|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 1, 2006, 6:34 AM
Post #1 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
i want an absolutely bombproof attachment between my harness and a cinch for rope soloing. i have a big steel biner, but its heavy and long enough that the distance between harness and cinch is annoying.
ideally, i'd like to use a quicklink. the common 3/8" links are generally rated to one or two thousand pounds, with safety factors from 5:1 to 10:1.
so, it sounds reasonable, but i dont want to die.
has anyone had any experience with a quicklink ever breaking? does it happen? is this an appropriate application (assuming i buy a name brand link)? is there a better product i should look into?
i am not happy with Al lockers because i could crossload and break them in a worst case fall.
i suppose i could tape an aluminum locker so that it could not crossload, or use the belaymaster-type biners, but a shorter connection from cinch to harness would still be desirable for me.
-anthony
|
|
|
|
|
t-dog
Deleted
Jun 1, 2006, 6:40 AM
Post #2 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I'm not sure how you would set up a cinch for rope soloing, but if you're main concern is to prevent cross-loading, there might be another option available.
Notably, if there is any kind of upper loop-hole or attachment on the top of the cinch, you can tie a piece of webbing through that, make a big loop, and put it over your head. That way when you stand up, you will naturally pull the cinch upright.
Of course, if you're in the habit of doing full back-bends while climbing, this might not work, but if not, it's something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
treez
Jun 1, 2006, 6:42 AM
Post #3 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2004
Posts: 347
|
I attach my soloist to my belay loop with 7mm cord. I'm not familiar with the cinch. It might be too sharp or something. The soloist has a huge radius.
I don't see why a quicklink wouldn't work. You might want to tighten it with a wrench and tape it.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 1, 2006, 7:25 AM
Post #4 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
You just had a bad dream and nothing is going to happen to you unless your time is up, trust me
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Jun 1, 2006, 12:51 PM
Post #6 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
I've also used a quick link for attaching my Grigri for top rope soloing. I'm not sure what diameter but probably it was a 3/8". It worked fine. I'm not sure about the breaking strength for lead soloing but I would think that it would be plenty strong. I remember checking that out when I used it.
I'm not sure I would lead solo on a Cinch because of the small contact area as was previously stated. I think only a Soloist or Silent Partner distribute the stress on the rope over an adequate area.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Jun 1, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #7 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I use a short piece of webbing tied in a loop with a water knot instead of a carabiner or quick link. It can't cross load, and it's a tied runner so it's plenty strong. The main disadvantage is the inconvenience of tying and untying the webbing.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 1, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #8 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: I attach my soloist to my belay loop with 7mm cord. I'm not familiar with the cinch. It might be too sharp or something. The soloist has a huge radius. I don't see why a quicklink wouldn't work. You might want to tighten it with a wrench and tape it.
Per the Soloist instructions, I use rope to connect directly to my harness belay loop as well. (9mm rope fits and is much stronger than your 7mm). I am uncomfortable with the rope to webbing connection.
I've also used it without the chest harness they recommend and find it works fine for TR with that config.
I've only used a Cinch a couple of times, and don't remember if theres room for 2 Krabs (there is on the silent partner) but Trango makes the lightest lockers out there. How about using 2 of them, oppposed and reversed?
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 1, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #9 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
thanks for the many helpful responses.
In reply to: I've only used a Cinch a couple of times, and don't remember if theres room for 2 Krabs (there is on the silent partner) but Trango makes the lightest lockers out there. How about using 2 of them, oppposed and reversed?
unfortunately, the cinch has room for only one normal carabiner. if i drilled it out a couple mm, it would fit two superfly lockers, but it's more project than i want this week.
as for tying it on with webbing or rope, i had thouht of that, but for multipitch that is enough tie/untie hassle to turn me off. on the other hand, for single pitch, it seems like a great idea which i will use.
In reply to: I'm not sure I would lead solo on a Cinch because of the small contact area as was previously stated. I think only a Soloist or Silent Partner distribute the stress on the rope over an adequate area.
hm. not sure i understand this. are you saying the small contact area will damage the rope? i dont foresee any problems with this, for many reasons. could you explain?
In reply to: I attach my soloist to my belay loop with 7mm cord. I'm not familiar with the cinch. It might be too sharp or something. The soloist has a huge radius. I don't see why a quicklink wouldn't work. You might want to tighten it with a wrench and tape it.
the cinch has an attachment point radius smaller than any biner i've used, so i would feel a little iffy with a cord as thin as 7mm. webbing or rope i'd feel better about.
i like the quicklink idea, and am pleased the thread isn't inundated with 'i broke another 3/8" quicklink this weekend' stories. i dont think the wrench and tape would be necessary, seems the screw lock is as secure as a screw gate biner. in fact, i'd call it more secure, since it takes a lot more turns to open and close a link than a screwgate.
In reply to: I'm not sure how you would set up a cinch for rope soloing, but if you're main concern is to prevent cross-loading, there might be another option available. Notably, if there is any kind of upper loop-hole or attachment on the top of the cinch, you can tie a piece of webbing through that, make a big loop, and put it over your head. That way when you stand up, you will naturally pull the cinch upright.
the cinch does indeed have a convenient attachment hole to force it upright, which i will be using to keep it oriented while climbing. however, i admit i dont see how that would stop the cinch attachment biner from getting crossloaded. the only way it would guarantee that is if it was under constant tension from above, and that might not be too comfortable/realistic.
thanks again, folks
anthony
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 1, 2006, 7:30 PM
Post #10 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
Maybe make a second belay loop inside the original one that ties the biner/quicklink tight to the hip belt? Clip both belay loops for redundancy.
Picasso picture here:
http://www.home.no/sittingduck/loop2.gif
|
|
|
|
|
toeknee
Jun 3, 2006, 1:17 PM
Post #11 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2005
Posts: 32
|
In reply to: Quicklinks are the way to go. as ther is much less issue with coloading....be sure to take a real quicklinks and not hardware-shop crap....In europe, suitable links are are certified CE
So true. CE-rated quicklinks are standard fare in vertical caving systems. They often get twisted and rotated due to the constricted nature of many cave pits and climbs. A biner would be weaker due to crossloading. Definitely spend the extra few dollars for the one CE-rated quicklink that you need -- it isn't something you're going to leave for a bail anchor.
|
|
|
|
|
coolklimber
Jun 3, 2006, 4:37 PM
Post #12 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 299
|
Don't be cheap, get a carabiner.
|
|
|
|
|
naitch
Jun 3, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #13 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2002
Posts: 539
|
In reply to: thanks for the many helpful responses. In reply to: I'm not sure I would lead solo on a Cinch because of the small contact area as was previously stated. I think only a Soloist or Silent Partner distribute the stress on the rope over an adequate area. hm. not sure i understand this. are you saying the small contact area will damage the rope? i dont foresee any problems with this, for many reasons. could you explain?
Yes, that's what I mean. The actual contact area of the cinch on the rope when it grabs is a very small area. This is based on my memory and I could be wrong. I know that it is small enough on the Grigri and Ushba ascender (and similar Yates Rocker) that I would not lead with these devices. I would not be willing to trusti my life to the Cinch and the potential of a significant length whipper. The Soloist and Silent Partner are specifically made for lead soloing and distribute the force on the rope over a larger area. I wouldn't however, have any probelm using the Cinch for top rope soloing, just not lead climbing - but to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Jun 3, 2006, 5:38 PM
Post #14 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
you do realize that people use the cinch to belay lead climbers, right?
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 8, 2006, 1:26 AM
Post #15 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: Don't be cheap, get a carabiner.
what? did you even read the thread?
In reply to: The actual contact area of the cinch on the rope when it grabs is a very small area. This is based on my memory and I could be wrong. I know that it is small enough on the Grigri and Ushba ascender (and similar Yates Rocker) that I would not lead with these devices. I would not be willing to trusti my life to the Cinch and the potential of a significant length whipper.
well, i think kubi summed up my thoguhts. i thought there was a possibility that was what you meant.
basically, to reiterate kubi's point: i trust the cinch completely to catch a big fall without damaging the rope. first off, i do not believe the contact area is small. after you posted, i even went back and checked just to make sure i wasnt missing anything exciting.
second, even if i did think the contact area was small, clearly its big enough to be safe becuase the dang thing was designed as a belay device. the trango instruction manual does not have a disclaimer stating that it is unsafe to use for catching 'significant length whippers'.
finally, the trango instruction manual *does* say that in the case of a really harsh fall, the device will let rope slip until the forces come down. this would be a great feature for a soloing device, and confirms that the device will let rope slip instead of cutting it like some of the toproping solo devices (like the ushba, if i recall correctly) will in a harsh lead fall.
let me know if im missing something, but honestly- my only qualms about using the cinch as the engine for a rope solo setup is that it might not be good for inverted falls, but i may be able to toy my way aroudn that one too. in a couple weeks ill be climbing again and ill be sure to post my 'research'.
thanks folks,
anthony
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 8, 2006, 1:34 AM
Post #16 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: Maybe make a second belay loop inside the original one that ties the biner/quicklink tight to the hip belt? Clip both belay loops for redundancy.
i like this idea, and the way you have it set up as pictured.
keeping the cinch as close as possible to the tie in point is a good thing. if i fell, most of hte weight would be caught on my swami, and less on the leg loops than normal, but this doesnt bother me. still safe, and how often am i going to rope solo a route i'd actually fall on?
thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
fobnicat
Jun 8, 2006, 2:08 AM
Post #17 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Posts: 66
|
not sure if anyone else has said it yet, but if you are planning to climb on something with only a 1000 - 2000lb breaking strength.. then chances are you will fall... I work ropes courses.. Ever used a break away? 900 lbs and it will break away.. I weigh in about 135 lbs and I have had them give (900 lbs of force) from a 2 foot fall.. Do as you will, just thought I needed to get that info out as soon as possible..
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 8, 2006, 3:42 AM
Post #18 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: not sure if anyone else has said it yet, but if you are planning to climb on something with only a 1000 - 2000lb breaking strength.. then chances are you will fall... I work ropes courses.. Ever used a break away? 900 lbs and it will break away.. I weigh in about 135 lbs and I have had them give (900 lbs of force) from a 2 foot fall.. Do as you will, just thought I needed to get that info out as soon as possible..
im not sure what a 'break away' is. what does it do and how is it rated?
anyways, the quicklinks do not have a 2000 lb breaking strength. they have a *safe working load* rating with a high safety factor. the cheap hardware quicklinks generally have a 2200 lbs SWF for a 3/8" link. if all goes according to plan, the actual breaking strength will be many times the working load. how many more times depends on manufacturer. i've seen it generally range from 3:1 to 10:1.
for an example, try
http://www.wichard-usa.com/ClimbingSafety/maillon%5Frapide/index.htm
the stainless 3/8" link is rated to over 3k lbs SWF, and a hefty 15,430 lbs breaking load. thats over 68 kN.
(pause to think deep thoughts about 68 kN)
of course, they tend not to be held to as rigorous standards as carabiners, but on paper they look pretty good, but the real world sometimes does funny things.
and hence my original question: anyone seen one break in actual use? in any application whatsoever?
so far, no posts, but that really doesnt mean much.
|
|
|
|
|
fobnicat
Jun 9, 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #19 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Posts: 66
|
I have never seen one break, but that is not to say they dont.. Why be the one that finally sees it... That might be why no one has seen it, all the ones that did see it, are unable to tell youa bout it now...
As for a break away, you might know it as a absorber on a set of safers (lobster claws)... If you still dont know what i am talking about, a break away is a bundle of 6 foot of 2 inch webbing with mild stitching that will break away when 900lbs of force is applied...It is made to absorb the shock of a hard fall when not on a rope..... Everything on a ropes course requires a 5000lb breaking strength minimum.. which means 1 inch webbing is out.. And most ropes courses dont allow the types of falls that we climbers take on a regular day of climbing.. Just keep it all in mind when you are thinking of buying those rapid links..
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 9, 2006, 12:39 AM
Post #20 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: I have never seen one break, but that is not to say they dont.. Why be the one that finally sees it... That might be why no one has seen it, all the ones that did see it, are unable to tell youa bout it now...
dude, what exactly are you suggesting, then? something safer than a quicklink? like a carabiner?
the whole reason i am looking at quicklinks is because i feel that they are SAFER than carabiners.
|
|
|
|
|
fobnicat
Jun 9, 2006, 1:08 AM
Post #21 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Posts: 66
|
i am saying stick to something that is MEANT to be climbed on directly... If you get a rapid link that is meant for climbing, then i am sure that it will hold. But if the breaking strength is only 1 -2 thousand lbs.. happy funeral, because that shit WILL eventually break... dont like a steel biner? use an aluminum screwlock... Its lighter, and you can get then in a different shape to maybe position the rope in a different way..
You asked if they ever break... you said they only have a 1 to 2 thousand lb breaking strength, I have never seen one break because when I use rapid links, i use them in a stationary place where they dont take huge falls on... They have steady weight on it.. When you fall, the force you generate is exponetially relative to you body weight..
do what you want to do, I am just letting you know of issues that came up when I read your post.. Plus a rapid link isnt very much lighter than a steel biner...
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 9, 2006, 1:17 AM
Post #22 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
If you manage to get a single strand of webbing through the hole in the cinch together with the quicklink you maybe could tie a backup around your swami or belay loop?
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jun 9, 2006, 2:23 AM
Post #23 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
In reply to: i am saying stick to something that is MEANT to be climbed on directly... If you get a rapid link that is meant for climbing, then i am sure that it will hold. But if the breaking strength is only 1 -2 thousand lbs.. happy funeral, because that s--- WILL eventually break...
and you keep confusing safe working load with breaking strength, but whatever.
In reply to: dont like a steel biner? use an aluminum screwlock... Its lighter, and you can get then in a different shape to maybe position the rope in a different way..
an aluminum screwlock is no good to me for the reasons i cited earlier in the thread. f'goodness sakes..
its fine if you think a standard locker is safe enough (its not for me, but im a pansy). but don't make it out like it's just as safe as a steel biner or beefy name brand quicklink.
In reply to: If you manage to get a single strand of webbing through the hole in the cinch together with the quicklink you maybe could tie a backup around your swami or belay loop?
while im generally a big fan of redundancy, that would defeat the purpose of using the quicklink in the first place- the ability to get it on and off relatively quickly compared to retying a piece of webbing/cord.
thanks, folks.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Jun 9, 2006, 2:46 AM
Post #24 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
In reply to: When you fall, the force you generate is exponetially relative to you body weight..
Exponential?
So that F = mA stuff they teach at the university is wrong?
Ya better let them know before someone gets hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Jun 9, 2006, 2:07 PM
Post #25 of 30
(4629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
[quote=sixleggedinsect]while im generally a big fan of redundancy, that would defeat the purpose of using the quicklink in the first place- the ability to get it on and off relatively quickly compared to retying a piece of webbing/cord.
This might be faster (see picture) than tying and untying the sling but I think the backup must be rigged "permanently", redundant but maybe not practical for your use?
http://www.home.no/...gduck/solobackup.gif
|
|
|
|
|
craftedpacket
Jun 9, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #26 of 30
(3337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 187
|
Does the weight of the rope underneath you not cause the cinch to lock up as your are climbing? Seems like it would be a hassle to use.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 9, 2006, 3:05 PM
Post #27 of 30
(3337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Sixlegged: Nope, never seen one break. Furthermore, I've seen a good Maillon Rapide recommended by official bodies in climbing in situations where a hard device moving in wierd ways can f*ck stuff up.
In fact people have died.
For example biner to fig-8 rap devices. A hard device like a fig-8 rap device can get twisted and lever the gate open through the locking sleeve, causing the biner to "fail" at very low loads - just a couple times bodyweight. A MR cannot fail this way. So in general, it sounds like a very wise choice on your part.
majid_sabet, you're so in love with accident reports, you should be ashamed for ridiculing sixlegged for his concern, when a very similar situation - with far lower loads - has caused several well documented accidents, and at least one death.
Here is a link to the UIAA analysis. Very worth reading.
From the accident report recommendations: "Alternatively, the FoE could be attached to the harness by a small stainless steel quickling or Maillon Rapide. This is slower and less convenient to use, but is very unlikely to be levered open by a FoE."
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 9, 2006, 3:12 PM
Post #28 of 30
(3337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
One other thing: While I've never seen one break, I have seen them open up from vibrations. I think it would be very wise to just put a strip of tape a few times around the thread where it would try to unscrew. This would be very easy to undo and then put back on as needed. It'd certainly last a few times, and easy enough to replace after it loses its stickyness.
Considering that you're planning to undo it and re-do it several times on multi-pitch, I think a couple feet of tape is much lighter (and easier to deal with) than a wrench.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
sixleggedinsect
Jul 5, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #29 of 30
(3337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 385
|
'while back i promised i would get back to this thread with any relevant experience. a week or two ago, i spent a couple hours trying out various rope solo set ups using the cinch. there were two different setups which were designed (on paper) to catch all falls, inverted or not, by redirecting through a chest harness w/ or without a tiny pulley for friction. these looked good on paper but worked miserably on a rock.
the setup that worked best for me was a pretty standard rope solo setup, like what folks use with a grigri. basically, you load the cinch, hook it up upside down on the belay loop, and attach a cord through the convenient pivot hole to a chest harness to keep it in permanent feed-mode. this is like holding the cinch (or grigri) at the feed angle while throwing rope to a lead climber. it feeds as you climb, and in a normal fall, when the rope is siddenly feeding from above you, instead of below you, it will lock up as designed.
as you get farther away from the anchor, the weight of the rope on both sides of the cinch causes problems. my favorite setup so far is to occasionally tie small slipped overhands in the rope that sit on top of pieces of pro. these support the weight of hte rope so it does not back-feed while climbing. in a fall, they will pop free, giving you full rope stretch, plus an extra 8 inches of rope for every slip knot added to the system.
managing the weight of the feed line is more difficult. my favorite way as of now is to stack it in a small pack and carry it while leading, feeding it over my shoulder in small armfulls. this makes for a very friendly feed. yes, you have to lead with a pack on, but consider it alpine training. i dont intend to rope solo anything particularly hard, anyways.
downsides to the system is the uniquitous inverted fall problem. no, this system will theoretically not catch an inverted fall, as the cinch will think you are just climbing really really fast. i could not think of any clever solutions to this problem, short of buying a silent partner. the one thing i did to slightly attenuate the inverted fall danger is used a quick-release cord to hold the cinch in feed position.
explanation: the upside down cinch is held tight to a chest harness with some sort of cord. i will call this the 'feed cord'. i originally tried an elastic cord, in the hopes that in normal climbing the cinch would feed, but in a fall the elastic would stretch, effectively releasing the feed cord and locking the device. in practise, i could not get this to work reliably and it was a real headache.
i ended up tying a reasonably tight piece of accessory cord from cinch to chest harness (or a bit of webbing around your shoulder, or whatever. it is not load bearing in this application). however, i tied it so that in a fall i could quickly release the feed cord. i used a long piece of 6mm nylon, with a monkey's fist knot at the end. then i tied the chest harness to the cinch in a loop, with a slipped single sheet bend, with the monkey's fist knot as the release. i then fiddled with the knot until it was as tight as i wanted it (could not allow the cinch to drop low enough to lock up in normal climbing, but would not restrict my range of torso movement) and made sure the monkey fist pull cord was very close to the bend.
my idea, untested, is that as soon as i realize i am falling, or am about to fall, i can release the feed cord, thus freeing the cinch to lock up in any fall, inverted or not. this may be a bit of a stretch in some circumstances, but i and others often know we are about to fall, are in imminent danger of falling, or grab onto the rope while falling, so i think it is not completely unrealistic, and gives a bit more margin.
if the feed cord was released and you did not fall, you would still be on belay, albeit on a high-maintenance belay that would require hand feeding the rope until you could get to a rest stance or hang on gear to reset the feed cord.
the 6mm cord with a slipped sheet bend released easily and cleanly, and i do not anticipate problems with the release mechanism unless you dont actually get your hand on the MF knot.
that's the setup. i want to add one relevant bit of information.
i have recently been made aware of a failure mode of the cinch i did not know about. a third party recently tested (fall 05, i think) a number of belay devices, and the cinch was failing at lower loads than i would have expected. the two unexpected failure modes were a clamshelling of the device, thereby releasing the rope, probably with sheath damage, or an actual breaking of the device, in which the rope is released in proximity to sharp metal edges. neither of these sound good to me, particularly because the cinch would see higher loads in service as a rope solo device than a lead belay device, for which it was designed.
if one wanted to use a cinch as a fast feeding rope solo device that does not require modifications (instead of hte grigri), i would take these three considerations: 1) it is more important than ever to backup with a hard tie-in, should the device fail. 2) it is more important than ever to limit the forces on the device. build some shock absorption into the system, ie: a screamer on the anchor, etc. and put a lot of pro in at the start of each pitch. 3) maybe you should look up the load testing of the cinch and make you own decision.
and possibly 4) rope soloing is dangerous. more dangerous than normal leading. the cinch was not designed, or tested, as a rope solo device, and i make no claims about it being safe for such use. i do not know whether the load testing last fall (date?) changes anything about use of the cinch as a lead belay device. i do know that the cinch remains my favorite rope work, rigging, and work positioning device.
for my purposes, i am comfortable with some decreased safety margin. i am a pansy, and generally will not rope solo anything where i believe there is any chance of falling.
as for the future of this thread, i have very infrequent email access, but would welcome insight on any of the comments here, ways to improve systems and safety margins (without investing in a 200 dollar device), new information about cinch failure, etc.
i cant believe you read this far.
anthony
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 11, 2006, 6:58 PM
Post #30 of 30
(3337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Great to hear an update!
Sounds like you've worked through this quite capably sir! I just realized I never really answered your original question! A 3/8 quick link should be better by a huge factor over a locking carabiner. (I own some steel carbiners too).
Glad you observed the problem of a potential inverted fall. The only real easy and obvious solution is to tie backup knots. I know some who do not use them at all because of the hassle, but I tie them. There have been instances of those knots catching a fall.
The other issue you might look at (again, I've only used someone else's Cinch so I'm unfamiliar) is in a fall, is there a potential for the handle or cam be lodged stuck in the open position? I have heard of this happening with a gri gri.
Backup knots, even a loose overhand knot slapped onto a locking Krab would alleviate some of that concern as well.
Happy climbing 6 legged!
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
