I noticed that on all the nuts i've ever used to looked at, the wire (or entire unit) is only rated to 10kn. Is this truly strong enough to take a lead fall above the nut?

If 10kn is strong enough, why are the carabiners we use so much stronger? Even the cheapest nonlocking oval biners are rated to 18kn. what gives?

I noticed that on all the nuts i've ever used to looked at, the wire (or entire unit) is only rated to 10kn. Is this truly strong enough to take a lead fall above the nut?

If 10kn is strong enough, why are the carabiners we use so much stronger? Even the cheapest nonlocking oval biners are rated to 18kn. what gives?

this is just a guess, but:

[ . . . ]

[T]o generate 10kn on your top piece with 45' of rope out, a 190lb climber would have to bomb over 40' onto that piece.

Of course, without a dynamic rope in the system, it's possible to generate enormous loads with relatively modest falls- a fall from 2' above your piece on 2' of static runner will generate 19kn for that same 190lb climber....

Is that all part of the guess? If not, how did you come up with these forces?

Jay

sorry, I used this for force numbers, and should have said so.
http://www.myoan.net/...t/climbforcecal.html

Thanks for the heads up I did not know that was just for the test.

That explains it. That "calculator" is completely bogus. It doesn't even calculate fall factor correctly, never mind impact force.

Use my calculator if you at least want numbers that conform to theoretical models.

Jay

Jay's uses an assumed value, which obviously is not knowable in the field.

I noticed that on all the nuts i've ever used to looked at, the wire (or entire unit) is only rated to 10kn. Is this truly strong enough to take a lead fall above the nut?

If 10kn is strong enough, why are the carabiners we use so much stronger? Even the cheapest nonlocking oval biners are rated to 18kn. what gives?

So Jay's calculator uses 'assumed' values.

Sounds like garbage in, garbage out.

So Jay's calculator uses 'assumed' values.

Sounds like garbage in, garbage out.

I have been doing rope rescue work for several years. Many of the concepts apply in rock climbing. One thing that is standard for rescue purposes is a 15:1 safety ratio. Meaning that for every one pound you intend to put on the rope, the system should be able to hold 15 times that. The general rule of thumb is that the rope should be the weakest link in the system. There is actually a national standard based on this rule. This is not always practical for rock climbing, however I thought it would be worth mentioning.

Misconception No. 4: We are required to use a safety factor of 15:1

biners are full strength as you need to depend on a single locker for the worst case ... ie belay biner, focal point biner ... etc ...

you never depend on a single nut by itself except for possibly rapel if its totally bomber .... and even then an extra biner and nut are worth wasting for your life

you are kidding right?

let me guess yr gonna tell us to belay off a single nut ... hmmmmm

i was speaking as your only piece in the system ... i wouldnt use just a not even on easy alpine...

good job on being a troll ...

the OP simply asked why biners are full strength while nuts are not ...

reason ... we depend on a single biner for our belay ... but never a single nut due to rock and placement limitations ...

you can test biners, slings, ropes and other goods to reasonable certainty to a fail point ... but not trad gear due to placement and rock

understand what full strength means mista troll ...

why dont you help the OP instead of trolling or is that against yr nature ... lol

[disclaimer]I have no trad climbing experience[/disclaimer]

Research has shown that falls in excess of 10kN can result in serious internal injury. Organ displacement occurs at 11kN and organs can rupture past 12kN.

So perhaps nuts are rated to fail before causing internal injuries. Kind of like the failure stitching in a screamer strap?

Just a thought.

nice quess but no ... other trad gear can be way above 10KN as are the bolts

thats what the rope is for

if manuf could make a 20kn nut they would ... you just cant guarantee that stength in a placement

nice quess but no ... other trad gear can be way above 10KN as are the bolts

thats what the rope is for

if manuf could make a 20kn nut they would ... you just cant guarantee that stength in a placement

Now I know you are retarded or just a very good troll. The strength rating of a piece is the rating at which a part of it fails, not the force required for it to fail in a placement.

Fair enough. I'll go back to my corner now.

no harm in asking despite the troll in here that dont help you ... lol

the strength of the placement of nuts is limited by the rock and the surface area of the nut ... which is why smaller nuts have lower values ... less contact area

all trad gear has similar limitations with a few differences

if you dont ask youll never know

Not entirely true. The rating of the two smallest Metolius TCUs is based on the likely failure of the placement. The piece itself is stronger, and if you can get an ideal placement, the piece will outperform its rating.

Jay

it does but then thicker wires aint that hard to do ... i suspect contact area matters more and they make the wire as thick as needed ... if someone chime in about how you just needs biggers wires .. go right ahead

it does but then thicker wires aint that hard to do ... i suspect contact area matters more and they make the wire as thick as needed ... if someone chime in about how you just needs biggers wires .. go right ahead

I bet the wires break when the nut is UIAA tested because it is not in real rock. And in real rock the nut will usually pull before it breaks.

it does but then thicker wires aint that hard to do ... i suspect contact area matters more and they make the wire as thick as needed ... if someone chime in about how you just needs biggers wires .. go right ahead

no harm in asking despite the troll in here that dont help you ... lol

the strength of the placement of nuts is limited by the rock and the surface area of the nut ... which is why smaller nuts have lower values ... less contact area

all trad gear has similar limitations with a few differences

if you dont ask youll never know

[

And if you ask bearbreeder, you'll still never know.

troll troll troll ... have anything to contribute?

lol

Do you even know the definition of a troll?

u

lol

i dont use a ton of micronuts ... totally true ... i always use larger nuts when i can

like i said if someone can show me that wire size and not surface contact is the main limiting factor im all ears ...

i suspect that most placements in rock will fail before the wire

ive never had a nut pull or break except in a upward pull where i screwed up on rope drag .... and i love placing nuts and tricams

How do you test that in a repeatable and meaningful fashion though? The rating refers to the ultimate strength of the piece in a situation where the placement cannot fail.

[image]http://crow202.org/wordpress/wp-content/images/fox_allears.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.angelzfunnyz.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/3/cowears.jpg[/image]

[image]http://cheezdailysquee.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129163635756994692.jpg[/image]

[image]http://ih1.redbubble.net/work.1426831.3.flat,550x550,075,f.talk-to-me-im-all-ears.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.insidefurniture.com/insidefurniture/images/2008/02/21/all_ears.jpg[/image]

now if you would contribute to what you see as the most common nut failures ... youd be helpful too

Well, it's not really the question of the OP, but if you must.... I would say inexperienced nut placer is the most common cause of nut failure.

much thanks ... i feel the same way <3

and to the OPs point why do you think that nuts are rated lower than biners

and no im not trolling you

mmm ... were you going to contribute something useful to the OP's question ...

or just troll mister forrest gump ... lol

Your skills are weak. Very weak.

like gophers ... they keep on popping up with nothing useful ... gotta love RC

interesting that the UIAA states that a free falling mass never exceeds 5 KN in real climbing situation

if this is true you should never worry about a medium sized nut ripping out in a totally perfect placement in metal ... lol

Physics fail.

Stipulating for the moment that a falling mass generates a max of 5 KN, this does NOT mean that the top piece of a system must hold only 5KN. The pulley effect works against us and the nut must hold the forces from both the fall and the belay.

Having said that, I agree with most people here that the limiting factor is, more often than not, the placement of the nut. However, in a perfect constriction in bullet-hard granite, I'd wager the piece will fail before the placement.

"Rules are for fools"

what i consider a BD medium nut #6 is rated to 10 KN ... would that be enough for forces from both the fall and belay in an absolute perfect placement?

2. Nuts are rated according to the strength of their wire. This is not to say that they can't fail under smaller loads due to poor placements or rock quality.

As for what has been learned and should be learned from this thread:

[ . . . ]

2. Nuts are rated according to the strength of their wire. This is not to say that they can't fail under smaller loads due to poor placements or rock quality.

if nuts are rated according to the strength of the wire why do UIAA test loading in all loading orientations and why do some WC nuts have a lower strength rating depending on their placement

same with tricams ...

hmmmmmmm ....

tricams aren't nuts, so they have no relevance in this thread. UIAA tests in all loading directions for cases like WC where surface area is the limiting factor in one orientation. In the normal orientation for a nut (i.e. the curved side) the wire strength is the rated strength.

This keeps getting repeated in this thread, but no one has provided any evidence that it is true. In contrast—even though they're not nuts—small Metolius TCUs are given a rating based on Metolius's belief that the unit will likely pull out of the placement before the unit itself fails. I know this for a fact because I remember when Metolius announced this policy in their catalog and down-rated their small TCUs accordingly. Furthermore, vegastradguy states that Metolius rates all their gear in this manner.

So where is the evidence that manufacturers do otherwise for small nuts?

Jay

wait !!! didnt u say

"Nuts are rated according to the strength of their wire"

so it appears that surface area is a limiting factor and not just wire strength ...

tricams can be both nuts and camming devices

are you absolutely sure about the wire strength being the absolute rating ... ill have to check my DMM Peanut 1 an 2 ... im pretty shure they have the same wire yet the rating is different ...

if it was wire strength ... you might as well just test the strength of the wire and be done with it .

hmmmmmm Tongue

edit ... looks like the same gauge wire ... on the 1st 2 (1 and 2) ... yet one is rated 4 kn and the other 5 kn ...

there MUST be an explanation

so in that case the nut ... not the wire is the limiting factor ... if the manuf put the wire to what the nut will hold

thanks for confirming what i said pages ago

you can test biners, slings, ropes and other goods to reasonable certainty to a fail point ... but not trad gear in real rock due to placement and rock

understand what full strength means mista troll ...

No this is what you said pages ago and what started this whole debate
"full strength" is not related to the quality of placement or the rock.

1. can you consider any single nut full strength in the real world ... perhaps youd give an example on a real route belay ... seems like most thing that the limiting factor of a nut is the placement and rock ... or do you not think so

2. i did say

"
the strength of the placement of nuts is limited by the rock and the surface area of the nut ... which is why smaller nuts have lower values ... less contact area "

which no one has shown differently ... i am still open to anyone who can show that the surface contact of a nut has no correlation to its strength in the real world ...

...the surface contact of a nut has no correlation to its strength in the real world ...

can you consider any single nut full strength in the real world ... perhaps youd give an example on a real route belay ... seems like most thing that the limiting factor of a nut is the placement and rock ... or do you not think so

1. Not usually. Of course it is. The testing for the ultimate strength is in a "perfect" placement(wedged constriction) and "ideal" rock(steel), such that those aren't the limiting factors and the strength of the nut itself(be it the wire or the nut head). What else is there?

2. What are you stating that others don't already know? Smaller nut=weaker. Brilliant.

The problem with your statement is that it is an absolute. The surface contact of a nut MAY correlate to its strength in the real world, but it may also not correlate to its strength. Think of a situation where the rock is solid, and due to the geometry of the crack only the very bottom two corners of the nut contact the rock. In this case there is very little surface contact with the nut, but it could still hold until the cable broke, or ripped through the nut head.


No I don't think so. Once again, the placement and rock MAY be the limiting factor, but with a good placement in solid rock, neither the placement nor the rock will be the limiting factor.

thanks for the view ... ive rarely seen a nut break ... so i guess i just havent seen other people do solid placements when their nuts pull

so its the placement that ultimately matters ... and the quality of the rock ...

so glad were all one big happi family ... lol

did this really require 4 pages

the strength of the placement of nuts is limited by the rock and the surface area of the nut ... which is why smaller nuts have lower values ... less contact area

really and i was always taught that the 2 most important things for nut placement were

1. surface contact

2. constriction

and with a nut in a constriction with poor surface contact you can fracture the rock easier ...

i take it you dont agree ... hmmmm

i did say rock and surface area ... doesn't sound too absolute to me ... constrictions is obviously part of the rock

in a good placement a larger nut will hold more than a smaller in a good placement ... thats with good surface contact and a good constriction and the rock being sized appropriately for both

surface contact matters ... as does the rock itself

you could of course find cracks where the large nut will fall out where a small nut will fit ... thats simply the rock

i of course assumed you wouldnt use a nut that wont fit well ...

my bad

I'm really curious now .. how often can you two repeat the same thing over and over and pretend it is an argument?

thanks for the view ... ive rarely seen a nut break ... so i guess i just havent seen other people do solid placements when their nuts pull

...but they are no more nuts than hexes are.

You don't think it has anything to do with the wire being different thicknesses?

Well, it's not really the question of the OP, but if you must.... I would say inexperienced nut placer is the most common cause of nut failure.

Where do you think the term "nuts" came from? Why is a hex not a nut?