|
majid_sabet
Jan 4, 2008, 4:41 AM
Post #1 of 156
(10345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Does any one recognizes this model pulley, if so, what is KN rating on it ?
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jan 4, 2008, 7:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 4, 2008, 5:14 AM
Post #3 of 156
(10271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jt512 wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Does any one recognizes this model pulley, if so, what is KN rating on it ? [IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7458/screenhunter1xv9.jpg[/IMG] Looks like a Petzl Fixe. 22 kN breaking strength. 5 kN working load. Jay PS: You don't need [url] tags when you post an image; just [img] tags.
Jay
you are saying the center shaft is rated to 22KN , right ?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 4, 2008, 5:17 AM
Post #4 of 156
(10267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
majid_sabet wrote: jt512 wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Does any one recognizes this model pulley, if so, what is KN rating on it ? [IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7458/screenhunter1xv9.jpg[/IMG] Looks like a Petzl Fixe. 22 kN breaking strength. 5 kN working load. Jay PS: You don't need [url] tags when you post an image; just [img] tags. Jay you are saying the center shaft is rated to 22KN , right ?
22 kN is what Petzl calls the "breaking strength." That's all I know. The gear is intended for hauling, not top roping, which, I presume, is why it has been given a working load rating.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
greenketch
Jan 4, 2008, 7:49 AM
Post #5 of 156
(10189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501
|
I would agree that it looks like a Fixe. More important to me is why are you using a pulley in the top rope set up? That will transmit significantly more force to the belayer. The pulley itself is capable of holding the loads imposed while TRing. Can the belayer make the catch with the pulley?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 4, 2008, 8:37 AM
Post #6 of 156
(10164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
greenketch wrote: I would agree that it looks like a Fixe. More important to me is why are you using a pulley in the top rope set up? That will transmit significantly more force to the belayer. The pulley itself is capable of holding the loads imposed while TRing. Can the belayer make the catch with the pulley?
ditto that. lighter belayer + pulley = thud.
|
|
|
|
|
binrat
Jan 4, 2008, 4:00 PM
Post #7 of 156
(10091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2006
Posts: 1155
|
Yes, I think it is a fixe. Looking at the pictures it would redundant to have it in the system. Looks like lots of friction with the rope and the rock. But I may be wrong.
Binrat
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 4, 2008, 4:14 PM
Post #8 of 156
(10061 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
greenketch wrote: I would agree that it looks like a Fixe. More important to me is why are you using a pulley in the top rope set up? That will transmit significantly more force to the belayer. The pulley itself is capable of holding the loads imposed while TRing. Can the belayer make the catch with the pulley?
Why not read the original post and discover for yourself!!!111
???
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jan 4, 2008, 5:23 PM
Post #9 of 156
(9931 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
majid_sabet wrote: Does any one recognizes this model pulley, if so, what is KN rating on it ? [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7458/screenhunter1xv9.jpg[/IMG] [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3469/dsc00876mi7.jpg[/IMG]
30 some feet of cordage, looped a couple times, all relying on a single knot... check.
Single locker... check.
Pulley redirect... check.
Looks bomberz to me. Where we going TR-ing?
(This post was edited by Arrogant_Bastard on Jan 4, 2008, 5:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jan 4, 2008, 5:23 PM
Post #10 of 156
(9929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
Arrogant_Bastard wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Does any one recognizes this model pulley, if so, what is KN rating on it ? [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7458/screenhunter1xv9.jpg[/IMG] [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3469/dsc00876mi7.jpg[/IMG] 30 some feet of cordage, looped a couple times, all relying on a single know... check. Single locker... check. Pulley redirect... check. Looks bomberz to me. Where we going TR-ing?
ICT
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jan 4, 2008, 5:44 PM
Post #11 of 156
(9882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
How come the original post was edited to take out the discussion you had with the other person?
Looks like, quote that 1st post, needs reinstated.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Jan 4, 2008, 5:46 PM
Post #12 of 156
(9877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
moose_droppings wrote: How come the original post was edited to take out the discussion you had with the other person? Looks like, quote that 1st post, needs reinstated.
Ahhh, that makes sense.
Because it wouldn't be a Majid thread if he didn't go back and edit it to be different from his original post.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jan 7, 2008, 12:57 AM
Post #13 of 156
(9606 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
The thread makes absolutely no sense whatsoever now given that there are no green and red arrows anywhere to be seen.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jan 7, 2008, 1:22 AM
Post #15 of 156
(9562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
moose_droppings wrote: philbox wrote: The thread makes absolutely no sense whatsoever now given that there are no green and red arrows anywhere to be seen.  Better?
Much.
|
|
|
|
|
pwscottiv
Jan 27, 2008, 9:46 AM
Post #16 of 156
(9257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
Obviously, you should never setup an anchor that will allow single-point failure. There should be a biner clipped through the rope such that if the pulley were to fail it would keep the anchor connected to the rope. And there really should be a knot in that cordelette to convert it into a system of redundant loops so any one single point of failure won't cause total failure.
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainPolution
Jan 27, 2008, 10:46 AM
Post #17 of 156
(9235 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 330
|
fuck pullies! cmon! that is just terrible logic!
|
|
|
|
|
timd
Jan 27, 2008, 12:17 PM
Post #18 of 156
(9216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2003
Posts: 862
|
pwscottiv wrote: Obviously, you should never setup an anchor that will allow single-point failure. There should be a biner clipped through the rope such that if the pulley were to fail it would keep the anchor connected to the rope. And there really should be a knot in that cordelette to convert it into a system of redundant loops so any one single point of failure won't cause total failure.
And if you think the pully is OK then you sir are a fucking idiot
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Jan 27, 2008, 2:41 PM
Post #19 of 156
(9178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
Yup that pulley is for the birds. I've always find 3 biners works fine and the ropes run nicely. I've seen these setups out here before a number of times. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jan 27, 2008, 3:03 PM
Post #20 of 156
(9163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
timd wrote: pwscottiv wrote: Obviously, you should never setup an anchor that will allow single-point failure. There should be a biner clipped through the rope such that if the pulley were to fail it would keep the anchor connected to the rope. And there really should be a knot in that cordelette to convert it into a system of redundant loops so any one single point of failure won't cause total failure. And if you think the pully is OK then you sir are a fucking idiot
No no no, you gotta have the pulley.
That way, when the climber falls both people get a ride. Remember, the best climbers are the ones having the most fun!
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 27, 2008, 5:20 PM
Post #21 of 156
(9062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Here is what I deleted off the original post after I got my answer, I am posting it again so you know what the argument was all about.
A group two new climbers were on a TR while I was setting up an aid anchor near their TR anchor . After I noticed their anchor with a pulley , I told one of the climber that their anchor needs to be modified . Dude got pissed cause he just took a climbing instruction from a certified climbing instructor .
He insisted that his climbing instructor in fact told him to use pulley for better belay cause pulley transfer the forces to belayer much smoother than carabiner, and not to forget that ,they were both belaying via 8.
Since this was in another country and I did want no trouble with locals, I told him to give me the name of the instructor so I could call the authority that issued his certificate to revoke his teaching permit . once I said that, he calm down and asked why he should not use pulley and why his anchor is classified under CF.
We climbed back to his TR and I explained everything ,he reconfigure his anchor and everything went fine.Anyway, that was the story but I forgot to see his pulley so I posted the photos to find out the KN rating and Jay512 said it was petzl with 22 KN.
edit to add this
[URL=http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/1/27/f_DSC00875m_5ce3715.jpg&srv=img39]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jan 28, 2008, 6:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
MonkeyInTraining
Jan 27, 2008, 5:38 PM
Post #22 of 156
(9043 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 139
|
Told to do it that way huh? Was the instructor his ex-wife maybe? That is one scarey rig. Just wondering, how much extension was possible there?
|
|
|
|
|
pwscottiv
Jan 27, 2008, 11:04 PM
Post #23 of 156
(8928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Posts: 157
|
timd wrote: pwscottiv wrote: Obviously, you should never setup an anchor that will allow single-point failure. There should be a biner clipped through the rope such that if the pulley were to fail it would keep the anchor connected to the rope. And there really should be a knot in that cordelette to convert it into a system of redundant loops so any one single point of failure won't cause total failure. And if you think the pully is OK then you sir are a fucking idiot
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 28, 2008, 6:15 AM
Post #24 of 156
(8788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pwscottiv wrote: timd wrote: pwscottiv wrote: Obviously, you should never setup an anchor that will allow single-point failure. There should be a biner clipped through the rope such that if the pulley were to fail it would keep the anchor connected to the rope. And there really should be a knot in that cordelette to convert it into a system of redundant loops so any one single point of failure won't cause total failure. And if you think the pully is OK then you sir are a fucking idiot You can't even spell "pulley" so what does that say about you? I have a 600ft long static line that I've setup on occasion for really long TRs and using a pulley really helps out a lot. Obviously the belayer should be tied down if there's any concerns about launching them. Also, from the sound of your comment, I've probably been climbing for longer than you've even been alive. Which doesn't make you a "fucking idiot" or anything... Your post did that all on its own.
Well, you don't even know that, used as a verb, "set up," is two words; you've been climbing since age 10, according to your profile, and haven't led better than 10d trad or 11b sport (I know, I know, your profile is hopelessly out of date); you think the belayer should be tied down if he might be "launched"; and you set up TRs on 3-pitch routes.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sdbum
Jan 28, 2008, 6:45 AM
Post #25 of 156
(8772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2006
Posts: 30
|
burn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
