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?