|
full1346
Nov 18, 2007, 3:45 AM
Post #1 of 36
(3216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 61
|
ive heard mixed opinions on this, so i want to hear some more insight... if i mistakenly drop a biner onto a rock surface, should i retire it because the shock might have messed up the biner's internal integrity? if i do drop it, how high is too high?
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Nov 18, 2007, 3:53 AM
Post #2 of 36
(3211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
Last I heard, which was probably five years ago, if you drop a carabiner onto a hard surface from three feet or higher, it's recommended you retire it.
Do I? No.
|
|
|
|
|
full1346
Nov 18, 2007, 3:56 AM
Post #3 of 36
(3204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 61
|
ive also heard that from my friend who used to guide in colo. he said anything above the waist it was his companies policy to retire it. but ive also have a friend who said that was ridiculous. and ive also seen guys chuck a couple biners lashed to some webbing over the side of a ledge for a toprope... they didnt seem to mind
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Nov 18, 2007, 4:03 AM
Post #4 of 36
(3187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
What type of biner? I have special anchor biners that are used for anchors, nothing else. If I drop one of those, I would retire it. If I drop a extra biner, or a racking biner for a cam, I re-rack it.
Its your call.
>Cam
|
|
|
|
|
full1346
Nov 18, 2007, 4:05 AM
Post #5 of 36
(3185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 61
|
the last one i dropped was locker i used for belaying. it wasnt even a three foot fall, i dropped it from midthigh. is that too much anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
the_leech
Nov 18, 2007, 5:16 AM
Post #6 of 36
(3146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 392
|
full1346 wrote: how high is too high?
I'm glad someone finally brought up this question.
1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point.
That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006.
If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die.
Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 18, 2007, 5:45 AM
Post #7 of 36
(3127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety.
Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite.
OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.).
If the 'biner doesn't display abnormal signs it's safe to use.
Here's an interesting resource regarding this:
http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Nov 18, 2007, 9:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Nov 18, 2007, 5:55 AM
Post #8 of 36
(3119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html
Totally trolled dude.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Nov 18, 2007, 4:12 PM
Post #9 of 36
(3041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
the_leech wrote: full1346 wrote: how high is too high? I'm glad someone finally brought up this question. 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point.
Your data is incomplete b/c it doesn't take into account whether the person dropping the carabiner was moving or stationary at the time the drop occurred. If the person himself was being dropped at the time that he dropped the biner, that biner would have had the starting speed that was not zero, therefore the ground impact would have been much harder.
I still think that 3 ft rule is much safer to adgere to--especially in America, where the cm to inch conversion might be difficult for most people.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Nov 18, 2007, 4:26 PM
Post #10 of 36
(3030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
full1346 wrote: ive heard mixed opinions on this, so i want to hear some more insight... if i mistakenly drop a biner onto a rock surface, should i retire it because the shock might have messed up the biner's internal integrity? if i do drop it, how high is too high?
read ja1484's post- that would be the correct answer.
that said, if you ever feel uncomfortable about the integrity of any of your gear- cams, ropes, carabiners, draws, harness, whatver- retire it. the last thing you need is to be 1000' up, wondering whether or not some part of your system will fail if you fall.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Nov 18, 2007, 8:56 PM
Post #11 of 36
(2936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
Do a better search here, please--this has drawn some good contributions in the past.
The short answer to you for now is that rumors/etc. about dropping being dangerous
to 'biners is pure rubbish (and, no suprise, you'll find NO studies to show any damage;
you will find studies that show no damage, even to biners collected that fell 1_000' or more!).
*kN*
|
|
|
|
|
toejam
Nov 19, 2007, 2:20 AM
Post #13 of 36
(2807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 358
|
Can you cite any references for that Leech?
By "internal integrity" you probably mean microfractures. Search on that and you will find that
- it is a myth
- several rc.com members operate their own personal microfracture testing facilities. If you send them the equipment in question they will test it for you, and dispose of the equipment in an appropriate manner. If you would like to make use of mine PM me.
My understanding is that any significant damage from a fall should be detectable by a careful visual inspection. REI recommends you retire any gear that has been dropped over 20 feet, but they sell the stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Nov 19, 2007, 2:27 AM
Post #14 of 36
(2796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
toejam wrote: Can you cite any references for that Leech? By "internal integrity" you probably mean microfractures. Search on that and you will find that - it is a myth - several rc.com members operate their own personal microfracture testing facilities. If you send them the equipment in question they will test it for you, and dispose of the equipment in an appropriate manner. If you would like to make use of mine PM me. My understanding is that any significant damage from a fall should be detectable by a careful visual inspection. REI recommends you retire any gear that has been dropped over 20 feet, but they sell the stuff.
Leech you are THE Fisherman
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Nov 19, 2007, 2:29 AM
Post #15 of 36
(2792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
Why is humor so hard to understand, damn... I would think that rock climbers are the most boring group of people ever if I didn't know better.
Still laughing with you leech, but I heard that if the biner hits your lace-ups with more than 8 eyelets than you are ok for another .33333m on your fall distance. If you climb velcroed or slippered than ignore the previous comment, hemp made - fair trade - bong resin shoes gain you another .25654m, just because they know you care on the inside...
j-
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 19, 2007, 2:53 AM
Post #16 of 36
(2776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude.
You can't be trolled when you call it out.
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Nov 19, 2007, 3:14 AM
Post #17 of 36
(2753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
ja1484 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude. You can't be trolled when you call it out.
Yep... trolled hard
j-
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 19, 2007, 3:16 AM
Post #18 of 36
(2751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
flint wrote: ja1484 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude. You can't be trolled when you call it out. Yep... trolled hard j-
Do you really think that's going to keep working?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 19, 2007, 3:18 AM
Post #19 of 36
(2747 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
full1346 wrote: if i mistakenly drop a biner onto a rock surface, should i retire it because the shock might have messed up the biner's internal integrity?
full1346 wrote: if i do drop it, how high is too high?
Some things just should not be toyed with... Our 'Biner is one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
full1346
Nov 19, 2007, 3:30 AM
Post #20 of 36
(2732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 61
|
i dont think i follow, fink ( i am gonna get ripped for this...). thanks for the insight guys and gals
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 19, 2007, 3:31 AM
Post #21 of 36
(2730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
Unless I miss my guess, you should search users for "carabiner96"
|
|
|
|
|
toejam
Nov 19, 2007, 3:33 AM
Post #22 of 36
(2729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 358
|
Hey, thats not fair. I wrote that late last night, but I spat out the hook and didn't post it. Then it posts when I reply to another thread?!?
Anyway, JDF is the real fisherman, the rest are just pretenders.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 19, 2007, 3:35 AM
Post #23 of 36
(2727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
ja1484 wrote: flint wrote: ja1484 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude. You can't be trolled when you call it out. Yep... trolled hard j- Do you really think that's going to keep working?
It's well known that the_leech is among the best, so don't feel bad about it. Afterall, he did post a humorously worthless response to a pretty piss-poor troll to begin with, and in doing so upped the quality of the initial troll by an order of magnitude.
EDIT to add:
Lena Chita's post was a great add... obviously she was continuing the troll by adding bait to the thread, meaning she was also a fisher, rather than a fishee
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on Nov 19, 2007, 3:39 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 19, 2007, 3:42 AM
Post #24 of 36
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
stymingersfink wrote: ja1484 wrote: flint wrote: ja1484 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude. You can't be trolled when you call it out. Yep... trolled hard j- Do you really think that's going to keep working? Well, to not be trolled you would have had to continue creatively providing obviously worthless and probably inflammatory information, in a manner more subtle than the one which dangled the bait. Instead, you attempted to provide worthwhile information even after acknowledging that the_leech's bait was ffffffricken irresistible, so yes. You got trolled. It's well known that the_leech is among the best, so don't feel bad about it. Afterall, he did post a humorously worthless response to a pretty piss-poor troll to begin with, and in doing so upped the quality of the initial troll by an order of magnitude. EDIT to add: Lena Chita's post was a great add... obviously she was continuing the troll by adding bait to the thread, meaning she was also a fish er, rather than a fish ee
I beg to differ sir! You will clearly see in the quote you yourself use that I addressed my meaningful information to the OP through the clever use of "OP:" prefacing, thereby negating any relationship it may have had to the prior declaration of bait in the water!
(Are we really all this bored?)
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Nov 19, 2007, 3:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Nov 19, 2007, 3:51 AM
Post #25 of 36
(2702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
ja1484 wrote: stymingersfink wrote: ja1484 wrote: flint wrote: ja1484 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ja1484 wrote: the_leech wrote: 1.75 meters on a hard surface is the cut-off point. That's not an arbitrary figure. That distance was determined through extensive drop testing conducted in 2005 and upheld following peer-reviewed analysis in early 2006. If you trust your life to aluminum biners that have fallen more than 1.75 meters onto a hard surface, you are asking to die. Personally, I wouldn't use any biners that have been dropped more than 1.65 meters. It's good to have a margin of safety. Until you link me to said peer-reviewed study, that's a decent troll you've got there, especially since previous testing suggested the opposite. OP: Aluminum, especially as heat treated to construct climbing hardware, is a ductile material, meaning it bends or deforms with damage. Thus, if your carabiner has had its structure appreciably changed, it will either show deformation or a noticeable change in function (i.e. the gate action is sloppy where it wasn't before, or the gate won't close, etc.). If the 'biner doesn't display these signs it's safe to use. Here's an interesting resource regarding this: http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html Totally trolled dude. You can't be trolled when you call it out. Yep... trolled hard j- Do you really think that's going to keep working? Well, to not be trolled you would have had to continue creatively providing obviously worthless and probably inflammatory information, in a manner more subtle than the one which dangled the bait. Instead, you attempted to provide worthwhile information even after acknowledging that the_leech's bait was ffffffricken irresistible, so yes. You got trolled. It's well known that the_leech is among the best, so don't feel bad about it. Afterall, he did post a humorously worthless response to a pretty piss-poor troll to begin with, and in doing so upped the quality of the initial troll by an order of magnitude. EDIT to add: Lena Chita's post was a great add... obviously she was continuing the troll by adding bait to the thread, meaning she was also a fish er, rather than a fish eeI beg to differ sir! You will clearly see in the quote you yourself use that I addressed my meaningful information to the OP through the clever use of "OP:" prefacing, thereby negating any relationship it may have had to the prior declaration of bait in the water!
ja1484 wrote: (Are we really all this bored?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
