|
adatesman
Aug 17, 2009, 6:04 PM
Post #1 of 32
(12468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Aug 19, 2009, 2:29 AM
Post #2 of 32
(12382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
I havnt had a problem with the yates slipping in years ..the old original type with the smaller buckle with less agressive teeth tended to start slipping usually 2/3 the way up an el-cap trip ..under body weight... major pain.
the thing i'd like to see are 2 basic tests where data shows when failure occurs... one would expect that slippage may occur first... but then again maybe not... so 2 tests... one with a reserve of say 6 inches slack (payout) left.. to allow slippage failure... and another fully extended to see about static failure.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Aug 19, 2009, 3:09 AM
Post #3 of 32
(12370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
I'd definitely be interested to know how much tension it takes to break them, too. I do know a guy who broke one during a little fuckup on North America wall (it was a metolious one) and would be curious if the other ones are stronger.
Not that I see myself breaking one.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 19, 2009, 6:03 PM
Post #4 of 32
(12336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Aug 20, 2009, 2:59 AM
Post #5 of 32
(12307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
I general the force rquired for slippage is interesting but not critical... slippage i have dealt with before.. annoying and can get your haert beating if it happens on a questionable peice...
I guess my main priority if we have limited equipment to test is absolute failure..
many is the time I have used 2 adjustable daisies as my main attachment at an anchor (lotta slack in the tie in such that i'd have probably been seriously injured at least if both daisies failed) ... gotta admit i wondered how safe I was being.
|
|
|
|
|
LaFermeEtGrimpe
Aug 20, 2009, 4:44 PM
Post #6 of 32
(12271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2009
Posts: 1
|
I'm using the Petzl Quickfix for the past 2 years and I never got any problem, it haven't even slipped... (Maybe they are still to new??)
I'm very interested to see your test about these...
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 20, 2009, 5:28 PM
Post #7 of 32
(12252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Aric
you already know that they will fail so why do you want to spend time try to save a dead goat ?
people are dumb for not understanding how mechanical jaws cut thru soft material during fall and we had seen this a 1000 times over Jumar, Gibbs,Pro trx, Mini trax and so fort.
edit to add;
if you want to test then you must take a 100 kg load and drop it at least 1 meter on FF1+.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Aug 20, 2009, 5:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 20, 2009, 5:39 PM
Post #8 of 32
(12245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Aug 24, 2009, 4:24 PM
Post #9 of 32
(12180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I agree with Majid. The data will serve no good purpose. Just seems like fodder for future threads using grossly misused/misunderstood, useless data to argue moot points. Why clog the system with this stuff?
A newer climber asked about daisy anchoring a couple months back and it took many pages to get it through the dumbshits here that it is not acceptable practice. Now you wish to bring useless data to the table, too? When will common sense prevail.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Aug 24, 2009, 4:50 PM
Post #10 of 32
(12168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
Some people are curious about how much they can put their gear through.
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Aug 24, 2009, 9:41 PM
Post #11 of 32
(12134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
sungam wrote: Some people are curious about how much they can put their gear through.
By putting them up to tests that have no real similarity to their use? What kind of logic is this? I just use it till it becomes unusable, and keep a spare nearby when I suspect it has lived a usable life. Too simple for some, and as it appears, too complicated for others.
Adatesman writes"In any event, the whole reason for this set of testing is because the aid monkeys over on Supertopo asked for it and provided some samples to test. If you don't like these sorts of discussions, well, no one is forcing you to participate in them."
I am one of those aid monkeys over at the taco, and it seems the discussion that some of the queries to which you seek answers, were answered already, moot, or just plain not pertinent to real world climbing. What is it you really seek again? (excuse me if you are pertaining to a different thread than I think, I have been out of internet range in the backcountry for a week.)
It is not the participation in them that I take issue with, please take two seconds and read my reasons above. It is the volumes of bad and useless data at the hands of those who know knott what to do with it. And consequently, the 300 or so 15 page threads, beating dead horses, misinformation that they will surely spawn, and just trying to keep noobs from killing each other, themselves, and the rest of us, just so you can break stuff? I thought your previous contact with manufacturers would have shown you that unreliable testing, and bad data that results can and does create problems, way bigger than you anticipated. (MC issue) Being responsible in actions is more important than just yacking about something on the inturdnet, in my opinion anyway. I know, kind of old fashioned morals. But in our day it kept peoples reputations intact, rumors quashed, and decency alive.
Come on, breaking glass in the backyard with different stones, at different velocities, will not make your cola better to drink, (just as scientific) no matter how it is justified.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Aug 25, 2009, 12:33 AM
Post #12 of 32
(12101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
"I really see no reason whatsoever to need a daisy that will need to hold that much more weight than me, rack, ropes and drag"
Bob, some do see a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 25, 2009, 1:24 AM
Post #13 of 32
(12082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Aug 25, 2009, 2:28 AM
Post #14 of 32
(12065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Wow, hostile with little to back up your bad attitude. Nice.
"Perhaps if you had some hard data to back up the claims you made in other threads then it may not have taken however many pages to convince people you weren't in fact some internet tough guy talking out his ass? As for the MC thing, there's a whole lot of behind the scenes goings-on that you know nothing of as you were not part of those discussions, so perhaps you best shut your trap on that.
A small amount of offense intended there, as I take issue with bearing the brunt of your angst for something I was asked to do by others, whom you claim to be your compatriots. "
Maybe you should indeed look before you run your ignorant mouth, I am a poster in the threads I mentioned, and your findings(nonscientific, wrong, and generally impertinent) were indeed what I specifically stated early on in the threads. You just seem to think your findings are fact, or at the very least correct. Sorry about this, but the facts and your opinion based on your findings are not one in the same.
You are doing a disservice, I am stating that, and if you choose hostility, before even looking, maybe you are not the right person to be making calls based on what you think is the best for the climbing community.
If you are offended, maybe it is what you should feel. If you are objective, I am sure you would have a different response. Your mind is obviously made up, so hack away at what is good here in this community. Sooner or later you and a couple others who think they are more than they are will have it so messed up that all who may care will never set foot near here again. It is already closer than you may know. Ignorance is not king, so please look at what you are saying, about me, about products, about testing. It is very apparent that you know less than you think you do. People's lives may be gravely affected by ignorance, and you sir, may be the root of it. No offense intended, just trying to state what is blatantly obvious to some.
"Perhaps if you had some hard data to back up the claims you made in other threads then it may not have taken however many pages to convince people you weren't in fact some internet tough guy talking out his ass?"
Oh, and if you reread the Daisy used for anchoring thread, the painfully long one, you will see the facts stated/quoted were copied directly from manufacturers websites, and posted very early on in the discussion. Maybe those are not solid enough for you? Maybe "they" are talking out my ass? Doesn't really add up, looking from over here. I still do not know where the tough guy judgment comes from, fill me in please. I still see nothing usefull from your musings, just potentially damaging.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Aug 25, 2009, 3:32 AM
Post #15 of 32
(12045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
I want data... I am very well aware of the limitations of specific tests but if desugned correctly with enough data points you get significant infomation. I mean that in a statistical sense.
in the real world i have many times used adjustable daisies in a non backed up situation... usually ascending...
was I taking a risk.. undoubtedly.. how big was the risk..unknown without data.
I'd like to have a clearer picture of the risk.
BTW where the heck do you think the ratings on biners come from..or C certification or 3sigma means? how do you think the tests were done??
hell yeah this testing is important.
(This post was edited by skiclimb on Aug 25, 2009, 3:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Aug 25, 2009, 2:01 PM
Post #16 of 32
(12018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I agree that testing is important, especially with the things we use every day. But carabiners are tested in a way that the data is usable, and the results of the tests are applicable to their real world use.
If the world was supposed to use daisies for life support, then one should seek the answers you seek. If you do not back up while jugging, and are curious as to your bravado or stupidity ratio, then this information is potentially damaging to the climbing community as a whole.
I also am curious as to what they will take, but not enough to risk the nOObs thinking it is quite acceptable to use them as their sole attachment to the planet. And the testing serves no real world application usefulness. Posting the results also serves no real world application usefulness.
This is not too hard to understand. The concept of responsibility to the climbing community is also simple, yet very few seem to care. It used to be a mentor or experienced person showed the new guys what was up, and what could get you killed.
That time seems to have been replaced by climbing gyms, magazines, and internet know it alls. I just wish to keep bad info out of the hands of those so inexperienced, that they may do harm to themselves, others(go ahead, they said on the internet it was OK, right?), or god forbid fall onto me or the hundreds of other climbers I have gotten to know and would not like to see harmed.
The testing done by manufacturers has a purpose. This testing serves curiosity, not purpose.
Again, just my two cents worth.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 25, 2009, 3:49 PM
Post #17 of 32
(12003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Aug 25, 2009, 4:37 PM
Post #18 of 32
(11989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I do believe you sir, are the one who doesn't read or comprehend well. Here, this is published, even used your link to get it.
Author:
Russ Walling
Gym climber
From: Poofter's Froth, Wyoming
Just went and pull tested an adjustable daisy.... old buckle, fresh webbing.
The webbing broke at 2000lbs right where it bends around the buckle. Other end of webbing was left in the cam.
Copy and pasted. Took less than 2 minutes. Your hostility is probably what I suspected in the beginning.
You still have not addressed the fact that you called me a tough guy. Really, you should back up and read your stuff. Pretty irresponsible writing and points for a moderator. My 12 year old grandson concurs also.
"which was requested by one of the manufacturers."
Of course Russ would want testing. Publicity is always good. He knows what they break at already.(see above) The more exposure the better for him. Yes shameless plug for Russ. Fish gear does indeed rock. I am not ashamed to say it.
Oh yea, my post is something like the second below that. How did that get there without my participation in the thread, or as you state"you're spouting off even though you clearly haven't read any of this thread or the one on ST where the discussion began." You may quite possibly just be hostile, and so it appears, much more ignorant than I originaly anticipated.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
erolls
Aug 25, 2009, 4:37 PM
Post #19 of 32
(11988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2006
Posts: 41
|
Go for it Aric. I, for one appreciate your destructive endeavors. Even if you rig them between a post and a truck bumper inconclusive as it may be, any test is better than none. Thanx.
I really like the concept of an AD but after using them I've decided they're not for me and have gone back to trads.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 25, 2009, 8:44 PM
Post #20 of 32
(11955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Aug 26, 2009, 3:03 AM
Post #21 of 32
(11933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
nice to hear russ's test at 2k lbs.. My minimum standard for most non anchor non fall situations is 1600lbs.. based on 4x 200lbs times 2 for wet strength ... thats minimum.... its an old standard for repel anchor minimum strength...actualy it's double the old repel minimum standard since I always figure for wet strength which as a general rule of thumb approaches 50% dry strength..
as with all things flexibile in real world situations judgement and real experience trying to blow peices out..helps. And being only a single data point ..it's very suspect ..however it does fall within a reasonable guestimate of the likely strength of the materials..
(This post was edited by skiclimb on Aug 26, 2009, 3:08 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Sep 15, 2009, 9:01 PM
Post #22 of 32
(11767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
Bob writes this here about testing adjustable daisys:
xtrmecat wrote: I agree with Majid. The data will serve no good purpose. Just seems like fodder for future threads using grosslymisused/misunderstood, useless data to argue moot points. Why clog the system with this stuff?
But writes this over at ST regarding the testing of adjustable daisys:
xtrmecat wrote: Russ, oops. Sorry about the bad link, too many monitors and things going at once. Fixed it. Note to self, do not do homework, surf, and talk on the phone all at once. Could do it once way long ago, but those days are obviously gone. Also awaiting the results. No worries Aric, you ruffled no feathers here. Bob
What's changed?
Link to the ST discussion in case anyone is interested:
http://www.supertopo.com/...84&tn=0&mr=0
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 15, 2009, 9:47 PM
Post #23 of 32
(11750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
whatever you do please post some photos
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Sep 17, 2009, 4:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 15, 2009, 9:49 PM
Post #24 of 32
(11748 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
majid_sabet wrote: whatever you go do please post some photos
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Sep 16, 2009, 6:00 PM
Post #25 of 32
(10795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
To bluntly answer your question. The amount of damage it would do to the different audiences. If you do not know the difference, stay here for sure.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
