Saw this at RRC.com, biner with deep groove cuts a rope after a lead fall at the first bolt.
http://www.redriverclimbing.com/...php?f=21&t=13270

Someone could file down a 'biner to match the one that caused the failure then use it in a pull test to see when it cuts the rope. it would not be very scientific but it could help people understand how this might affect them in the field.

I don't think the groove was actually that bad. I think the only problem was the sharpness of the groove. Worn biners are usually stronger than new ones.

Well, that's an eye opener.

It is bizarre that the report goes into great detail about the quickdraw, but never mentions the brand, age, and condition of the rope.

As bad as that carabiner looks, there are a lot of biners out there just like that one. It seems a little strange that accidents like this have not happened more often. It'll be interesting to see if the investigators can reproduce the results.

Jay

??

Worn biners have been shown to better concentrated the force along the spine and break at higher loads

Worn biners have been shown to better concentrated the force along the spine and break at higher loads

Worn biners have been shown to better concentrated the force along the spine and break at higher loads

So there not stronger.

??

??

I've never climbed in this area, and I don't sport climb all that much, but I have to ask?

WHY THE FUCK ARE SPORT ROUTES FIXED WITH DRAWS?

Rap rings I can understand. But I just get this.

Would someone explain this to me?

Ok, so climbing has now sunk so low "climbers" don't even need to place gear.

Pathetic.

Then why don't they make them that cross sectional profile in the first place? Do you have a link to the data? I'm intrigued.

Edit: iPhone autospeeling strykes agen

Ok, so climbing has now sunk so low "climbers" don't even need to place gear.

Pathetic.

You have to be kidding me?

Part of climbing is dealing with the gear, short of soloing.

You have to be kidding me?

Part of climbing is dealing with the gear, short of soloing.

I now understand why it's sport climbers that are routinely decking and dumping their partners on the ground.

I'm shocked that someone who has been in the sport as long as you has such a misunderstanding of sport climbing, even if you don't do much of it yourself. Here is the definition of sport climbing from wikipedia:

"Sport climbing is a style of rock climbing that relies on permanent anchors fixed to the rock, especially bolts, for protection, in contrast with traditional climbing, in which the rock is typically devoid of fixed anchors, and climbers must place removable protection as they climb. Since the need to place protection is virtually eliminated, sport climbing places an emphasis on gymnastic ability, strength and endurance, as opposed to adventure, risk and self-sufficiency. Since artificial means are used primarily for safety rather than to make upward progress, sport climbing is considered a form of free climbing."

The whole point of sport climbing is to minimize the need to fiddle with gear so that the climber is free to perform climbing movement at his physical limit. You should try it sometime. It's pretty fun.

Jay

Oh, and as I all ready mentioned, try removing the draws from an extremely overhung sport climb and you might have a better idea of why they use perma-draws.

edit to add, it looks like Jay beat me to it.

Obviously the route is over your head...

Maybe a pair of aiders is in order...

You need to get out of J Tree once and a while. ;)

Jay

I won't argue with you on that one! Although I did get up to Tahquitz and Holcomb Valley this summer.

If you're getting your ideas about sport climbing from Holcomb Valley, you're getting a really skewed view of the subject.

Jay

Obviously the route is over your head...

Maybe a pair of aiders is in order...

Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger."

Jay

"Seriously, "overhung" routes at holcomb might be five feet in their thirty foot length (not that I don't enjoy holcomb). "

I never said anything about over hanging routes at Holcomb. I just said I went there this summer to get out of the heat. You just implied it.

this is nothing new however, sport climbers have a tendency to leave QD every where they go and overall,they have a bad reputation on inspecting their TR system.

Inspect your lifeline and equipment every time you climb.

I'm just trying to point out that the only "sport climbing" area you've been to recently is Holcomb where nothing is overhung. Until you try climbing something that is truly very overhung you will never understand the importance of perma-draws. I am implying that you have never climbed anything that is severely overhung which may be incorrect, but I doubt it.

if sport climbers are too lazy to inspect their life support system, i would suggest replacing the top biner with heavy duty steel biner or steel shackle or something like that so it could last longer.

You know, that might not be the worst idea in the world. If the draws are fixed, then using steel biners would last forever and not suffer this kind of wear.

Since they aren't going to carry them with them on the route, and they are going to clip and go, might just be a good idea.

I am speaking about the lower biner.

Since we are on the topic, how much wear do the top biners get from being on the bolt for years?

They get a lot, and have to be replaced regularly.

Jay

Then maybe steel biners are the way to go. I'm still astonished by a) the level of wear, and b) nobody seemed to notice it before.

Obviously people have been lowering off that thing for years. I have biners closing in on 20 years old that are worn, but no even remotely close to that.

I've never seen one as far gone as that one above either. At non-gumby crags (which rules out most of SoCal) the top biners aren't fixed to the chains, and when they get too worn, someone will just switch them out.

Jay

Well that seems like a reasonable idea.

Good thing you never nitpick and derail threads, eh? Like all the time for instance. The ironing is thick today.....

I'd have to agree with the irony here.

Seems like the discussion about prehung draws and grass roots of sport climbing is more on topic than the strength of a biner, much like the one that broke in the OP.

I'd have to agree with the irony here.

This one was pulled of a climb at Roadside earlier this year... Injury averted!

Which biner broke?

I misspoke, there was no broken biner

Nope, but the rope sure was.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is just stupid. I'm still at a loss to understand how this happened. There is no need for "analysis" of the rope. The people involved yes, but the gear, no!

For once, Robert, I have to disagree with you. There is little, if anything unusual about the people in this incident, or what they were doing. In all likelihood, this could have happened to any sport climber. In contrast, the condition of the rope and the gear, and the mechanics of the accident are what we need to learn more about.

Between the link to the BD testing provided by jmeizis and newrivermike's incisive observations, a highly plausible explanation for this accident is beginning to emerge. According to newrivermike, sharp edges on the rope-end carabiner of a fixed draw can develop if the draw is often under tension with the rope running relatively unbent though the carabiner. This is likely to happen at the first bolt, because belayers often stand a few feet away from the wall while lowering their partner. In addition, according to BD, rope damage over a sharp edge is more likely to occur when the fall-factor is high or the catch static. Now, the first bolt just happens to be where the highest fall factor falls are likely to occur as well as where the belayer is least likely to give a dynamic belay. Add in the fact that the carabiner used "T-bar" construction, which amplifies the sharpness of the edge, and that the groove appeared to be worn to the worst possible depth, the apex of the "T," and it starts to look like this accident took place under exactly the sort of perfect-storm conditions required.

Jay

Not that I disagree with you, but I bet there are more bolts and fixed gear in Muir Valley (not to mention the rest of RRG) than in all of JT.

Hmmm.

Well I read that earlier in the thread. I still have a number of issues with this. First off, Mike clearly stated that he will carry extra draws with him due to the very problem that caused this accident. He even goes on to say that these time bombs are everywhere and knew this was gonna happen to someone eventually.

This tells me Mike has a functioning brain. For god sakes, I've cleaned and replaced old copper heads that were in better condition than either of those two biners. What astounds me is that nobody has bothered to fix the problem and continued to climb on them anyway.

Rule #1 in climbing is NEVER BLINDLY TRUST FIXED GEAR. INSPECT IT. I don't care what it is, fixed pin, fixed draw, stuck cam, whatever.

I gotta go to work, but:

Time for devils advocate. What if the first draw on this route, and others are being stick clipped? In other words, people are not leading up to them, clipping and moving on.

I'd ask dynosore to provide some examples of the nit picking he's accusing me of, except that I'm not willing to unkillfile him to see his inability to respond.

Jay

On the other hand, if every sport route with fixed draws was equipped a dedicated cleaning bolt, and everybody used it, then the problem of the first actual protection bolt (ie, the second bolt) becoming sharp would be solved. The wear due to lowering would occur on the cleaning bolt's draw, never gets fallen on. The problem is getting everybody to clip the lowering bolt.

(A lowering bolt is one that is intended to be clipped from the ground, and unclipped from the ground after the leader has cleaned the other draws while lowering off. It's too low to be part of the protection system. Its only use use is to facilitate cleaning.)

Then, as far as I can see, the situation would be exactly the same. On the other hand, if every sport route with fixed draws was equipped a dedicated cleaning bolt, and everybody used it, then the problem of the first actual protection bolt (ie, the second bolt) becoming sharp would be solved. The wear due to lowering would occur on the cleaning bolt's draw, never gets fallen on. The problem is getting everybody to clip the lowering bolt.

(A lowering bolt is one that is intended to be clipped from the ground, and unclipped from the ground after the leader has cleaned the other draws while lowering off. It's too low to be part of the protection system. Its only use use is to facilitate cleaning.)

Jay

That's an interesting idea. Does this system interfere with giving a good dynamic belay? I can envision scenarios where a low draw in the system would cause problems when catching a fall.

Jay, not having encountered what I recognize as a lowering bolt, I'm envisioning this as primarily something to keep you in close to overhanging rock during the lower, but not something useful on more vertical terrain?

That thing has disaster written all over it.

I'm not talking about breaking the biner. I talking about sharp edges cutting the rope which appears to be the case here. I'm still having a problem that anybody cannot tell that the biner in question had the potential for causing a big problem.

You can dress this up with all the excuses you want. If this is the state of the union with regards to sport climbing, then there is a real problem.

There is no excuse based on how rad, bitch'n and cool sport climbing is.

That biner has bad shit written all over it.

What part do you not understand here? First bolt. High fall factor. Badly worn biner with sharp edges.

Rope cut.

Simple, I see gear like that, I'm not trusting my life to it.

First bolt, clearly worn biner with sharp edge, rope cut.

Believe me, I get it. That's what is so scary about this.

I don't think the groove was actually that bad. I think the only problem was the sharpness of the groove. Worn biners are usually stronger than new ones.

I think everyone undestood that a worn biner may break at a lower force.

I think for many people it is new infromation that a worn biner may cut a rope. That may be rare, but significantly increases the risk of a worn biner (since in many situations, biner is not the single point of failure anyway, while the rope always is).

New data --> new decisionmaking input for future climbing.

What's the big controversy for you here, besides the usual sport-vs-trad "West Side Story"-style nonsense?

The Red River Gorge climbing community does its best to maintain and replace legitimate fixed anchors. That costs money folks. The work at Muir Valley was made possible, in part, by a very generous donation of ClimbTech PermaDraw sets from Hoosier Heights Gym in Bloomington Indiana. Some pictures of other worn gear that has been maintained / replaced @ RRG can be seen at - http://teamsuckclimbing.com/photos.php. The Team Suck site also maintains a page to report bad bolts - http://teamsuckclimbing.com/bolts.php - and to make donations to their bolt rplacement fund - http://teamsuckclimbing.com/donate.php.

It's so you don't have to put them up or take them down. Also, you can bail off the route safely and without sacrificing any gear.

Jay

There is the Bail-Slow option and now the new Red River Rapid Bail.

Never stand in the way of a sport climber's rationalization socalclimber. Its like standing in front of a herd of cows saying, 'no more mooing, ladies!'

DMT

Worn biners are usually stronger than new ones.

Huh?????

What leads you to believe this? Seriously, what? Do you have any data, or anything to support this?

In all my years (22, the last 16 at nukes) of performing inspections of materials, and doing failure analysis, I have never, ever heard this... Worn = Less material = Less strength.

At least one basis for the statement that worn biners are stronger is here, based on unofficial testing.

The linked BD article applies only to coldshuts. The failure mode for an ungrooved cold shut is such that as the tension in the rope increases, the rope slides toward the unanchored end of the shut, applying additional leverage, which causes the shut to bend and open, allowing the rope to slide yet farther toward the end, causing the shut to open farther, etc.

The groove in a worn shut traps the rope and doesn't allow the rope to slide, and hence, doesn't allow the additional leverage and bending.

The failure mode of a closed carabiner is different and a groove most likely serves only to lessen the ultimate breaking strength of the carabiner.

True. However, I suspect that some of us extrapolated from the results to carabiners, especially since they, too, are frequently used at anchors.

The failure mode of a closed carabiner is different and a groove most likely serves only to lessen the ultimate breaking strength of the carabiner.

Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner.

Jay

Ah of course so we should continue to saw through our fixed biners (because people will steal our convenience draws the bastards!), everything is A OK!

DMT

At least one basis for the statement that worn biners are stronger is here, based on unofficial testing. However, here is unofficial testing that is specific to this type of accident.

That is misleading, as the groove serves to keep the rope at the biner's/shut's strongest point, even though it has been weakened.

The biner/shut is NOT stronger, as less metal equals less strength for two pieces of identical design. Period.


Example:

Would you rap off of a bush/tree that was 1" in diameter, strongly rooted, with a small groove worn into it at the base that was opposite the direction of force, if the load (rope) was just a few inches above the base/groove? Hell no!

BUT, if the rope was in the groove, keeping it at the base, it would likely still be hella strong.


Point... The base of the tree/bush is akin to the strongest point in the biner, and even though there is a groove, it is still string enough, BUT NOT AS STRONG as if there were no groove IF the load were applied outside that groove, it would be WEAKER. And where would the biner fail? At the weakest point, where significant metal loss has weakened it (I.e., the groove)

That is misleading, as the groove serves to keep the rope at the biner's/shut's strongest point, even though it has been weakened.

The biner/shut is NOT stronger, as less metal equals less strength for two pieces of identical design. Period.


Example:

Would you rap off of a bush/tree that was 1" in diameter, strongly rooted, with a small groove worn into it at the base that was opposite the direction of force, if the load (rope) was just a few inches above the base/groove? Hell no!

BUT, if the rope was in the groove, keeping it at the base, it would likely still be hella strong.


Point... The base of the tree/bush is akin to the strongest point in the biner, and even though there is a groove, it is still string enough (if the load is applied in the right place), BUT NOT AS STRONG as if there were no groove IF the load were applied outside that groove, it would be WEAKER. And where would the biner fail? At the weakest point, where significant metal loss has weakened it (I.e., the groove)