|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 1:38 AM
Post #26 of 102
(2569 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
redlude97 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: 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
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 9, 2010, 1:49 AM
Post #27 of 102
(2559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: redlude97 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: 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
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 1:51 AM
Post #28 of 102
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
i was speaking as your only piece in the system ... i wouldnt use just a not even on easy alpine...
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 9, 2010, 1:53 AM
Post #29 of 102
(2554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: i was speaking as your only piece in the system ... i wouldnt use just a not even on easy alpine...
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 1:57 AM
Post #30 of 102
(2547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
im including the belay on multipitch ...
if its the 1st pitch yr right ... i stand corrected ... u deck ... lol
point is dont trust yr life to a single nut on a belay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 9, 2010, 2:35 AM
Post #31 of 102
(2535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
good job pointing out something that has no relevance to this thread or the OP's question
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 2:46 AM
Post #32 of 102
(2525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
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 in real rock 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
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Sep 9, 2010, 3:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 9, 2010, 3:17 AM
Post #33 of 102
(2500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: 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
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 3:22 AM
Post #34 of 102
(2495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
OP also asked about about why biners are full strength and nuts arent
guess u are that stupid ... lol
can't read ? ... hmmm
|
|
|
|
|
tower_climber
Sep 9, 2010, 3:30 AM
Post #35 of 102
(2489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2010
Posts: 157
|
[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.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 3:33 AM
Post #36 of 102
(2485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
tower_climber wrote: [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
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Sep 9, 2010, 3:51 AM
Post #37 of 102
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: tower_climber wrote: [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
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 4:02 AM
Post #38 of 102
(2464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
cant read? ... i said
"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 "
hmmm ... seems not ... you till havent helped the OP mista troll .... lol
|
|
|
|
|
tower_climber
Sep 9, 2010, 4:47 AM
Post #39 of 102
(2450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2010
Posts: 157
|
bearbreeder wrote: 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
Fair enough. I'll go back to my corner now.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 9, 2010, 4:51 AM
Post #40 of 102
(2445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
redlude97 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: tower_climber wrote: [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 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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 4:54 AM
Post #41 of 102
(2460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
tower_climber wrote: 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
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Sep 9, 2010, 4:56 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Sep 9, 2010, 1:38 PM
Post #42 of 102
(2385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
bearbreeder wrote: tower_climber wrote: 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
You don't think it has anything to do with the wire being different thicknesses?
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 3:32 PM
Post #43 of 102
(2351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 9, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #44 of 102
(2346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
jt512 wrote: redlude97 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: tower_climber wrote: [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 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. 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
this is actually true of all metolius gear- they wont rate anything above 10kn, although their cams pull significantly higher, they feel that rock quality is too much of a variable to rate them above 10kn.
i would also suspect its true of most other cams as well to a smaller extent.
|
|
|
|
|
clc
Sep 9, 2010, 3:38 PM
Post #45 of 102
(2346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 495
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 9, 2010, 3:50 PM
Post #46 of 102
(2336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
bearbreeder wrote: 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
They weigh a lot though, and provide no extra safety margin, since the placement almost uniformly fails before the wire does.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Sep 9, 2010, 3:51 PM
Post #47 of 102
(2335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
bearbreeder wrote: 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
So you're saying the number of kN they put on the stopper is due to contact area and not the strength of the wire?
clc wrote: 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.
Have you guys never broken a wire, having it instead pull out first? You must climb some real choss.
edit... although admittedly I have not yet broken a wire rated at 10kN
(This post was edited by kachoong on Sep 9, 2010, 3:53 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 3:58 PM
Post #48 of 102
(2322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
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
for micronuts i almost always use a screamer though ...
like i said if someone wants to show that wire size and not contact area is the determining factor im totally open ... it doesnt seem so to me however
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Sep 9, 2010, 5:05 PM
Post #49 of 102
(2296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
bearbreeder wrote: 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 suspect you don't use a lot of small nuts as protection. As they get smaller, the wire begins to interfere with placements.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Sep 9, 2010, 5:15 PM
Post #50 of 102
(2289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
