How to make a safer trampoline

Most folks are creatures of habit. Change is hard. We normally build things the way that worked last time.

Trampoline frames have not changed size since 1966. Since then, bed webbing width has gone from 25mm to 4mm.  Meanwhile rules have been added to encourage jumping high and doing more triple somersaults. Perhaps it is time for a larger trampoline frame?

Athletes are jumping much higher than in 1966. At international competitions usually more than one third of the male competitors fail to complete their preliminary routines. Is this acceptable? Are the athletes and coaches to blame? Having more tries recognized the problem but did not improve safety!

Since 1966 multiple equipment changes have been made to deal with athletes who miss the bed…

• End Decks
• Corner springs
• Thicker frame pads
• One throw mat per trampoline
• Thicker and more extensive mats on the floor
• Two throw mats per trampoline

These important improvements have not dealt with the main problem. The distance from the last bit of bed an athlete can use to the inside edge of the steel frame is only 38cm.  The same as it was in 1966.

Injuries of competitive athletes are from…

• Landing on the bed incorrectly.
• Landing very close to the side of the bed where it angles steeply.
• Landing with one leg on the bed while the other leg passes under the frame pads, and between two springs.
• Landing on the feet either just inside of or on top of the steel parts of the frame.
• Landing on the feet on the tapered edges of the end deck
• Concussions from slapping back onto the end decks.
• Falling off.

The athlete’s goal is to land on the bed. When they fail to do so, they are most likely to land close by. So, making the hazardous places further away and/or safer to land on, would make our sport safer.

To address this, how about?

1. Instead of specifying bed size, specify the athlete working area. (Area not covered by padding.) This should be at the CURRENT MINIMUM SIZE or A BIT SMALLER to maximize safety. This would permit beds to extend further under the frame pads.
2. Increase the maximum allowable frame size but keep the current minimum size. This would permit frames to be made which have the frame further from the edge of the working area. This would reduce the probability of all injury types except the first. Meanwhile all existing frames would still be acceptable. Due to D) below the peak forces with wider frames can be significantly reduced which should help with both the first accident type, and overuse injury severity!

The potential safety improvements are…

A) Both frames and beds could be wider and longer. This would put the practically immovable hard frame further from the edge of the working area.

B) The bed could extend well under the side frame pads. Meanwhile with only a 32cm increase in frame width, the permissible frame pads on the sides could be 1.5 times wider than at present. This also make the edges of the working area of the bed safer as the bed will not be at such a steep angle. The extra wide frame padding becomes a low cost built inside deck.

C) At the ends of the trampoline longer beds could also extend well under the padding. This would mean the end decks could be shorter. The benefit is that the steel frames are further from the action.

D) There is an additional potential safety gain in lower peak bounce forces. At present the smoothness of the trampoline force curve is limited by the short 38cm space allowed for the springs. With more space a smoother bouncing spring can develop enough initial tension to stop bottom out.

Note that existing beds can work on larger frames by using low-cost cord extensions between the springs and the bed. These cords would be completely under the frame pads. Also note that with wider pads, the padding could be thicker (closer to the 10cm maximum) over the frame without a radical angle to the padding.

Larger frames will give a smoother bounce and a larger safe zone outside of the jumping area. Stability within the working area would be increased.

Although such frames would be more expensive, due to the smaller size of the end platforms and one part mats on them, the total cost should be similar to the present complete set up. Also, with a bed that extends well under the frame pads, the springs would rarely receive a direct hit, and hence should last longer.

Should we turn a blind eye to a possible safer future for our sport? One argument against changes is that it will cost money during these difficult economic times.  Has anyone demanded that narrower DMT beds to be brought back? When exactly will the easy economic times arrive?

Old equipment could still be legally used. As the equipment wears out it could be replaced by something superior. Meanwhile when some Clubs switch over to the new equipment, used equipment would become available at a good price for those clubs on a tight budget. Frame widening conversion kits could also be made. On the other hand if nothing is done Clubs will have only one option… to keep buying trampolines which are less safe than they could be.

It has been 58 years. What are we waiting for!

The new 2025 rules encourage more triples, on very powerful beds. Without some change it is possible that the incidence of injuries will increase.

Let’s make safety a priority.