|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 25, 2011, 3:59 AM
Post #151 of 175
(5044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
jt512 wrote: Obviously I don't know how many exactly. Chris Harmston said he was aware of about 2 dozen in the 8 years that he was with BD. Most of those involved BD carabiners, not because BD biners are worse than anyone else's, but presumably because when your BD biner breaks you send it to BD for inspection. If we assume that open-gate failures are distributed uniformly across brands, then failures should be proportional to market share. What was BD's market share in 2000? Let's say, generously, 25%. Then, there should have been about 48 open-gate failures reported to manufacturers in that 8 year period. Conservatively, adding in 25% for unreported failures, brings the estimate up to 60 over 8 years. So, there's my back-of-the-envelope estimate. Plus, we have three or four reported just in this thread (by csproul, Jim Titt, and possibly someone else). Now that I've answered your question to the best of my ability, will you finally answer mine: What makes you think that falls onto open-gate biners are rare? Jay
i definitely dont know the numbers about "open gate' failures ... but neither does anyone not currently working for a gear manufacturer, UIAA/CE, or similar climbing organization
as evidenced by the "math" above ...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 5:21 AM
Post #152 of 175
(5026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
psprings wrote: jt512 wrote: psprings wrote: jt512 wrote: psprings wrote: How many recorded incidents of falls breaking open gate carabiners do we have on record, Jay? Well, quite a few, actually, but that's not particularly relevant to my question, Jay Oh really? How many exactly. I'd like a number please, not an assertion. After all, you are the one that says that it is warranted... surely you have some evidence for your claim :D Obviously I don't know how many exactly. Chris Harmston said he was aware of about 2 dozen in the 8 years that he was with BD. Most of those involved BD carabiners, not because BD biners are worse than anyone else's, but presumably because when your BD biner breaks you send it to BD for inspection. If we assume that open-gate failures are distributed uniformly across brands, then failures should be proportional to market share. What was BD's market share in 2000? Let's say, generously, 25%. Then, there should have been about 48 open-gate failures reported to manufacturers in that 8 year period. Conservatively, adding in 25% for unreported failures, brings the estimate up to 60 over 8 years. So, there's my back-of-the-envelope estimate. Plus, we have three or four reported just in this thread (by csproul, Jim Titt, and possibly someone else). Now that I've answered your question to the best of my ability, will you finally answer mine: What makes you think that falls onto open-gate biners are rare? Jay First off, a grand total of 60 biners (this is being gracious here... who knows if they were really broken from cross-loading or other issues) . . .
Harmston knew. You can tell from where the biner breaks whether it is an open-gate, nose hook, or cross-load failure. Harmston specifically said that they were all open-gate failures.
In reply to: . . . accross the entire market over 8 years is an exceptionally small number. Look at that over total number of biners out there over that 8 year time period.
That's not the correct denominator.
In reply to: Then look at the number of falls taken (like what... 1 million falls?).
That's a better denominator, but I would have no idea how to estimate it, especially for that time period.
In reply to: Then look at that compared to the number of biners broken. Then look at that number again, reduced to only people that were only hurt. Then people that were only killed.
Now you're going off the deep end. The failure of any piece of climbing equipment can result in injury or death. What matters in climbing equipment is its reliability.
In reply to: So really, the hard evidence is that over the last 20 years or so, we only have one recorded case of someone dying from most likely an open gate carabiner failure. That's all I'm pointing out... the numbers dont support the "R.I.P." proposition that many in this thread are trying to establish.
No one is making any sort of "R.I.P." claim, although several people, including you now, are attacking that straw man.
In reply to: How do I come to my conclusion that the number of falls on open-gates is small?
Finally. I thought you were going to dodge that question forever.
In reply to: Mostly deductively, since there have never been any studies that I have seen looking at gates during falls. 1. Carabiners have springs in the gates. This keeps the natural state of the biner in an always closed position; this is a predictable behavior for the biner. I'm sure that this is quite obvious to everyone. The only things that would cause the gate to be open are it being pushed by something (ie, a rock protrusion) or by force being translated through the biner to cause the gate to flutter (buy some wiregates... BD hotwire: 9kn open-gate strength!), none of which occurs with any frequency compared to normal falls.
So that's where we differ. I think that we fall on open gates a lot more than we think. I think that gate flutter and whiplash are common, certainly among solid-gate biners. Although less of a problem with wire gates, wire gates are more prone to getting caught on rock features or bolt heads.
In reply to: Aside from these 2 possibilities, there really isn't a good reason for the gate to be open.
I agree. Where we disagree is our judgment about how prevalent those problems are.
In reply to: One can easily inspect how a biner is positioned when hanging to mitigate these possibilities.
No. There is nothing you can do about gate flutter, and little you can do about whiplash.
In reply to: 2. When I watch people fall, I have never seen or heard a gate open. Not conclusive, but certainly nothing supporting the fact that it is opening during a normal fall.
That's a silly statement, since you could neither see it nor hear it.
In reply to: 3. If there are few cases of broken o.g. biners, fewer cases of climbers hurt by them, and only one case of someone dying from one, it stands to reason that normal falls do not occur on open-gate biners.
With logic like that, who needs Bearbreeder? Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, like at all.
In reply to: If they did, we would certainly see higher numbers of accidents and injuries.
No, because unless the fall factor is high enough, or the belayer gives an anti-dynamic belay, the force on the carabiner will be less than 7 kN. So, for most falls, falling on an open gate should not be catastrophic. However, fall force calculations predict that forces on the carabiner in excess of 7 kN can occur even on single-pitch routes. Although these calculations are crude first approximations to real-life impact forces, I prefer to be conservative when my life is at stake.
In reply to: Is my logic perfect?
Not even close.
In reply to: At the end of the day, the reality of an open gate failure seems to come down to an issue of gate flutter (which can be avoided by going with wire-gates) . . .
That's debatable.
Whiplash, which is a different phenomenon, is probably also less of a problem with wire gates, though I do not think it is entirely eliminated. The only time I have ever observed a gate to open due to whiplash in an actual fall, the biner was a wire gate. My having been able to witness this was an extremely improbable event. I had taken a short fall near the start of a route, and stopped eye level with the rope-end biner of the draw that stopped my fall, and literally right before my eyes I saw the gate pop open momentarily. Like I said, that was a wire gate biner.
In reply to: On a side note, it's worth noting that if your life ever depends on a single biner (ie, your previous clip wont keep you off the deck), then you should perhaps consider whether it is worth climbing or what you can do to mitigate the problem.
Your life depends on a single biner at the start of just about every climb. I have a friend who took a ground fall from just 15 feet, and was given a 50–50 chance of surviving (which he did). And it's at that first piece that the highest fall-factor falls occur. Do the math; then ask yourself whether 7 kN is a sufficient margin for error. I did, and I found it wasn't for me. Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 25, 2011, 6:39 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 25, 2011, 5:43 AM
Post #153 of 175
(5019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
jt512 wrote: Do the math; then ask yourself whether 7 kN is a sufficient margin for error. I did, and I found it wasn't for me. Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner. Jay
hmmm ...
actual data that you can eliminate open gate, nose hook and cross loading failures for 3$ per biner? ...
if you really can ... ill bet all the companies would beat a path to your door
do you have any concrete evidence
as you stated ...
"I can't convince you that 9 kN is enough strength to prevent a biner from breaking in any fall. I doubt that it is,"
doesnt sound like "almost entirely eliminated"
responses from BD
"thanks for the email, the neutrino is designed to e a work-horse biner and used exactly how you use them. Open-gate strengths are always lower than the normal breaking strength, and this is simply because the gate should not be open when it is catching a fall (wire-gates like the neutrino are way better for this because they don't experience gate flutter).
I hope this helps, they are on all my camalots, etc. as well."
and ...
depends on what you mean by 'safe enough'? Gate open/loaded scenarios in any carabiner is a dangerous deal and it's best to avoid that potential regardless of the carabiner. The difference between 7 and 8kN is a whopping 225lbs force so not really that significant of a difference. Again, best to avoid ANY gate open potential and it would be silly to avoid a Neutrino over another carabiner just because of that 1 kN difference...especially since you enjoy them so much (as do many other people, myself included). I hope that's helpful
note that BD "top of the line" freewire draws biners top out at 8 kn ... with all the gumbay athletes sponsored by BD and the whippers they take ... its a wonder they arent dead yet ...
i wont post too much more as its obvious that the UIAA, camp, BD and probably any other climbing company that makes biners consider it a non issue for all purposes and intents
this is not some grand conspiracy ... its simply determining a point of "safe" for climbing purposes ... sure one can be "safer", but in that case you should never climb on those deadly biners on yr partners rack, hell you might as well use all lockers yrself for little extra cost and weight, always use twins use, double up yr belay biners and harness loops, etc ...
youve all head from the rc "expert" ... and from the BD, camp responses, seen the UIAA documentation ... you can all make your own judgement on who youd rather listen to ...
at the end of the day, people just climb on the gear they buy ... ill bet you a case of beer that most climbers cant tell you what the ratings are on their biners, they just accept that its been certified and "safe" for climbing purposes if used correctly ... and you know what ... they arent all dead gumbies
till someone here tries to tell em otherwise 
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on May 25, 2011, 5:46 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 5:48 AM
Post #154 of 175
(5013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Bearbreeder, would you mind posting the emails you sent to Camp and BD in their entirety so that we can determine precisely what questions these companies were answering?
Edit: Also, would you be willing to disclose who at these companies responded to you? I think we would interpret a response from a design engineer differently from a marketing person, for instance.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 25, 2011, 5:53 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 25, 2011, 5:50 AM
Post #155 of 175
(5011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
jt512 wrote: Bearbreeder, would you mind posting the emails you sent to Camp and BD in their entirety so that we can determine precisely what questions these companies were answering? Jay
just for you mista jay ...
Dear black diamond,
I have quite a few of your neutrino carabiners. I am quite happy with
them as the color coating matches my camalots. I use them for sport,
trad, anchor building and other normal climbing usage.
However I have recently been told that the 7 kn open gate rating may
not be "safe enough".
My question is are the neutrinos "safe" for my intended usage, or
should I go and purchase biners with stronger ratings and will they
make me significantly "safer". If the latter could you clarify if the
neutrino is only good for some limited climbing use?
Thanks,
the camp one is the same but change neutrino with nano and take out the part about racking color coded camalots
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 5:53 AM
Post #156 of 175
(5007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bearbreeder wrote: jt512 wrote: Bearbreeder, would you mind posting the emails you sent to Camp and BD in their entirety so that we can determine precisely what questions these companies were answering? Jay just for you mista jay ...
Dear black diamond,
I have quite a few of your neutrino carabiners. I am quite happy with
them as the color coating matches my camalots. I use them for sport,
trad, anchor building and other normal climbing usage.
However I have recently been told that the 7 kn open gate rating may
not be "safe enough".
My question is are the neutrinos "safe" for my intended usage, or
should I go and purchase biners with stronger ratings and will they
make me significantly "safer". If the latter could you clarify if the
neutrino is only good for some limited climbing use?
Thanks, the camp one is the same but change neutrino with nano and take out the part about racking color coded camalots
Sorry about the timing. Please see the edit to my previous post.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 25, 2011, 5:56 AM
Post #157 of 175
(5004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
jt512 wrote: Sorry about the timing. Please see the edit to my previous post. Jay
i would be willing to forward the emails to a 3rd party ... but would prefer not to post the names on a public forum or send them directly to you (sorry)...
im sure you can contact camp or BD about the responses
email at BD is ... climb@bdel.com
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 6:02 AM
Post #158 of 175
(4998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bearbreeder wrote: jt512 wrote: Bearbreeder, would you mind posting the emails you sent to Camp and BD in their entirety so that we can determine precisely what questions these companies were answering? Jay just for you mista jay ...
Dear black diamond,
I have quite a few of your neutrino carabiners. I am quite happy with
them as the color coating matches my camalots. I use them for sport,
trad, anchor building and other normal climbing usage.
However I have recently been told that the 7 kn open gate rating may
not be "safe enough".
My question is are the neutrinos "safe" for my intended usage, or
should I go and purchase biners with stronger ratings and will they
make me significantly "safer". If the latter could you clarify if the
neutrino is only good for some limited climbing use?
Thanks,
Is that really the entirety of your email? because if it is, I can't understand why the BD representative mentioned 8 kN carabiners in his response.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 25, 2011, 6:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 6:06 AM
Post #159 of 175
(4993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bearbreeder wrote: jt512 wrote: Sorry about the timing. Please see the edit to my previous post. Jay i would be willing to forward the emails to a 3rd party ... but would prefer not to post the names on a public forum or send them directly to you (sorry)... im sure you can contact camp or BD about the responses
I have already written to Camp, as I indicated in a previous post. BD's response is less troublesome because they stop short of claiming that their open-gate strength is "completely safe" and they make no gross errors of elementary physics.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 27, 2011, 4:45 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 25, 2011, 6:09 AM
Post #160 of 175
(4988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
jt512 wrote: Is that really the entirety of your email? because if it is, I can't understand why the BD representative mentioned 8 kN carabiners in his response. Jay
yes and you can ask BD or i can forward the emails to a "neutral" 3rd party ...
i really dont care if you understand it or not ..
what i do care about it is that i have been explicitly told that my neutrinos and nanos are safe for climbing purposes ... despite all the hooplah on this post ...
short of a response from the manufacturers, UIAA, or a "neutral" third party asking for the emails ... im not going to post on this thread anymore
its pretty obvious that no matter what is said or shown by different manufacturers (and not there aint no gas price collusion here) or by the UIAA ... youll stick to always trying to be right
i would encourage any rc members (or gumbies) to go asks directly the manufacturers or the certification bodies DIRECTLY about this or other such issues rather than relying or rc arguments ...
asta la vista mista jay
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
May 25, 2011, 8:00 AM
Post #161 of 175
(4957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
Those emails (and probably others too) are worth nothing, since you are esentially asking "are your biners of a strenght that is considered safe for climbing", and thus will get a response that says "well, duh, they have a CE stamp and are certified for climbing, so they are safe for climbing", which they indeed are.
No one is saying that 7kN is not safe for the majority of cases. What is said, is that more strengtht than the minimum value of 7kN is better. Its easy as that. Also, if there where no argument pro high strength, then - according to your logic - the manufacturers would simply not produce biners that are stronger than 7kN. However if i look around, except from some exceptions the 7kN biners are almost all the ultraultra light biners, the budget biners or some oldschool legacy models.
_____________________________________
What we need now is someone with a highspeed camera, to film a few falls, with a direct focus on the quickdraw.
Anybody have one and some free time?
Alternatively, i could try to figure out how to find entities that might do such a test. I think there is one thing that we all can agree on:
We do not really know much about what happens with a carabiner that gets fallen on.
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
May 25, 2011, 11:42 AM
Post #162 of 175
(4930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
qwert wrote: What we need now is someone with a highspeed camera, to film a few falls, with a direct focus on the quickdraw. qwert
Wasn't there a thread awhile ago that had a video of a guy taking a whipper at Indian creek and almost landing on his belalyer? The first piece ripped but the second (or third), un-clipped from the rope as the rope was coming tight. Most people didn't seem to suprised by it, but I was blown away. I can certainly see how gate flutter could be an issue on a fall.
Edit to add video link: http://www.mountainproject.com/...sew_it_up_/107061028
And without wading into this too deeply, I can tell you that I know the ratings of all my carabiners (Petzl Spirits), because when I was buying them the OP gate strength was a consideration. I didn't consider other biners unsafe, but I also wasn't passing up the higher rating for a dollar or two more. I had a 100lbs on some of my climbing partners back then and it seemed like short money.
(This post was edited by sp115 on May 25, 2011, 12:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
May 25, 2011, 12:16 PM
Post #163 of 175
(4921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
sp115 wrote: qwert wrote: What we need now is someone with a highspeed camera, to film a few falls, with a direct focus on the quickdraw. qwert Wasn't there a thread awhile ago that had a video of a guy taking a whipper at Indian creek and almost landing on his belalyer? The first piece ripped but the second (or third), un-clipped from the rope as the rope was coming tight. Most people didn't seem to suprised by it, but I was blown away. I can certainly see how gate flutter could be an issue on a fall. Edit to add video link: http://www.mountainproject.com/...sew_it_up_/107061028
from that position and in that speed you only see that some stuff fails, but you do not have any info on what exactly happens.
I am talking about a high speed camera (1000fps or something) fixed next the protection (ie. quickdraw at a bolt) that films exactly what happens when the biner catches the rope.
Gate whiplash?
Gate flutter?
nothing?
Micro black holes?
fairies and unicorns fucking?
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
May 25, 2011, 12:38 PM
Post #164 of 175
(4918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
Yes, that wasn't really adressing what you asked for, my point was only that given how violently the gear whipped around as he fell, and that one piece simply un-clipped, it wouldn't surprise me if gate-flutter happen more often than we might realize.
Of course if that were the case the point could also be made that in the vast majority of falls it doesn't lead to catastrophic failure.
|
|
|
|
|
michael1245
May 25, 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #165 of 175
(4914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247
|
really good stuff people. very entertaining and informative!
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
May 25, 2011, 2:36 PM
Post #166 of 175
(4895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
Jay's not asking about the number of biner failures from an OG, he asking about merely falling on an open gate. He's already agreed that it is rare for a biner to fail, even with an open gate. I doubt we can really estimate how often a gate opens during a fall. Even if it happened, how would we really know until it resulted in a failure? Short of observing carabiners with a camera during real falls, I don't think this is an easy question to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 25, 2011, 2:59 PM
Post #167 of 175
(4887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
bearbreeder wrote: its pretty obvious that no matter what the UIAA, camp, bd and other companies/org that test this equipment every day say ... there will be some rc "experts" who will always insist they are always right ... the bottom line is that i put more faith in the credible sources whose equipment i use every day and who are liable if anything goes wrong ... than some guy on the internet that insist they know it all
That may be your bottom line, but as far as I'm concerned, it's my bottom on the line, and I will decide what I feel is appropriate gear to use for which applications. Abdicating the responsibility for my safety to the experts is foolhardy, and I am no fool. They won't suffer the consequences if I crater.
The experts' job is to inform my opinion, not to replace it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
May 25, 2011, 3:04 PM
Post #168 of 175
(4885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
jt512 wrote: Your life depends on a single biner at the start of just about every climb. I have a friend who took a ground fall from just 15 feet, and was given a 50–50 chance of surviving (which he did). And it's at that first piece that the highest fall-factor falls occur. Do the math; then ask yourself whether 7 kN is a sufficient margin for error. I did, and I found it wasn't for me. Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner.
YES. I know someone who was climbing a crack who had a similar experience. ie, broken Krab led to a broken back on his first piece. He swore that it wasn't over any rocks and was hanging free. It just failed for some unknown reason. He unsuccessfully tried to sue the mfg.
The first biners I owned were Eiger Ovals purchased brand new. Their breaking strength (gate closed) was listed as 1800 lbs. I have continually traded into better biners as they have gotten stronger. Yes: I consider Wild Country Heliums a better biner than Kong Ds, Chouiinard light D's, Petzl Spirits (I still love the way they clip and use them for lead climbing at times) and even better than Eiger Ovals as the Heliums are close to stronger cross loaded than the ovals loaded correctly.
You all have valid points, but I don't see, other than reading comprehension issues, what anyone can argue against him on. Stronger biners are better. Choose what you want and get the level of safety you wish. Are any of them going to ever fail for you? Most likely a super rare occurrence. Is 7kn fine for climbing? Sure, as I noted above, I climb on my Nanos. All the time. Is 10 kn better than 7kn? DUH. Perhaps in a hook nose test they might break at the exact same figure or the 7kn will outperform the 10kn's, but I seriously doubt that.
|
|
|
|
|
michael1245
May 25, 2011, 3:19 PM
Post #169 of 175
(4876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247
|
spikeddem wrote: I can do the same for every non-locker. That's probably because every single non-locking biner on my rack is a Helium biner.
Specifically, "Wild Country Helium Clean Wire Carabiner"? 33 grams, 24kN (closed), 10kN (open), 7kN (cross)?
My local store doesn't carry them, so I have to order online. What's the consensus on this biner for QD purposes? Does it sit well on a bolt? Less likely to flutter?
I'm reading this...
The world's best wiregate has been designed for elite climbers everywhere and the Helium's unparalleled combination of extreme lightweight, high strength and 'Clean-wire' no hook nose make it the ultimate on-sighting biner. When the Helium concept was initially launched a major focus was to make a wire gate but with none of the traditional drawbacks a wire has; that they can hook up on bolts or wires, can unclip more easily than snap gates, and are susceptible to opening if lying against the rock. To get round these took a lot of 'blue sky' thinking a lot of pencils and a shedload of engineering time. The solution was our 'Clean-wire' hooded nose and our new flat-wire gate. With this combination of features the Helium counters to a huge degree all these traditional problems by covering the gate within the nose not allowing it to get hooked up. A close up of the Helium Clean-nose that shows how the 'sunken' flat-wire gate is hidden and protected - allowing the hood of the nose to be a smooth non-catch surface for clipping / unclipping. Other Helium features that have contributed to its success are the fact it has a Hot Forged I Beam Back which gives it amazing strength for its weight, 10kN gate open for example. It is also a full size biner which all other biners of this weight aren't so it fits in the hand well and is easy to use. It has also been designed place the rope in exactly the right place to maximise strength at all times and the slight 'pip' at each end helps the rope to sit correctly and load correctly. Reviews for the Helium have been superb all around the world recognising it's brilliant engineering and the contribution it make to lightening the climber's load - and as we all know the less weight we have to drag behind us the further we'll get.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 25, 2011, 3:28 PM
Post #170 of 175
(4872 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
michael1245 wrote: spikeddem wrote: I can do the same for every non-locker. That's probably because every single non-locking biner on my rack is a Helium biner. Specifically, "Wild Country Helium Clean Wire Carabiner"? 33 grams, 24kN (closed), 10kN (open), 7kN (cross)? My local store doesn't carry them, so I have to order online. What's the consensus on this biner for QD purposes? Does it sit well on a bolt? Less likely to flutter? I'm reading this... The world's best wiregate has been designed for elite climbers everywhere and the Helium's unparalleled combination of extreme lightweight, high strength and 'Clean-wire' no hook nose make it the ultimate on-sighting biner. When the Helium concept was initially launched a major focus was to make a wire gate but with none of the traditional drawbacks a wire has; that they can hook up on bolts or wires, can unclip more easily than snap gates, and are susceptible to opening if lying against the rock. To get round these took a lot of 'blue sky' thinking a lot of pencils and a shedload of engineering time. The solution was our 'Clean-wire' hooded nose and our new flat-wire gate. With this combination of features the Helium counters to a huge degree all these traditional problems by covering the gate within the nose not allowing it to get hooked up. A close up of the Helium Clean-nose that shows how the 'sunken' flat-wire gate is hidden and protected - allowing the hood of the nose to be a smooth non-catch surface for clipping / unclipping. Other Helium features that have contributed to its success are the fact it has a Hot Forged I Beam Back which gives it amazing strength for its weight, 10kN gate open for example. It is also a full size biner which all other biners of this weight aren't so it fits in the hand well and is easy to use. It has also been designed place the rope in exactly the right place to maximise strength at all times and the slight 'pip' at each end helps the rope to sit correctly and load correctly. Reviews for the Helium have been superb all around the world recognising it's brilliant engineering and the contribution it make to lightening the climber's load - and as we all know the less weight we have to drag behind us the further we'll get.
I use them on the rope end of all my QDs except for the anchor draws. For the bolt end I use an assortment of key-lock (no hook nose) straight gate biners.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
michael1245
May 25, 2011, 3:34 PM
Post #171 of 175
(4867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 247
|
ok, cool.
thinking of investing in a few of these.
I'm in between on a lot of this. For one, I believe that 7 kN open-gate is sufficient, given certain circumstances. For example...using a QD as a "directional", or doing a more G-rated climb where there's plenty of protection and not long run-outs where the fall factor increases.
but, there are situations where I could see a need for something more protective...like, on long run-outs climbs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 25, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #172 of 175
(4816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: bearbreeder wrote: its pretty obvious that no matter what the UIAA, camp, bd and other companies/org that test this equipment every day say ... there will be some rc "experts" who will always insist they are always right ... the bottom line is that i put more faith in the credible sources whose equipment i use every day and who are liable if anything goes wrong ... than some guy on the internet that insist they know it all That may be your bottom line, but as far as I'm concerned, it's my bottom on the line, and I will decide what I feel is appropriate gear to use for which applications. Abdicating the responsibility for my safety to the experts is foolhardy, and I am no fool. They won't suffer the consequences if I crater. The experts' job is to inform my opinion, not to replace it. GO
That was very well put.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 25, 2011, 8:59 PM
Post #173 of 175
(4802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Thanks, Jay. I feel very strongly about this. More so every year. Things like the issues with the Aliens really helped drive the point home for me. This nonsense about liability is exactly that. What security am I granted, run out above my last piece, knowing that if I blow it and everything goes to shit, maybe I (or my next of kin) can sue for lots of $$? It gives me no security whatsoever.
My security, such as it is, comes from whatever skill, vigilance, and good judgment I possess. My ability to make it to the next good hold. My placement skills. My wisdom in choosing the route, the gear, the belayer. My vigilance in staying on top of the stuff that's important.
I appreciate the gear manufacturers providing me with standardized data on the strength of their gear. But all that is simply a starting point. The gear is simply a set of tools. It can never keep you safe. Only you can keep you safe.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
May 26, 2011, 12:17 AM
Post #174 of 175
(4751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
jt512 wrote: No one is making any sort of "R.I.P." claim, although several people, including you now, are attacking that straw man.
jt512 wrote: Your life depends on a single biner at the start of just about every climb. I have a friend who took a ground fall from just 15 feet, and was given a 50–50 chance of surviving (which he did). And it's at that first piece that the highest fall-factor falls occur. Do the math; then ask yourself whether 7 kN is a sufficient margin for error. I did, and I found it wasn't for me. Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner.
Pretty obvious what you are implying... you think it's too dangerous to use 7kN o-g rated biners. How in the world am I putting words in your mouth and creating a strawman? Did you not just say in the post above that people should do the math and come to the same conclusion as you?
I'm confused as to what point you are making if you aren't saying that 9kN makes you "safe" unlike a 7kN biner... again, like you just said in the quote above.
In reply to: Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner.
Please explain.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 26, 2011, 1:12 AM
Post #175 of 175
(4739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
psprings wrote: jt512 wrote: No one is making any sort of "R.I.P." claim, although several people, including you now, are attacking that straw man. jt512 wrote: Your life depends on a single biner at the start of just about every climb. I have a friend who took a ground fall from just 15 feet, and was given a 50–50 chance of surviving (which he did). And it's at that first piece that the highest fall-factor falls occur. Do the math; then ask yourself whether 7 kN is a sufficient margin for error. I did, and I found it wasn't for me. Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner. Pretty obvious what you are implying... you think it's too dangerous to use 7kN o-g rated biners.
No, I don't think that it's flat-out "'too dangerous' to use 7-kN OG biners."
In reply to: How in the world am I putting words in your mouth and creating a strawman?
Because I didn't say what you said I said. Pretty simple, eh?
In reply to: Did you not just say in the post above that people should do the math and come to the same conclusion as you?
No, I didn't say that people should come to the same conclusion as I. I said the opposite: that they should ask themselves whether it is a sufficient margin for error.
In reply to: I'm confused as to what point you are making if you aren't saying that 9kN makes you "safe" unlike a 7kN biner... again, like you just said in the quote above.
There's not much I can do to help you binary thinkers. It should be obvious that the probability of an open-gate failure decreases with increasing open-gate strength. You are not in absolute danger with a 7-kN biner, nor are you absolutely "safe" with a 9-kN biner (and I still don't know why you keep picking 9 kN).
In reply to: In reply to: Certainly not when the risk can be almost entirely eliminated for an extra $3 per biner. And again, according to YOUR numbers in this thread, you can generate 8.4kNs according to your force calculator. I minor tweak and suddenly you are over 9. And you now say that the risk is "almost entirely eliminated". Wow. You're making my point for me... you are definately saying that people aren't safe climbing on 7kN rated biners. Please explain.
There you go with your 9 kN straw man again. Whatever. I am not going to explain yet again the limitations of the models in my calculator. I've done so once already in this thread, and have pointed you to where you can read up on them. Whether you use "my" models or somebody else's, there will be falls that will break a 7 kN biner but not a 9 kN biner. My guess is that if you go up to about 10 kN, you will be practically immune from open-gate failure. I can't prove that so please don't ask me to try.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on May 26, 2011, 2:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
