Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab: Re: [paulraphael] Proposed Anchor Rigging: Edit Log




ja1484


May 19, 2007, 4:12 AM

Views: 22744

Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935

Re: [paulraphael] Proposed Anchor Rigging
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

paulraphael wrote:
I still think a carabiner would be weaker and less secure in every imaginable way. Keep in mind that a biner's strength plumets when the load moves even a centimeter from its strong axis (represented by the indentations next to the spine, made by the 5mm steel pins of the testing aparatus).

I need to address a lot of things in this post.

The anchor rigging seems easy to set up. Other than that, I don't see any advantages. Maybe slightly better equalization than an equallette, but I'm not sure we need more, given real world forces in climbing falls.

Next is that damned OP rap ring. You better get a steel ring on there if you really want security. OP aluminum rap rings are made from the same barstock as their carabiners and weaken in the same fashion. They are meant to be loaded along one axis only. This rigging offers a minimum of tri-axial loading when weighted (downward on the power point, and at least 2+ arms.)

Michael Lane, employee of Omega Pacific, has this to say about OP rap rings in anhors:

In reply to:
First, speaking as an official Omega person, I confirm that the the rap rings are designed to be used as rappel rings. Anything other than that is outside the parameters of design and I can't say that they're appropriate for anything else until a bunch of pointy-headed engineers and designers around here sit down to talk about it for a long time.

The rap rings are tested like our 'biners. That is, they're put in a load cell with CE-compliant fixtures and loaded to failure. Three-sigma applies and 20kN is the rated strength. They are built with similar material to our biners e.g. 7000-series aluminum and the barstock is 11mm, pretty much the same as our standard Oval 'biner.

Therefore, when it comes to wear and repeated lowering (meaning ropes running over the aluminum), you can expect it to wear and behave much like our oval would.

Likewise, when using our Rap Rings, one must be careful not to apply simultaneous, multi-directional loading. In other words, put the load along one single axis. To load them otherwise is to weaken them. Just like a carabiner.

Source post is here:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1577456#1577456


All in all, I say stay with the equallette - it's KISS, and it doesn't try any fancy jiggery-pokery with integrated rap rings to attempt to achieve greater equalization in *some* situations at the sacrifice of redundancy.

I respect people trying to constantly develop better anchor systems, but I think we've reached a point in climbing gear technology where we don't really need to advance any further. Injuries and deaths from gear failure are very uncommon and usually result from neglect on the part of the gear owner regarding retiring them on time or using them properly.

A good shot, but it seems to have many kinks to work out yet.


(This post was edited by ja1484 on May 19, 2007, 4:13 AM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by ja1484 () on May 19, 2007, 4:13 AM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?