world conditions.
Impact protection helps determine how well a boot can reduce force transmitted to the leg from external blows and the ability to prevent penetration of a shoe through to cut the tendons, which is vital in reducing injury during jumping, cross-country, or hacking. Weight can affect gait, particularly for competition or long-term wear. Water absorption is important for safety and practicality, especially in wet conditions or cross-country in and out of the water where heavy, water-logged boots can alter gait and affect performance. Measurement of insulation (how much the boots retain heat) gives insight into how much heat is retained inside the boot encasing the leg, in particular the tendons, which can influence tendon health and comfort. To find out more about this, check out Dr David Marlin’s webinars.
By ranking each boot in all categories and calculating an overall average score, we’ve created a comprehensive comparison to help riders and professionals choose the right boot for their horses’ needs.
The following boots were purchased for testing.
- Arma Oxi-Zone
- Cryochaps Exoskeleton
- E-Quick
- Equilibrium Tri-Zone
- Eskadron Protection
- Kentucky Bamboo Shield
- LeMieux Exo Flex
- PE Flex Tech Carbon Pro
- Stubben & Evolution
- Veredus Carbon Gel Absolute
Boots were assessed for:
- Dry weight
- Water absorption
- Insulation
- Impact protection
Dry Weight
Each boot was weighed dry on a calibrated scale with a range of 0-6000g. Boots were ranked from lightest (1) to heaviest (10). The lightest boots were Equilibrium Tri-Zone, Eskadron Protection and Cryochaps Exoskeleton and the Arma Oxi-Zone and PE Flex Tech Carbon Pro were the heaviest.
Water absorption
Boots were placed in a bowl of water at 15°C for 5 minutes. The boots were fully submerged, and a weight was placed on top to keep them submerged. After 5 minutes, the boots were removed and hung vertically for 2 minutes. The boots were then weighed. The figure below shows the weight of the boot after it has been soaked. Boots were ranked from the least to the most water-absorbent. Most of the boots only absorbed 40-50g (ml) of water, but the Stubben & Evolution and Arma Oxi-Zone absorbed around 67g and 79g, respectively!
Insulation
Each boot was mounted on an aluminium flask. The flask was supplied with water at 40°C by a pumped water bath. The inflow was at the bottom of the flask, and the return was via the top of the flask. The flask was placed on a magnetic stirrer with a 60mm x 8.5mm (length x diameter) magnetic stirring bar. A fan generating airflow at 20-22°C at 8 m/s at the flask was placed 30cm away. Boots were attached to the flask so that the open front faced the fan. Type T thermocouples were placed at the inflow, outflow, flask surface and fan. The R value (insulation) value, was calculated and expressed as m²·K/W. Boots were ranked from least insulation (1) to most insulation (10). The Cryochaps Exoskeleton was the clear winner in terms of insulation, with a very low value. The Arma Oxi-Zone was by far the most insulating boot tested in this group of boots.
Protection
Boots were tested for impact protection by dropping a 2.36kg mass with a horseshoe impactor onto boots tightly fastened to a steel cylinder. The steel cylinder was in turn mounted on an “anvil”, which was in turn bolted to a steel frame. The cylinder was covered with a layer of 3mm thick leather. Peak impact was measured by a single-axis accelerometer with a range of ±500g. The signal from the accelerometer was logged at 50KHz via a USB 1608FS on a Windows laptop running McDAQ software. The initiation of data collection was via an infrared switch. The software was set to record 5000 data points. The peak voltage was recorded and converted to acceleration (g). The peak impact force was calculated from the peak deceleration divided by the impactor mass. Each boot was impacted 5 times, and a mean±SD was calculated. On completion of the 20J tests, each boot was examined for signs of damage and photographed inside and outside. Boots were ranked from most protection (lowest peak impact force, 1) to lowest protection (highest peak impact force, 10).
In contrast to testing we carried out previously, it was encouraging that none of the boots actually failed; failure is defined as the inner surface of the boot being penetrated, which would result in serious tendon damage or the boot being so badly damaged that the next impact would result in full penetration. E-Quick and Cryochaps Exoskeleton reduced the impact the most, whilst the rest of the boots were similar.
Visual observations
None of the boots suffered a catastrophic failure. Eskadron Protection and Equilibrium Tri-Zone demonstrated the most external damage. Eskadron Protection, Kentucky Bamboo Shield, Stubben Evolution and Veredus Carbon Gel Absolute all demonstrated moderate internal damage.
- Arma Oxi-Zone
No evidence of external damage. Slight permanent compression of the inner lining around the impact area. - Cryochaps Exoskeleton
Slight minor scratching of the outer impact area. Small areas of deformation of the middle lining material. - E-Quick
No obvious external damage. Small area of internal damage. - Equilibrium Tri-Zone
Obvious marking of the external strike area. No evidence of internal damage. - Eskadron Protection
Noticeable moderate external scratching. One area of internal loss of protection corresponds to external indentation. - Kentucky Bamboo Shield
Very mild external scratching. Several areas with loss of internal protection – permanent deformation. - LeMieux Exo Flex
Very mild external scratching. One small area of internal damage. - PE Flex Tech Carbon Pro
Very mild external scratching. Slight internal damage - Stubben & Evolution
Mild external scratching. Moderate internal damage. - Veredus Carbon Gel Absolute
Mild external scratching. Some internal permanent deformation and a visible split in the lining.
Overall Scores
For each aspect assessed, boots were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, and the average rank was calculated.
Typical Price
Summary
We tested the top ten most requested open-fronted tendon boots from an Animalweb public poll. We tested the rear-strike guard mid area with a horseshoe impactor up to 20J, which represents a very high impact from a hind shoe. The ONLY reason for wearing an open-fronted tendon boot is to protect the tendons. Therefore, the most important factor is the impact protection. Secondary considerations are how insulating or heating the boots are, as heat contributes to tendon injury. A lower consideration is weight, as this can affect gait, and the less weight placed at the end of the leg, the better. The less water they absorb, the better, as this changes the weight of the boot during exercise which may affect gait.
None of the boots tested failed completely, which is encouraging, although the Eskadron Protection and Stubben & Evolution had evidence of both external and internal damage. Although Eskadron Protection was the least expensive boot tested and ranked second overall, it ranked sixth for protection and combined with the damage observed would not be a boot we would recommend for potential high-impact activity. The lightest boot tested was the Equilbrium Tri-Zone, and this comes in around £60. It performed OK for impact protection, although there was quite obvious external damage, and this version did not perform as well for insulation as previous versions we have tested. The eQuick boot came top for impact protection, but is relatively expensive at around £162 and was one of the heaviest and worst for insulation.
Bottom Line
Based on protection, weight, insulation and price, the new Cryochaps Exoskeleton is our standout choice. This boot only showed minimal damage as a result of 20+ high impacts in the same area and is one of the least heating boots we have ever tested.
Part of this work was made possible through external funding support. All testing and research were conducted independently by Animalweb, and the findings reflect our own results and conclusions. The funding in no way influenced the outcome or results of the research and testing.
