|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 6:52 AM
Post #1 of 72
(19362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
What are the issues? What testing has been done?
From what I have read so far:
1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling
2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it
3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?)
4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading
5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?)
6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
Are there any other reasons why I should or shouldn't connect two carabiners together? Can anyone confirm any of the points above with studies and testing info?
I've searched rc.com/google/wikipedia but couldn't find any useful info. Just a lot of anecdotal info. So please no responses like "I used these for years and haven't died yet", or "lighting will fall from the sky and zap you dead if two carabiners ever touch each other". Thanks guys.
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
flyingsherpa
Aug 21, 2007, 8:11 AM
Post #2 of 72
(19326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 1
|
Do you really need another reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 8:19 AM
Post #3 of 72
(19320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Hmmm, its not about what I need flyingsherpa, I just want to know the details on how these things work. Even if some of my above mentioned points are true, I can eliminate some of those risks.
Why should I be ignorant of other risks?
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Aug 21, 2007, 9:12 AM
Post #4 of 72
(19309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
Trentw wrote: What are the issues? What testing has been done? From what I have read so far: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling I've searched rc.com/google/wikipedia but couldn't find any useful info. Just a lot of anecdotal info. So please no responses like "I used these for years and haven't died yet", or "lighting will fall from the sky and zap you dead if two carabiners ever touch each other". Thanks guys. Trent.
I prefer my biners to stay clipped....... I guess it is a personal preference.
And lighting in this situation comes from the climbing gods. To prevent this, I have never seen a boulderer with two biners anywhere, but then again, the climbing gods don't like to hunt that low on the totem pole.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 9:38 AM
Post #5 of 72
(19297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Thanks flint for some useless info. I can say useless stuff too: Six pink helicopters don't eat grass.
I personally can't see why carabiners unclip from each other easier then with slings. Even if they did, a simple control measure against that would be to use screw locking biners. Surprise surprise!
I hope the signal to noise ratio gets better, or am I being to optimistic?
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Aug 21, 2007, 10:11 AM
Post #6 of 72
(19291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
Trentw wrote: Thanks flint for some useless info. I can say useless stuff too: Six pink helicopters don't eat grass. I personally can't see why carabiners unclip from each other easier then with slings. Even if they did, a simple control measure against that would be to use screw locking biners. Surprise surprise! I hope the signal to noise ratio gets better, or am I being to optimistic? Trent
Take two biners and clip them together, and then play with them. Twist them, pull them, whatever. You will see how easy they can come undone. Now try the same exercise with a biner on a sling connected to another biner, magically, the sling is much more secure.
Yes, using a locker would prevent this, but in most cases, and I am not speaking for aid climbing due to my severe lack of knowledge, using a locker is more time consuming and not as effective. Think extending a sport draw using another sport draw, or putting a draw on a cam which has a racking biner.
Please don't come back saying the twisting action of these biners would never happen in real life, I have seconded on routes were the rope has clipped into the pro side biner, and in doing so, clipper the other biner to it as well.
You just never know, so the best control measure is to use a sling. Or, if you have 12 lockers, and extra time, go for it. Honestly, people probably clip biner to biner all the time, I personally, along with the agreement of many others, think this is a bad habit.
Pink helicopters are vegetarians. Brown helicopters drink Guinness. Just adding to the noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 10:33 AM
Post #7 of 72
(19281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Thanks for the more detailed reply.
In reply to: Take two biners and clip them together, and then play with them. Twist them, pull them, whatever...
I tried that little experiment. For two minutes I flung two connected quickdraws around, pretty harshly, and they never disconnected. I tried the same with just a sling, and same results.
For the next experiment, I tried very deliberately to unclip the sling from the biner. It was pretty easy. The funny thing is, when I tried the same with biner to biner, sometimes when one would unclip and the other would clip back in!
I'm not sure if my experiments prove anything. I was actually hoping for something more sophisticated then Trents Home Experiments.
In reply to: Yes, using a locker would prevent this, but in most cases, and I am not speaking for aid climbing due to my severe lack of knowledge, using a locker is more time consuming and not as effective...
I have deliberately not gone into uses of these systems as to avoid confusion. I just want to understand the dynamics of biner to biner action first, then let these findings influence how I use them.
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Aug 21, 2007, 10:53 AM
Post #8 of 72
(19269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
I canīt say thar I have the answer. Anyhow - two carabiners will mean there are two gates which could be forced open. And due to the natural orientation of the carabiners a greater chance that one will be forced open.
I donīt think you will notice any difference by just flinging them around. Try loading them and when having them move around on an uneven surface (cliff wall).
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 11:12 AM
Post #9 of 72
(19265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: And due to the natural orientation of the carabiners a greater chance that one will be forced open.
Oh yes. I can see that. Well I think the point of carabiners unclipping from each other is covered well, how about the other points?
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Aug 21, 2007, 11:37 AM
Post #10 of 72
(19254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
Well, if somebody KNEW the reasons it would be better than me just using my knowledge in mechanics.
Shockloading: If we are talking of shockloading as for anchors because carabiners are non-dynamic my answer would be that a sling is also non-dynamic (enough to matter).
But if we are talking of two round edges against each other meaning a very little surface contact there is a "problem". The loading will get very high and you might theoretically get shearing. In practice I would be very surpriced if you got shearing, but I would expect a visual dent in the carabiners. Depending on the size this dent will weaken the carabiner and might even have sharp edges damaging soft materials like slings. I would retire carabiners with a more than negligible dent, but that would probably only happen after a long fall with high fallfactor.
Triaxial loading: Not good at all. People not used to mechanic calculations does not really understand how bad this can be. You will find threads dealing with the american death triangle with nice drawings. Please remember that most carabiners are built to take the load along the side with no gate.
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Aug 21, 2007, 12:01 PM
Post #11 of 72
(19239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
swede wrote: But if we are talking of two round edges against each other meaning a very little surface contact there is a "problem". The loading will get very high and you might theoretically get shearing...but I would expect a visual dent in the carabiners. Depending on the size this dent will weaken the carabiner
Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Aug 21, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #12 of 72
(19226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
theguy wrote: swede wrote: But if we are talking of two round edges against each other meaning a very little surface contact there is a "problem". The loading will get very high and you might theoretically get shearing...but I would expect a visual dent in the carabiners. Depending on the size this dent will weaken the carabiner Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue.
That is why I say "problem" - I do not see this as a major problem. However, there are recommendations for always having the same carabiner in contact with the bolt-hanger (and the other one for the rope) and also for not using slings which are not wide enough. If this is due to tests/ real experiences or just a safety measure based on how to conduct safety work - I donīt know.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Aug 21, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #13 of 72
(19226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
Trentw wrote: What are the issues? What testing has been done? From what I have read so far: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?) 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading Are there any other reasons why I should or shouldn't connect two carabiners together? Can anyone confirm any of the points above with studies and testing info? I've searched rc.com/google/wikipedia but couldn't find any useful info. Just a lot of anecdotal info. So please no responses like "I used these for years and haven't died yet", or "lighting will fall from the sky and zap you dead if two carabiners ever touch each other". Thanks guys. Trent.
You'd be surprised how much "gospel" in climbing is based on anecdotes and hearsay. For example, it's clear from your post above that you believe shock loading actually happens. In a properly set up rope safety system for rock climbing, it doesn't.
Bottom line: Do what the manufacturer says when using their equipment, heed their warnings, and use common sense. The rest of it is mostly moot.
|
|
|
|
|
binrat
Aug 21, 2007, 12:28 PM
Post #14 of 72
(19219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155
|
I have never seen this in a climbing situation, but have read a paper that deals with this in a rescue situation. if you want it try looking in www.sarbc.org
Binrat
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Aug 21, 2007, 12:34 PM
Post #15 of 72
(19211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?) 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
That about covers it. I've never heard number 3 and, considering all the biners on bolt hangers that haven't failed, I doubt it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #16 of 72
(19200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i think, to a lesser degree - auto unclipping is a problem and to a greater degree - linear rotation (rotation along the long axis) which would break them quick. PROBABLY be ok in most situations. why are you asking?
|
|
|
|
|
m2j1s
Aug 21, 2007, 2:01 PM
Post #17 of 72
(19147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Posts: 77
|
I once took a class on building anchors, and one of the first things the instructor told us was not to clip two biners into eachother. He then clipped two together and twisted them really fast, and they unclipped. so i'm not exactly sure how you were twisting your biners, but i do know how easy it is for them to come undone because i saw it happen ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:04 PM
Post #18 of 72
(19145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: For example, it's clear from your post above that you believe shock loading actually happens. In a properly set up rope safety system for rock climbing, it doesn't.
Shock loading can happen easily, this can't be disputed. I doubt a lot that you can set up a rope safety system, that involves carabiner to carabiner, that avoids shock loading. My querry was: does shock loading of two carabiners significantely weaken them? Swede and J_ung both provide some insight to this question.
In reply to: Bottom line: Do what the manufacturer says when using their equipment, heed their warnings, and use common sense. The rest of it is mostly moot.
This is my problem, welcome to the thread :). The manufacturer doesn't have a problem of biner to biner action, but a lot of others do. OR are you saying biner to biner action is good because the manufacturers don't warn against it?
Also I would like to know how unsafe triaxial loading is. It is hard for manufacuturers to release specific info on this, apart from saying "don't do it". There are times when I may want to use a biner that may potentially triaxial load it, and I want to know how much danger I'm in.
Oh goody, someone saying just use common sense, lol.
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:10 PM
Post #19 of 72
(19135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: I've never heard number 3 and, considering all the biners on bolt hangers that haven't failed, I doubt it's true
Yeah, that was one of my arguments against that point.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:14 PM
Post #20 of 72
(19126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: one of the first things the instructor told us was not to clip two biners into eachother. He then clipped two together and twisted them really fast, and they unclipped.
Hey, I just did the same thing. Cool! I've gotten good enough I can make one carabiner unclip, and the other reclip back into it; in one quick twisting motion. I should run a Achor Building Class. This will be proof that carabiner to carabiner is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Aug 21, 2007, 2:14 PM
Post #21 of 72
(19123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
j_ung wrote: Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?) 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading That about covers it. I've never heard number 3 and, considering all the biners on bolt hangers that haven't failed, I doubt it's true.
thats what I wanna know...wouldnt biner on hanger be kind of same ( you know metal on metal ...blah ...blah....)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #22 of 72
(19118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Hi Binrat, I had a look at the site, but couldn't find any info on this subject.
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Aug 21, 2007, 2:20 PM
Post #23 of 72
(19109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
dude, get your facts straight. Before the release of Jon Long's newest anchor book he and others did TONS of new testing and showed that shock loading is a myth. Do a search. The thread is eighty bijillion pages long, and also gave rise to the myriads of DIY new fangled anchors.
also, big wall climbing comes to mind. big wall anchors often entail a master point, to which a large locking carabiner is clipped. this biner then becomes the "new" master point to which everything else is clipped. This helps facilitate quick shuffling around of stuff (people, ledges, pigs, beer) at the anchor. Big wall climbing entails a LOT of weight and some pretty big loads if things go a little wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 2:24 PM
Post #24 of 72
(19102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: For example, it's clear from your post above that you believe shock loading actually happens. In a properly set up rope safety system for rock climbing, it doesn't. Trentw wrote: Shock loading can happen easily, yeah but does not effect a well designed system as much as previously believed. Trentw wrote: . I doubt a lot that you can set up a rope safety system, that involves carabiner to carabiner, that avoids shock loading. do you climb? are you around other climbers when you climb? do you see a lot of "biner to biner" setups? Trentw wrote: My querry was: does shock loading of two carabiners significantely weaken them? no Trentw wrote: This is my problem, welcome to the thread :)........Oh goody, someone saying just use common sense, lol. don't be nasty Trentw wrote: Also I would like to know how unsafe triaxial loading is and I want to know how much danger I'm in.Trent. very - alot
|
|
|
|
|
nepaclimber
Aug 21, 2007, 2:26 PM
Post #25 of 72
(19099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2007
Posts: 56
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: one of the first things the instructor told us was not to clip two biners into eachother. He then clipped two together and twisted them really fast, and they unclipped. Hey, I just did the same thing. Cool! I've gotten good enough I can make one carabiner unclip, and the other reclip back into it; in one quick twisting motion. I should run a Achor Building Class. This will be proof that carabiner to carabiner is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #26 of 72
(18015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: linear rotation (rotation along the long axis) which would break them quick. PROBABLY be ok in most situations. why are you asking?
I was going to list that as anoher reason not to do it. I think you would need a large twisting force to make a carabiner to fail in this way thou, and I don't think such a force would be possible. I may be wrong thou.
Why do I ask? For various reasons. One being that I value my safety, and those around me, and would like to know as much as I possibly can about the equipment I use.
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:31 PM
Post #27 of 72
(18012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: i have to assume that is a joke i think the fact that twisting it fast causes them to unclip should be reason enough not to ever do it.
No. You read me wrong. Twisting it fast in Trents Home Experiments, causes it to unclip and RECLIP. I seen it with my own eyes! and can repeat it on command. Proper experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 2:36 PM
Post #28 of 72
(18007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: linear rotation (rotation along the long axis) which would break them quick. PROBABLY be ok in most situations. why are you asking? I was going to list that as anoher reason not to do it. I think you would need a large twisting force to make a carabiner to fail in this way thou, and I don't think such a force would be possible. I may be wrong thou. Why do I ask? For various reasons. One being that I value my safety, and those around me, and would like to know as much as I possibly can about the equipment I use. Trent
"large forces" are what we deal with, the reason we discuss anchor configurations and saftey, why john long continues to refine his understanding of forces, loading. it's good to learn as much as you can. i learn every time i go climbing. as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe.
|
|
|
|
|
nepaclimber
Aug 21, 2007, 2:38 PM
Post #29 of 72
(18006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2007
Posts: 56
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: i have to assume that is a joke i think the fact that twisting it fast causes them to unclip should be reason enough not to ever do it. No. You read me wrong. Twisting it fast in Trents Home Experiments, causes it to unclip and RECLIP. I seen it with my own eyes! and can repeat it on command. Proper experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #30 of 72
(17992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: ok in that case i trust that means it is a 100% safe method to use and i shall start extending all my draws that way, because safty inspector trent can twist them out and back into each other and that will be how it happens in a real world senario all the time, you have cleared up everything for me
Ok nepaclimber, you obviously don't get my very clear patronizing tone; so I will spell it out as clear as I can. firstly I never wanted to hear anecdotal information. This is what you provided, and you weren't even the first in this thread to do so.
Secondly I have moved onto other issues which are more important. The unclipping of biners has a simple control measure, use a locking biner, so therefore anecdotal wanking on about this topic is a waste of everyone’s time.
Trent.
Oh, and by the way, Trents Home Experiments don't really exist.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Aug 21, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #31 of 72
(17982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I wouldn't extend a draw using a biner to biner connection just because I wouldn't feel comfortable with the opportunity for something dicked up to happen. One bad mistake is all it takes to get you killed so stacking the odds in your favor, perhaps being a little paranoid, isn't necessarily out of line. I will (have; and lived to tell of it, though that's anecdotal) connect biner to biner in more static situations, it certainly isn't significantly worse than biner to bolt hanger.
Triaxial loading on the other hand is not good. Look on your biners at the strength ratings. If you triaxial load, you will be loading at least partially across the weak axis of the biner which generally is only about 1/3 as strong as the major axis. Not something to play with, especially for significant force levels.
|
|
|
|
|
snowboardercolo
Aug 21, 2007, 3:10 PM
Post #32 of 72
(17976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 87
|
What I dont see is you realizing the force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing.
There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction, so I asked around. Not a good idea. Has anyone done it, a couple of climbers have said yes in an emergency situation. From the point I first started climbing I was told no metal on metal. If you are going to extend webbing then remove a biner. The purpose of the webbing is so it can twist and guide the rope, safely .
If it were safe dont you think it would be sold as such in stores? Just because it isnt in the warnings doesnt mean it is safe. With that logic I dont think you will be climbing long.
Would you feel safe falling on two biners that you clipped together even if they held would you keep using them? Would you feel safe for your fellow climbers? I can tell you I wont climb on his gear. The same point can be raised would you climb on a biner or ATC that had taken a good fall with visual damage? How much is your life worth? How much is the life of the person you are climbing with worth?
|
|
|
|
|
dalguard
Aug 21, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #33 of 72
(17976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2003
Posts: 239
|
Biner-to-biner is a stiff connection, even stiffer than a stiff dogbone. There are several disdavantages to stiff connections as compared to floppy ones.
* more likely to self-unclip
* more likely to cause gear to walk/pull/zipper
* more likely to twist in such a way that a biner is loaded across something and breaks
At an anchor, to clip one thing to another, I use biner-to-biner all the time. I'm not going to fall on those biners and they're being weighted in a nice, predictable downward fashion where my eyes can see them.
On gear, as I'm climbing, I don't use biner-to-biner due to the disadvantages described above. There is seldom any reason why you'd want to anyway. If you're needing to extend quick draws by clipping other quick draws into them, I suggest you buy some slings.
(Yes, biner-to-bolt is also a stiff connection which is why biners sometimes self-unclip from bolts and why you're supposed to be trying to keep the spine of the biner against the hanger to control the way the biner gets loaded.)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:12 PM
Post #34 of 72
(17976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe.
The noise is getting louder. I guess you have nothing much to do like me. Just posting useless crap every now and again. I don't want rules of thumb, and "don't do it" isn't good enough. And again, welcome to the thread Reg: You got it, I'm here to learn. I don't know how you thought I wasn't.
Trent
[I'm not sure how this forum works, but it seems more like a knitting circle to me. Correct me if I'm in the wrong forum, but I'm after some serious discussion on this topic. I would expect these replies in the general forum, and there is nothing wrong with that, but here I don't think it works]
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #35 of 72
(17963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe. The noise is getting louder. I guess you have nothing much to do like me. Just posting useless crap every now and again. I don't want rules of thumb, and "don't do it" isn't good enough. And again, welcome to the thread Reg: You got it, I'm here to learn. I don't know how you thought I wasn't. Trent [I'm not sure how this forum works, but it seems more like a knitting circle to me. Correct me if I'm in the wrong forum, but I'm after some serious discussion on this topic. I would expect these replies in the general forum, and there is nothing wrong with that, but here I don't think it works]
oky doky trent - since no one has given you the highly technical answer your lookin for, why go with your inate feelings: "it's not good! i shouldn't do this." right? and then continue your quest for the answer. call the manufacturerers, go to the shops. actually go out to crags and watch. then come back and...... pearl 1- knit 2. oh..... stop being nasty
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #36 of 72
(17959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: he force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing.
Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.
In reply to: Would you feel safe falling on two biners that you clipped together even if they held would you keep using them? Would you feel safe for your fellow climbers?
Well, this is what I'm trying to determine. Welcome to the thread, finally.
In reply to: he same point can be raised would you climb on a biner or ATC that had taken a good fall with visual damage? How much is your life worth? How much is the life of the person you are climbing with worth?
What has this got to do with anything? There has been no mention of biner damage. Whats my life worth got to do with anything? You seem to be presuposing that biner to biner is dangerous. Just stick with your reasons and avoid the fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:33 PM
Post #37 of 72
(17955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: 2. oh..... stop being nasty
Hehehe. Sorry about the abrupt replies Reg :). I'm just passionate when it comes to safety. Thanks for your contribution.
Trent
(This post was edited by Trentw on Aug 21, 2007, 3:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:42 PM
Post #38 of 72
(17946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: At an anchor, to clip one thing to another, I use biner-to-biner all the time. I'm not going to fall on those biners and they're being weighted in a nice, predictable downward fashion where my eyes can see them.
Good point. Can you explain exactly how you do this? Thanks
Trent.
(This post was edited by Trentw on Aug 21, 2007, 3:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Aug 21, 2007, 3:45 PM
Post #39 of 72
(17944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
.............. Troll
Just like every other troll, the first sign is to disregard the knowledge of those who have greater experience in the field. I am not pointing to myself here, but to the many others who care to give you the time.
It is good that you question ideas, but when you have proof in your "Trent Home Experiment" which we know you didn't do, then why push it.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Aug 21, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #40 of 72
(17936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Wow! Just reading through this thread shows how much people like to talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about.
Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling
Trentw wrote: 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it
Back in the day before quickdraws, a "quickdraw consisted of an oval clipped to an oval. The only reason this should be warned against is #1 listed above.
Trentw wrote: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?)
Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.
Trentw wrote: 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading
Trentw wrote: 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?)
Trentw wrote: 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
|
|
|
|
|
snowboardercolo
Aug 21, 2007, 10:07 PM
Post #41 of 72
(17880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 87
|
Back in the day before quickdraws, a "quickdraw consisted of an oval clipped to an oval. The only reason this should be warned against is #1 listed above.
Maybe that is why they were invented? To add additional safety to a dangerous sport.
Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.
Really, I guess that is why they are rated? Mine are 22 kN. I guess you can replace them with a bit of string? I am sure biner on biner or even a single biner is very safe when you are going over an edge and the biner will be loaded across the rock edge.
Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.
It doesnt have to be large force at all. You are forcing a piece out of spec and design which is one of the things I asked about when I saw it. Hook 2 biners to an anchor, put a rope in it and pull down. What do you see? You are forcing a load at the point where the biners come into contact. Which way is the load going to be directed? It was demonstrated to me and it forces a diagonal load. Now, how are biners rated? Where is the strength in the design? There you have your answer.
Does it weaken them? Im going with a YES it twists them with minimal hand pressure, watch the gates . On a fall I wouldnt want to be anywhere near it!
What has this got to do with anything? There has been no mention of biner damage.
You asked the questions yet you are very rude to the people on the board. The whole discussion evolves around possible damage.
Wow! Just reading through this thread shows how much people like to talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about.
You are not only including but starting with yourself here right?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 21, 2007, 10:16 PM
Post #42 of 72
(17874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
IMO
Hardware to hardware = not recommended
Hardware to software to hardware =ok
Biner to biner = not recommended
Single biner to biner Triaxial Loading = no
Single biner to 2 biner Triaxial Loading = possible
Single biner to 3+ biner Triaxial Loading = greater chance of failure
Multiple biner to multiple biner Triaxial Loading = 100% failures during sever shock loading
|
|
|
|
|
skinner
Aug 21, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #43 of 72
(17854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 1747
|
snowboardercolo wrote: There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction,
Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but why would you want a draw that created more friction?
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 21, 2007, 11:43 PM
Post #44 of 72
(17851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
skinner wrote: snowboardercolo wrote: There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction, Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but why would you want a draw that created more friction?
When your belayer is using the foot belay.
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 21, 2007, 11:47 PM
Post #45 of 72
(17846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue.
With bolts you always use the same 'biner for your bolt and the same 'biner for your rope.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 22, 2007, 12:10 AM
Post #46 of 72
(17836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
sinrtb wrote: In reply to: Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue. The nut wire would spread along the b'iner where as if you used a 'biner on another 'biner they don't spread their force across an area they focus all their force onto a specific point. This will cause a dent at least if not a full on gouge. Get enough of a dent/gouge and you have something that will damage your rope later. With bolts you always use the same 'biner for your bolt and the same 'biner for your rope.
That is just wrong. A one biner won't dent/gouge your other biner if your climbing on dynamic rope.
(This post was edited by rocknice2 on Aug 22, 2007, 12:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 22, 2007, 12:13 AM
Post #47 of 72
(17834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: he force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing. Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.
They dont have to be large because they are magnified through metal on metal leverage. biners are not meant to withstand any twisting forces let alone forces applied by a lever.
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 22, 2007, 12:28 AM
Post #48 of 72
(17824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
rocknice2 wrote: That is just wrong. A one biner won't dent/gouge your other biner if your climbing on dynamic rope.
Ya good point, didn't think about the dynamics of the rope thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 4:41 AM
Post #49 of 72
(17792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Hi Majid
In reply to: Hardware to hardware = not recommended Hardware to software to hardware =ok Biner to biner = not recommended Single biner to biner Triaxial Loading = no Single biner to 2 biner Triaxial Loading = possible Single biner to 3+ biner Triaxial Loading = greater chance of failure Multiple biner to multiple biner Triaxial Loading = 100% failures during sever shock loading
Thanks for your time, but I would prefer an explanation as to why you beleive this. I'm am not after rules of thumb, or a vote for the best method. If I did I would've posted in the beginners forum.
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 4:51 AM
Post #50 of 72
(17788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Thanks Trenchdigger for a well thought out reply.
In reply to: Trentw wrote: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.
I can't remember where I read this. Thats why I'm trying to confirm or deny it now. Swede brings up a point about the small surface area clashing together with biner to biner, and could be cause for concern. This does not happen with sling to biner.
This shock loading problem may not be a big issue, due to the millions of tests done every year on the cliffs with biners in hangers, and no reported failures (to my limited knowlegde).
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 22, 2007, 5:01 AM
Post #51 of 72
(9380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Trentw wrote: Thanks Trenchdigger for a well thought out reply. In reply to: Trentw wrote: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation. I can't remember where I read this. Thats why I'm trying to confirm or deny it now. Swede brings up a point about the small surface area clashing together with biner to biner, and could be cause for concern. This does not happen with sling to biner. This shock loading problem may not be a big issue, due to the millions of tests done every year on the cliffs with biners in hangers, and no reported failures (to my limited knowlegde). Trent.
start from here, I will get you more
http://www.uiaa.ch/...N12275Connectors.pdf
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Aug 22, 2007, 5:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Aug 22, 2007, 5:06 AM
Post #52 of 72
(9374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Trentw wrote: Swede brings up a point about the small surface area clashing together with biner to biner, and could be cause for concern. This does not happen with sling to biner.
True, however, with a little knowledge about the materials involved, you realize that this is not of concern. If the pressure becomes too great in the small area where the carabiners are in contact, the metal will just deform locally (ie. dent). I believe the procedure for pull-testing carabiners involves stretching them between metal pins of a standard diameter (I don't remember off-hand what that dia. is). I believe Omega Pacific pulls all of their carabiners to a certain (significant) percentage of their rated strength with this method. If you look at their carabiners, you'll see a little dent at either end where the rope would rest - that's from the metal pin during the pull test. Something similar would result in a significant loading of a carabiner clipped to a carabiner.
|
|
|
|
|
greenketch
Aug 22, 2007, 5:19 AM
Post #53 of 72
(9369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501
|
Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?) 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
To the best I can support or deny your questions here are some answers
(1) What can be done at home in practice is only partially supportive of on the rock. Two loose biners have been observed to unclip from each other as the rope or sling tugs them in differant direction. this usually happens when transitioning from loaded to unloaded states. It is normal an acceptable to clip biner to biner in aid climbing and when the load will be constant and predictable.
(2)BD only instructs on expected uses of a biner. It would be silly of them to add warnings against everything that can be done. Since there are known methods and uses of going biner to biner they can't really say don't.
(3) Shock loading weakening the biners is not likely. Even the 100% spectra cordage that is made. (I use it as a rigger but it is not in climbing use) has more dynamic qualities than a cable. There are several rigging texts that catalog this. It is also confirmed by any aid climber that has tried to use a funkness made with a sling it is cable or nothing. In the use in question I would suggest that a fall on several biners in a chain would be a brutal catch. One may even break a biner but nobody has ever tried it I know of.
(4) This is very likley the case. Why do you think that companies produce rigging plates to conect more than two biners to. I do not know of any tests but cannot concieve of a situation where the pulls would be oriented for all three biners to have correct loading.
(5) There are numerous test that confirm triaxial loading. Let alone the math of force mutliplication. Look at the certified rating stamped on your biner. these are established by both manufacture and third party tests. On axis is very differant from off axis which is diferant from open gate. How would you propose loading in more than one direction and not varying from the one known strong orientation?
(6)I don't see any question there. What is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 22, 2007, 6:02 AM
Post #54 of 72
(9359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Trentw wrote: ...Thanks for your time, but I would prefer an explanation as to why you beleive this. I'm am not after rules of thumb, or a vote for the best method. If I did I would've posted in the beginners forum. Trent.
Which is exactly where dumb-assed questions like yours belong, n00b
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 22, 2007, 6:24 AM
Post #55 of 72
(9347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading 5. Triaxial loading can severely weaken the biner (testing?) 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading Trent.
1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling
Depends on how your using them. The problem is more than just unclipping, it also includes a twisting load. As a biner is twisted it rides up on the other biner until a part of it is up against the gate. Then it unclips.
On lead if going straight up a combination of biners that lets the bottom biner sit parallel to the wall will not cause biner twist. This will require an odd # 3,5,7.... of biners on a bolt. On a traverse a perpendicular to wall bottom biner is desirable. Even # 2,4,6.. of biners.
A sling relieves much of these problems.
2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it
Black Diamond wrote: -Warning: In certain situations a carabiner gate can open accidentally. Rock protrusions can open a cara-biner gate, whiplash from a sudden impact can cause gate opening, and wear and tear can cause a gate to stick open. -Open carabiners pose a significant hazard to a climber because they are not as strong as when the gate is closed. -Try to envision how every carabiner you use will be affected in the event of a fall and place it accordingly. Think ahead. -Always read instructions and warnings that accompany your gear. -Seek qualified professional instruction.
3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?)
Severely loading of any biners causes them to be severely weakened.
4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading
Yes if the two biners have loads pulling in different directions.
If pull is in the same direction it's lessened but still there, especially if top biner is asymmetrical [d-shaped]. This is because one biner is not up against the spine.
Ovals handle this example much better.
5. Triaxial loading can severely weaken the biner (testing?)
A biner is weaker under triaxial load.
Plenty of tests you do the search
6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
Yes they do
Trentw wrote: Are there any other reasons why I should or shouldn't connect two carabiners together? Can anyone confirm any of the points above with studies and testing info?
You've been a real asshole. You gotten a lot of useful response but focused on the bad ones. Do your own research.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 7:45 AM
Post #56 of 72
(9339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: Which is exactly where dumb-assed questions like yours belong, n00b Curt
Oh hello Curt. Thanks for joining the thread with your presence of 11,000 posts. Tell me exactly why my questions are dump-assed?
Multiple searches on this topic didn't reveal much useful information. I did a little research, read through a few books, but didn't come up with any answers that satisfied my questions. Maybe you just can't answer my questions, thats fair enough, you don't need to get offensive about it. There are others here with some useful information.
Maybe you should put more thought into your posts, or not post at all?
All threads need direction, and I'm trying to keep this one going in the right one. My reply to Majid was courteous while informing him I would like more information and why.
Thanks for reading,
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 8:11 AM
Post #57 of 72
(9334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Hi Rocknice,
In reply to: Black diamond: -Try to envision how every carabiner you use will be affected in the event of a fall and place it accordingly. Think ahead.
Well, this is what I'm trying to find out with this thread. That point begs the question.
In reply to: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) Severely loading of any biners causes them to be severely weakened.
Shock loading doesn't necessarily mean severe loading.
I like your points about off-set D's and ovals. I would like to find some tests on how significant the triaxial loading is thou. Still looking.
In reply to: You've been a real asshole. You gotten a lot of useful response but focused on the bad ones. Do your own research.
There happens to be a fair few 'bad' posts, and since I like to reply to all posts, it may seem like I'm only responding to the bad ones. If I don't reply to the fluff posts I'm afraid that more fluff will follow, so I need to direct the thread away from these useless posts.
"Do my own research"? I thought this was an open and sharing community. I'm sharing info here as much as asking for it. Who are you anyway to tell me what to do? A moderator? An aspiring 11,000+ poster?
Oh I'm an asshole eh? Yes I have been abrupt, but no need for name calling, just keep with the well thought out posts. Oh what the hell, name calling can be fun. Go be intimate with an animal you poo poo head.
Cheers,
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Aug 22, 2007, 10:16 AM
Post #58 of 72
(9329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
poo poo head, really... come on.
just helping to fill your email with updates on the numberous, "useless" posts.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 23, 2007, 3:23 AM
Post #59 of 72
(9293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: Which is exactly where dumb-assed questions like yours belong, n00b Curt Oh hello Curt. Thanks for joining the thread with your presence of 11,000 posts. Tell me exactly why my questions are dump-assed? Multiple searches on this topic didn't reveal much useful information. I did a little research, read through a few books, but didn't come up with any answers that satisfied my questions. Maybe you just can't answer my questions, thats fair enough, you don't need to get offensive about it. There are others here with some useful information...
I could answer your question but this is very simple--and others have already done that adequately. The only reason for not clipping two carabiners together is a relatively minor concern: i.e. that they may become unclipped under some very specific circumstances. Interestingly, those circumstances are not under normal loading conditions, but rather when a rotational component is applied to the carabiners before they become fully weighted along their primary axis. It is relatively simple to set things up so that that can not occur.
Still, if you need a "black or white" recommendation, then it's probably best to always avoid clipping carabiners together--particularly if you have no idea what you are doing in the first place.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 23, 2007, 4:27 AM
Post #60 of 72
(9276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
swede wrote: there are recommendations for always having the same carabiner in contact with the bolt-hanger (and the other one for the rope) and also for not using slings which are not wide enough. If this is due to tests/ real experiences or just a safety measure based on how to conduct safety work - I donīt know.
My reasoning for always clipping the pro with one biner and the rope with another (i use standard gates for pro, wiregates for rope) is to protect my rope. When gear is fallen upon, there are times when the inside of the protection biner will develop sharp edges. If I were to clip my rope with this biner sometime later in a climb, the possibility exists for the resulting sharp edges to do significant damage to my rope's sheath (or worse!). Since I try to treat my rope better than this, I avoid clipping it with a "protection" biner, preferring to clip it with my designated wiregates.
Wiregates, BTW, experience less gate flutter in some situations which have a high probability of occurring during a fall. They are, IMHO, a superior solution to the problem of attaching your rope through a piece of pro.
edit to add:
Curt,
Is it really fair to participate in a battle of wits with an un-armed man?
I guess he did bring that shit on himself though... too bad for him.
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on Aug 23, 2007, 5:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 23, 2007, 8:25 AM
Post #61 of 72
(9262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
These are all the bits of info on triaxial loading so far:
In reply to: greenketch: (5) There are numerous test that confirm triaxial loading. Let alone the math of force mutliplication. Look at the certified rating stamped on your biner. these are established by both manufacture and third party tests. On axis is very differant from off axis which is diferant from open gate. How would you propose loading in more than one direction and not varying from the one known strong orientation?
In reply to: swede: Triaxial loading: Not good at all. People not used to mechanic calculations does not really understand how bad this can be. You will find threads dealing with the american death triangle with nice drawings. Please remember that most carabiners are built to take the load along the side with no gate.
In reply to: trenchdigger: It really depends on the orientation. On top of that if you try to stack too many carabiners in another single carabienr, you could conceivably end up with funky loading, but I wouldn't worry too much about this.
In reply to: rocknice2: Yes if the two biners have loads pulling in different directions. If pull is in the same direction it's lessened but still there, especially if top biner is asymmetrical [d-shaped]. This is because one biner is not up against the spine. Ovals handle this example much better.
Just to keep this simple, lets fix the overall force on a biner to a set amount. This rules out force multiplication coming into the biner. If we have a force going up and down the spine of an D shaped biner, this is normal loading. If we add another force to that at a different angle, say at 45 degrees to the gate, this biner is now under triaxial loading.
I'm a bit rusty on my mechanics, and not sure of how the aluminum they use in a carabiner performs so could someone please correct, with an explanation, if I'm wrong:
This carabiner will fail, not because of the triaxial loading in particular, but because the overall forces across the minor axis of the gate exceed its safety rating.
In other words, triaxial loading (assuming the total force into the carabiner is constant) is not important, but the amount of force across the minor axis is, which occurs more so when a carabiner is triaxially loaded.
Cheers,
Trent
Edit note: Fixed editing
(This post was edited by Trentw on Aug 23, 2007, 8:29 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 23, 2007, 8:26 AM
Post #62 of 72
(9262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: snowboardercolo: The same point can be raised would you climb on a biner or ATC that had taken a good fall with visual damage? How much is your life worth? How much is the life of the person you are climbing with worth?
In reply to: Trent: What has this got to do with anything? There has been no mention of biner damage. Whats my life worth got to do with anything? You seem to be presuposing that biner to biner is dangerous
In reply to: snowboardercolo: You asked the questions yet you are very rude to the people on the board. The whole discussion evolves around possible damage.
You were talking about your lifes worth which has nothing to do with this conversation. Let me explain: Obviously if we make the assumption that biner to biner is life threatening, and if you continued to use it in this way, one would then have to start questioning whether it was still worthwhile to do it; and bring up questions of life worth etc.
But there has been no assumption that biner to biner is life threatening. This discusion is looking at this exact point, with arguments for and against it, or more accurately how they work. Therefore your questions of life worth are not needed in this conversation.
I'm sorry if I come across rude. I may have mistaken this to be a technical forum, and it is really a social club for people to talk about how shinny their gear is, and how pretty they look in it. I'm nicer in a more social environment. I'm abrubt here, as this can be a pretty technical issue with many other points for confusion. I think people should lighten up a bit, and be a lot less sensitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 23, 2007, 8:54 AM
Post #63 of 72
(9258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: Curt, Is it really fair to participate in a battle of wits with an un-armed man? I guess he did bring that shit on himself though... too bad for him
Yeah, he really got me with the n00b comment, it hurts. And he used the red colour! Omg, I don't know what I'll do.
But to be fair too Curt, he did come around and provide a little info on the subject at hand, instead of just flaming for no good reason.
But good for you stymingersfink and encouraging senseless conflict. I hope it works out well for you in life.  I think this thread, and forum in general, will be more useful to people if we stop discouraging questions by using derogatory terms like n00b and calling people assholes.
I don't really care too much, I've been climbing for a while, and take safety seriously, so I will keep on asking questions. I may on the other hand be a little more reluctant to share as much useful information.
There seems to be a general running attitude of dumbing down answers or even discouraging questions. Why? Don't people want to understand how their safety systems work? [end rant]
I'm off climbing, although only indoor (its pissing down here)
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 23, 2007, 11:41 AM
Post #64 of 72
(9248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
stymingersfink wrote: My reasoning for always clipping the pro with one biner and the rope with another (i use standard gates for pro, wiregates for rope) is to protect my rope. When gear is fallen upon, there are times when the inside of the protection biner will develop sharp edges.
great point
(This post was edited by reg on Aug 23, 2007, 11:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 23, 2007, 11:58 AM
Post #65 of 72
(9245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In other words, triaxial loading (assuming the total force into the carabiner is constant) is not important, but the amount of force across the minor axis is, which occurs more so when a carabiner is triaxially loaded. Cheers, Trent Edit note: Fixed editing
triaxial loading is important - no matter if the total force onto the carabiner is constant or not - if the load exceeds any "off axsis" recomendations - you may die or worst. is that clear enough? trent - don't be a dick - only richard (me) can be a dick!
|
|
|
|
|
swede
Aug 24, 2007, 7:18 AM
Post #66 of 72
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 133
|
reg wrote: Trentw wrote: In other words, triaxial loading (assuming the total force into the carabiner is constant) is not important, but the amount of force across the minor axis is, which occurs more so when a carabiner is triaxially loaded. Cheers, Trent Edit note: Fixed editing triaxial loading is important - no matter if the total force onto the carabiner is constant or not - if the load exceeds any "off axsis" recomendations - you may die or worst. is that clear enough? trent - don't be a dick - only richard (me) can be a dick!
My mechanics are also a bit rusty and I have to explain in a foreign language. Triaxial loading should theoretically still matter.
The minor axis thing is one part of the problem. Forces are vectors which mean that you can divide them "along axis" and "off-axis" and use the ratings printed on the carabiner.
The second part is that IF you have a large angle between the triaxial load AND the point most pointing away from the loading from the climber have to take up a large part of that force - there is going to be a very high loading at that carabiner (due to vectors). I know this is not good explained but if you are familiar with vector forces you should get it.
The third part is momentum. Most probably in the triaxial loading case you will have one carabiner close to the spine of the carabiner and the other one close to the nose/gate opening. This will mean a momentum arm increasing the loading at the spine (since movement will most probably occur at the weaker gate opening). Several pictures I have seen on failure due to triaxial loading show the carabiner broken/bent near the top of the spine, which must be due to momentum.
(This post was edited by swede on Aug 24, 2007, 10:53 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JTeastAZ
Jul 11, 2014, 12:01 AM
Post #67 of 72
(8364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2014
Posts: 5
|
I posted this in a similar thread, but I'll repeat it here:
I've done a lot of training in industrial fall protection, and the reason clipping a gated connector (like a carabiner) to another is forbidden is that when the devices are twisted, the gates can be side-loaded. Most gates are weakest if loaded from one side (most climbing equipment manufacturers don't even post the side-load rating for the gate). ANSI 2005 required stronger gates on industrial equipment, but the gate still has a lower rating side-loaded. A bolt won't side-load a gate because the radius of the bolt has been carefully designed to prevent side-loading most biner designs. With non-lockers, twisting can cause opening, but with lockers, the locking sleeve can actually create a hang-up point for the second biner, and cause side loading. Think about biner design, and you can see how the pivot on the gate is a weak point when loaded wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 11, 2014, 12:59 PM
Post #68 of 72
(8342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
JTeastAZ wrote: I posted this in a similar thread, but I'll repeat it here: I've done a lot of training in industrial fall protection, and the reason clipping a gated connector (like a carabiner) to another is forbidden is that when the devices are twisted, the gates can be side-loaded. Most gates are weakest if loaded from one side (most climbing equipment manufacturers don't even post the side-load rating for the gate). ANSI 2005 required stronger gates on industrial equipment, but the gate still has a lower rating side-loaded. A bolt won't side-load a gate because the radius of the bolt has been carefully designed to prevent side-loading most biner designs. With non-lockers, twisting can cause opening, but with lockers, the locking sleeve can actually create a hang-up point for the second biner, and cause side loading. Think about biner design, and you can see how the pivot on the gate is a weak point when loaded wrong.
You feel the need to dredge up a seven year old thread in order to repeat what you already posted in another old thread you dredged up?
If what you have to say is interesting - start a new thread. No-one (but you) wants to try to converse with people who have been gone from the site for years.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
Owner
Jul 14, 2014, 8:34 PM
Post #72 of 72
(8212 views)
Shortcut
|
Admin note:
I hid some posts about whether this thread should have been bumped.
In general, bumping old threads is poor netiquette, and it's better to start a new thread.
However, threads like this get a *lot* of traffic from new climbers googling for climbing info, so I appreciate JTeastAZ adding this useful info.
It's unfortunate that this also bumps the thread, but that's a software limitation--hopefully in the forum software I move to, I can code in a feature to "unbump" a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
