If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn then why build climbing biners with 24 to 36 kn, cams to go up to 18 kn or other equipment that is rated 2-5 times more than what we could produce during a fall.

Why waste so much money and material building something that is way above our maximum falling forces?

Does safety factor or potential lawsuits have anything with this ?

safety and fatigue. the closer the forces are to the ultimate tensile strength of the structure, the fewer stress cycles it can take before failing due to fatigue. there is a mathematical process to predicting the fatigue life of a part. with steel, you can make that life infinite for a certain level of stress. for aluminum it is impossible for infinite fatigue life. however, you could design a biner to last for a very long time (100's of thousands of cycles) before succumbing to fatigue. not sure how much of an issue fatigue actually is for climbing gear. but the safety factor is pretty huge too. why would you fall on something that you can generate 99% of it's breaking force? don't you just feel better knowing you won't get anywhere near the breaking point?

If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn then why build climbing biners with 24 to 36 kn, cams to go up to 18 kn or other equipment that is rated 2-5 times more than what we could produce during a fall.

Why waste so much money and material building something that is way above our maximum falling forces?

Does safety factor or potential lawsuits have anything with this ?

If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn then why build climbing biners with 24 to 36 kn, cams to go up to 18 kn or other equipment that is rated 2-5 times more than what we could produce during a fall.

And yet we still hear of gear failures. I know I have heard of biners snapping on slacklines, harnesses failing, cams breaking, ropes snapping... etc etc I will give you that most of this was probably improper use and/or excessive wear and tear, but mfg know this shit happens and therefore build to account for a certain degree of stupidity/cheapness/laziness/misuses by the users. Also it's nice to have gear that is OBVIOUSLY way too worn to be using before it fails structurally.

Harnesses failing? Ropes "snapping?" Where else but rc.com can you get quality misinformation like this!

Jay

A falling climber can generate more than 9kn. A 200 pound climber with a 20 pound pack on (not an unusual situation) in a 1.8FF fall is going to generate more than 10kn (one of those online fall calculators says 10.6kn). With pulley effect that's 17.6kn, getting awfully close to the limit of that 18kn cam, and that's assuming a perfect placement.

And most pro is not rated to 18kn, most is in the 10-12kn range, so it's not really over engineered as much as you might think. That's one reason why you'd never want to trust your life to just 1 piece.

jt
for the record, I've had a rope "snap"once. Not from climbing, but when my neighbour's tractor was pulling a loaded cement truck through some mud.

Why waste so much money and material building something that is way above our maximum falling forces?

This is exactly why I use plastic keychain 'biners, closeline cord for rope, an old jock strap for a harness, cedar shims for pins (we don't need no stinkin' cams), and my trusty Cubs baseball cap for a helmet.




Lordy, I miss this website. I really, really miss the discourse on thought-provoking issues. You know -- the intelligent questions raised by experienced climbers. If only I could spend less time dealing with issues at the office, I could see threads like this all day.


That would be so totally, uber cool.

Does anyone know what safety factor most climber go by ?

Do you build your anchor so it could handel your weight or you build it so it could take 10x of your falling forces ?

if you ask me, why fire and rescue people use high rating gear, I could easily tell you that In USA fire services , the minmum safety factor is 15:1 and generally, a fire man is consider as 1 kN.If he is going down the line to rescue another man who is 1KN, his biner has to be at least 30 KN or more to support two. You will not see a fire man on a climber biner rapping down the side of building if his biner is rated to 18KN . The 15:1 safety factor, unofficially has been set as an standard by agencies such as NFPA which overseas some of the standards for rescue gear.

What kind of safety factors standard do you have out there for climbers ?

3:1 , 5:1 ?

Does anyone know what safety factor most climber go by ?

Do you build your anchor so it could handel your weight or you build it so it could take 10x of your falling forces ?

Forgive me if I am wrong, I'm a little rusty and my rigging / engineering book is at the firehouse. Is it not true that 15:1 is not static figure, but rather can be downgraded depending on the situation? What I mean is that if an anchor will not be subjected to more than one person it can be built at a 10:1 margin? I know its rare that the rescuer and victim wouldn't be on the same line, but I think this is true.

What I can contribute that I know is true is that NFPA does not recognize kN forces in their calculations, but rather only static weights (3000 lbs, etc.).

kN is just a unit of force, just as the pound is. 1 kN = 225 lb (approximately).

Jay

I realize that is true, so I should clarify. What I am trying to say is that although they can be converted back and forth to accommodate either unit, the NFPA will never publish any regulation using the kN unit. I believe this is because kN has become synonymous with dynamic forces while pounds are associated with static loads.

No. There is no such thing as "dynamic force." There is just "force." I would think that the reason that the NFPA does not use the unit kN is because they are a U.S. organization, and hence they use the U.S. unit of force, the pound.

Jay

No. There is no such thing as "dynamic force." There is just "force." I would think that the reason that the NFPA does not use the unit kN is because they are a U.S. organization, and hence they use the U.S. unit of force, the pound.

Jay

In climbing, there are no such standard or at least no one builds an anchor or uses a biner with such safety factors in mind. Most people feel that two cams in the crack and leaving one draw on TR does the job and there they go off the wall.

I am confident that most manufacturer know why they build their gear in such ways, but does public has any idea why these ratings are for ?.

Do we feel safer with a gear rated 5 times more than what we could generate during a fall ?

Thanks for the correction. When I said dynamic force, I think I should have been saying shock loading. Is shock loading measured differently than other kinds of force, i.e. a different unit? I'm not arguing I'm just asking, because the way I understand it a 225 lb or 1kN person does not weigh in at 1kN when loading the rope immediately after a fall, while they still weigh 225 lbs. Or am I misusing weight for mass in that scenario?

And yet we still hear of gear failures. I know I have heard of biners snapping on slacklines, harnesses failing, cams breaking, ropes snapping... etc etc I will give you that most of this was probably improper use and/or excessive wear and tear, but mfg know this shit happens and therefore build to account for a certain degree of stupidity/cheapness/laziness/misuses by the users. Also it's nice to have gear that is OBVIOUSLY way too worn to be using before it fails structurally.

A single rope that is rated to 5000 lbs is insufficient for rescue work cause ,as soon as you put the knot in there, you will loose 30% which brings the value to @2800 lbs or safety factor 6:1. This is why two rope are used in rescue to increase the safety factor to at least 12:1.

In climbing, there are no such standard or at least no one builds an anchor or uses a biner with such safety factors in mind.

Most people feel that two cams in the crack and leaving one draw on TR does the job and there they go off the wall.

I am confident that most manufacturer know why they build their gear in such ways,

but does public has any idea why these ratings are for ?.

Do we feel safer with a gear rated 5 times more than what we could generate during a fall ?

kN is just a unit of force, just as the pound is. 1 kN = 225 lb (approximately).

Pounds (lb) are not a unit of force, they're a unit of weight; mass*g.

In climbing, there are no such standard or at least no one builds an anchor or uses a biner with such safety factors in mind.

Most people feel that two cams in the crack and leaving one draw on TR does the job and there they go off the wall.

Do we feel safer with a gear rated 5 times more than what we could generate during a fall ?

I beg to differ. There absolutely is a safety standard in climbing. Gear is designed around the principle that a lead fall should never generate more than 12kn on the falling climber. No, it is not like a 15:1 standard. You, the climber, are responsible for deciding how much overkill you want and are comfortable with, and that is how it should be.



Really? "Most people"???? I've never seen anyone TR off of 1 draw, or 2 pieces of pro, let alone most people.



You have climbing gear rated to 80kn? I don't have any on my rack. Please tell me what gear you have that is rated to 80kn.

Harnesses failing? Ropes "snapping?" Where else but rc.com can you get quality misinformation like this!

Jay

Safety standards in climbing ?

You mean something that is well documented and has been approved as standard ?

Like how to jumar or what belay device you must use or you can not rap with rope under this size etc ?

These threads are so predictable.

F = ma. Let a = g. Then F = mg = w. Thus weight is a force.

Jay

And yet we still hear of gear failures. I know I have heard of biners snapping on slacklines, harnesses failing, cams breaking, ropes snapping... etc etc I will give you that most of this was probably improper use and/or excessive wear and tear, but mfg know this shit happens and therefore build to account for a certain degree of stupidity/cheapness/laziness/misuses by the users. Also it's nice to have gear that is OBVIOUSLY way too worn to be using before it fails structurally.

If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn...

Pounds (lb) are not a unit of force, they're a unit of weight; mass*g. Pounds force (lbf) are an imperial unit of force, independent of gravity. One kn is ~225 lbf.

Yup, but mass is not, and dobson was talking about mass. You measure wheight in newtons, not lbs. Not important anyway, I'm sure we all understood what you meant, I just had to be a pedant

Thanks for the correction. When I said dynamic force, I think I should have been saying shock loading. Is shock loading measured differently than other kinds of force, i.e. a different unit?

I'm not arguing I'm just asking, because the way I understand it a 225 lb or 1kN person does not weigh in at 1kN when loading the rope immediately after a fall, while they still weigh 225 lbs. Or am I misusing weight for mass in that scenario?

These threads are so predictable.

F = ma. Let a = g. Then F = mg = w. Thus weight is a force.

Jay

Yes, I just told you one standard, did you not read my post?

Have you never heard of the EN standards? Or the UIAA?

A standard for how to jumar? That's like asking if there is a standard for how to turn on a light switch.

A standard for what belay device you must use? Why would there be? But next time you pick up your belay device note the little "CE" stamp on it. That is a standard.

Every single piece of gear on your rack complies with a "well documented and approved" standard.

I don't know what your arguements about safety standards are trying to prove.

Standards whether it is food, safety or industry operations can be about making life simpler, more compatible or involve less decision making.

Safety standard can remove decision making. It can mean that people who do not really have a clue about forces, or dangerous chemicals still safely operate in such environment.

Climbing however is not a world of standards. There are too many variables and too many decisions need to be made that by promoting standards you can get people into trouble.

Case in point is some sport climbers who find themselves in unusual situations be it rescues or other problems. I have seen some sport climbers totally clueless outside of belayin, clipping and heading down again.

CE, EU , UIAA, etc qualifies climbing equipment and set requirements for . . . blah blah blah yada yada yada.

#1 - Duh. Yeah. Tell me something I don't know.

#2 - The kind of standards you are yammering on about (and what you're talking about would more commonly be considered policies rather than standards, but that's another argument) would imply the need for or existence of a climbing governing body of some sort. Are you advocating for such standards or such a body?

#3 - Do you actually have a point? Or are you just going to keep on blah blah blahing about nothing of consequence? Because if you have a point it would be nice if you made it, because this is getting tedious and boring.

I do have a point . THERE ARE NO STANDARDS IN CLIMBING. Please reply when you find some standards for me.

I do have a point . THERE ARE NO STANDARDS IN CLIMBING. Please reply when you find some standards for me.

Hey jt, is there ever a need to state that there is deceleration as opposed to the word acceleration when considering the forces involved with stopping a climbers fall. Would not deceleration be a better descriptive word? I know that when a climber is initially falling then acceleration would be the best term to use but when a belayer applies a frictional force to the rope would not the climber then be decelerating.

The only reason I've seen terminology used like that is to explicitly state the vector direction of the acceleration in terms of the velocity. That is, in acceleration, the force vector is parallel to the velocity vector, whereas in deceleration the force vector is antiparallel to the velocity vector. In common usage, I've found that deceleration implies that when the velocity equals zero, the force also becomes zero. That is, a car is said to decelerate if, after its velocity reaches zero, it does not start going in the opposite direction.

But that's just from reading waaay too many physics textbooks.

Oh, and this Majid guy LOVES to argue. Doesn't matter about what, he'll even pick up a small point and expand on that making it the focus of the discussion (i.e. this mumbo jumbo about climbing standards.) I'll cut this short and say that, no, there is no standard in the sense that you are talking about Majid. Nor is there the infrastructure or financing to enforce one, or any interest among climbers.

But I continue to be amused by nearly all of your posts, so don't stop.

Phil, you make a good point, those would be de facto standards, eh?



That's not a point, that just a statement, the proper response to which is, so what? Now if you can give a reasonably interesting answer to the "so what" question than you might have a point. Otherwise this thread is . . . pointless.

Hey jt, is there ever a need to state that there is deceleration as opposed to the word acceleration when considering the forces involved with stopping a climbers fall. Would not deceleration be a better descriptive word? I know that when a climber is initially falling then acceleration would be the best term to use but when a belayer applies a frictional force to the rope would not the climber then be decelerating.

Just trying to get my terminology correct and I would love to hear your opinion on this. I have used the term deceleration in the past and am wondering if I have been in error.

our local gym has carabs up to 72kN

Harnesses failing? Ropes "snapping?" Where else but rc.com can you get quality misinformation like this!

Jay

If you're going to be pedantic, you should avoid being wrong. dobson clearly stated that pounds are a "unit of weight". And the pound is most certainly a unit of force.

Jay

Definite overkill. Those things must be made out of 3/4 inch steel.

If you're going to be pedantic, you should avoid being wrong. dobson clearly stated that pounds are a "unit of weight". And the pound is most certainly a unit of force.

Jay

Ps. Having used almost exclusively SI units it was news for me that the pound was also a measure of force..

Harnesses failing? Ropes "snapping?" Where else but rc.com can you get quality misinformation like this!

Jay

If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn then why build climbing biners with 24 to 36 kn, cams to go up to 18 kn or other equipment that is rated 2-5 times more than what we could produce during a fall.

Why waste so much money and material building something that is way above our maximum falling forces?

Does safety factor or potential lawsuits have anything to do with this ?

If a falling climber can't generate above 7 kn or 9 kn then why build climbing biners with 24 to 36 kn, cams to go up to 18 kn or other equipment that is rated 2-5 times more than what we could produce during a fall...

CE, EU , UIAA, etc qualifies climbing equipment and set requirements for such qualifications. Standards are sets of protocols that must be followed for certain equipment. For example, UL sets qualification for electrical equipment sold in USA. This means that a light bulb must meet certain requirements to be qualify as a light bulb . The department of urban and hosing sets standards so the particular light bulb must be installed in whatever ways in a residential housing.

When a biner is made in Europe, to market such product, the biner must meet certine requirement and UIAA is one of the agencies that qualifies such equpiment. UIAA does not tell what to use when climbing.

Climbing standard means that some agency ( not privet club or NGOs, NPOs) enforces a set of minimum requirement related to particular part in climbing.An example would be like an agencies says" To rappel, you must use whatever in such format and this is how it is done". in USA, the military and some of the fire, rescue agencies are the closest group of people who have partial standards but not on everything.

As far as I know, there are no climbing standards that specifies how to climb or what to use when climbing.John Long's book ain't standard in anchor set up. Petzl drawing and the Mountaineering 5th addition are not standards and AAC for sure does not set standards on climbing.

Is fig 8 the official standard for knot on TR ?

Is Grigri the standard for big wall belay ?

The 17" tire on a SUV is pretty standard and approved by DOT. You changed that to a 19" and you are SOL with nothing to back you up once you roll you car.

Some one help the brother and show me some standards in climbing ( not standards in climbing equipment) .A well documented piece of standard that has been approved by an agency about climbing.