|
acorneau
Aug 14, 2010, 3:25 PM
Post #26 of 89
(9406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
qwert wrote: After just checking my figure 8s (both, kong and DMM) i found no CE markings on them. also they are not listed as CE certified at the kong homepage, so there might be some PSE that does not require the CE sign, in order to be sold!
I recently picked up a Mammut fig-8 for teaching rappelling classes: no CE or UIAA markings on either the device itself or the paperwork/tags.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 14, 2010, 3:35 PM
Post #27 of 89
(9406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
What the are you guys talking about? What sort of aluminum ring? I see pics of steel rap rings, figure 8s, carabiners, but not one aluminum ring.
No WAY I would swing DOWN onto a single rolled aluminum rap ring, that is truly asking for it.
But perhaps arborists have funny terms and 'aluminum ring' means something else entirely.
And it seems to me if a professional arborist chooses to use a recreational climbing device in a work environment knowing full well that product is not certified for such work, said arborist ought to know she doesn't have a leg to stand on come recompense time. At least here in California, we have regulations about safety gear in a work environment and rolled aluminum rap rings ain't on the list.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
treenail
Aug 14, 2010, 3:39 PM
Post #28 of 89
(9401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 68
|
Proving something 'beyond a reasonable doubt' can be easier sometimes than others. Making the case in the court of public opinion is what's happening here.
There is a lot of conjecture about the source of the rings. With enough CSI work it would be shown and documented 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they were really Kong's rings. It might take complex metallurgical tests to absolutely prove their source but I'm confident that it could be done.
Sourcing products from off-shore is tricky. There are a couple of testimonies included in this thread. In order for this to work quality assurance needs to be maintained at every step in the process.
Kong let the ball drop...bad pun...and, as a result, a climber was injured. Sherrill stepped up and took a financial hit but gained huge integrity points by replacing ANY unmarked rings, no matter if they were purchased from Sherrill or not. I tip my helmet to Sherrill!
When Kong made an offer of $7k/$9k they opened themselves up to a huge potential for future lawsuits. A deep-pocket trial attorney would easily make a case that this is an admission of guilt. This isn't what Jay has wanted or expected though.
Kong's published replies about the tree climbing competition not being an accepted use of their product is legal dodging and makes their case even weaker in this court of public opinion. Tree climbing comps are pretty reflective of the work-a-day world of the arborist. This certainly has more reality than NASCAR or F1 racing!
Me, for one, lost confidence in Kong many years ago. The line of products that came on the market are sure intriguing designs. But, they won't be included in my kit. How do I know that the Duck won't loose a wing and drop me at some time.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Aug 14, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #29 of 89
(9392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
dingus wrote: What the are you guys talking about? What sort of aluminum ring? I see pics of steel rap rings, figure 8s, carabiners, but not one aluminum ring.
Look closer, these are forged aluminum rings, not the rolled hollow rings of old.
You're thinking of this:
http://www.rei.com/product/471123
They're talking about ones like this...
In reply to: Forged aluminum rap ring for bail-outs and rap stations. Anodized gray for minimal visual impact. Solid construction (not hollow) for 20kN minimum breaking strength (over 4400lbs)! Not intended for repeated lowering.
In reply to: The SMC Rigging/Descending ring is the strongest aluminum ring of its size and can be used in a number of ways while climbing.
.jpg)
In reply to: CNC machined from 7075 T6 aluminium for strength, durability and lightness Surface finish facilitates smooth rope operation Anodised to BS12373-2001 Class 10E1 Sealed for corrosion protection Recommended for arborist use Individually marked for traceability
(This post was edited by acorneau on Aug 14, 2010, 4:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Aug 14, 2010, 4:10 PM
Post #30 of 89
(9380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
How and why do you even use these rings? I've only ever seen/used them as rap rings. Are they a harness component? How are they attached? Why use one of these instead of carabiners?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 14, 2010, 4:14 PM
Post #31 of 89
(9377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
thanks
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 14, 2010, 4:14 PM
Post #32 of 89
(9376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Why isn't Sherilltree being questioned more rigorously? Seems they took an unmarked product and used it to make another product and then sold it for a safety product with their name on it. No liability there? I think they're holding more cards then they're showing.
I feel for you but the lack of proof falls to speculation and isn't enough for me to side up yet. I hope all the light shines through soon though for the sake of all parties involved.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Aug 14, 2010, 4:51 PM
Post #33 of 89
(9357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
acorneau wrote: qwert wrote: After just checking my figure 8s (both, kong and DMM) i found no CE markings on them. also they are not listed as CE certified at the kong homepage, so there might be some PSE that does not require the CE sign, in order to be sold! I recently picked up a Mammut fig-8 for teaching rappelling classes: no CE or UIAA markings on either the device itself or the paperwork/tags.
yeah, im pretty sure belay devices dont have a CE/UIAA certification requirement.
the UIAA (or possibly the CE, i forget which) just recently established requirements for auto-locking vs. non-autolocking belay devices, but to my knowledge, aside from the Cinch and the GriGri (CE cert). Every tube and 8 device i could find has no certification at all.
i think a big part of this is a question on how to actually test the devices. it seems like the test would be primarily for braking power (which i believe is actually been the tough bit for establishing a test)- but then of course there probably should be some sort of actual strength of the material requirement for holding a load- again, probably another question.
all of that said- it sounds kind of fishy that Kong would distribute something it didnt make when it makes its own product- and also label it as the same product that it makes in house- not really sure whats going on with that. i know of lots of companies that have other companies make gear for them, but none that make a piece of gear in house and also have it made elsewhere (except for CCH, and we all know how that went).
|
|
|
|
|
Blinky
Aug 14, 2010, 5:22 PM
Post #34 of 89
(9349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2010
Posts: 6
|
I'll try to clear soime of this up. Dingus I posted about this on ST back when it happened, I can't remember if I had pics or not.
One thing I might need to clear up is that there are tree cutters... and there are Arborists.
Arborists tend to be well educated people who can't stand to work indoors. It's more than a living to us. We're the interface between people and trees in the urban landscape. Even though everybody loves a sporty takedown we prefer to take care of trees rather than dealing with the results when they're neglected. We only use spikes on takedowns, on live healthy trees we climb rope with ascenders and use a self belay to work the canopy. The point being, we're not a bunch of hard drinking yahoos out pushing our luck for beer money.
This is my harness setup. It's a 'positioning harness', even though it's very strong it's not designed for fall arrest. Most harnesses that have bridges like this one are sold with rings already installed.
 (I like the markup system on this board!)
Remember we're in these almost every day for hours a day, they're very personal things and most of us customize and modify them. Most of the soft gear is hand made, I splice my own gear, lots of guys do, Sherrill sells a lot of spliced goods. We're acutely aware of strengths of the materials and the physics of rigging. We use 10:1 safety factors on life support gear and 5:1 on rigging. Climber safety is addressed by ANSI Z-133. None of it is guesswork.
The rings are solid forged aluminum... our ropes don't stretch like a dynamic does, think 2 or 3% with a 250# load. The rings see mostly static or smoothly applied loads. Swings are usually gentle, I've sure never felt anything approaching 3G so even with a multiplied load they never take more than 2 or 3 times bodyweight. Falling is generally bad form and other climbers will give you crap about it if you admit that you did. We don't shock load any of our gear if we can at all help it. The ropes aren't dynamic, even with a 100' of rope out short falls can jar the hell out of you.
The purpose of the rings is to orient the attaching biner horizontally because it has a slack tending pulley on it that works best if it's oriented vertically with respect to the rope. I don't have a good pic that shows the whole thing. Basically we use a slack tender pulley to mind a friction knot as the adjuster for the self belay. Just clipping straight into the bridge cocks the pulley sideways somewhat and introduce unwanted friction. I'll try to make a decent pic.
The ring was bought from Sherrill Tree which is a retailer of both professional and recreational tree equipment. Using recreational components is something some of do and other don't. I'm independent and don't take government contracts so basically, I can use whatever I want... but I stick to rated gear and I don't push it far afield from it's intended use. This is one of the most dangerous civilian occupations you can have and we use whatever we need to do it safely.
The thing with the Kong rings is, they were purchased as strength rated replacement components. They were used in the expected way and someone was hurt... potentially two people could have been killed. Why? IMO because Kong didn't do their part for quality assurance. The rings should have been proof loaded just like carabiners.
(This post was edited by Blinky on Aug 14, 2010, 6:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
nickfromwi
Aug 14, 2010, 7:23 PM
Post #35 of 89
(9317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 8
|
Blinky- great explanation of how we climb and how we use our gear.
While you were typing that out, Karina and I were shooting a YouTube vid to show everyone a lot of the stuff you covered. The filming is done. We're headed for an afternoon in Santa Barbara right now. I'll post the vid tonight or tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
|
|
ensonik
Aug 14, 2010, 8:39 PM
Post #36 of 89
(9301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2009
Posts: 134
|
dingus wrote: No WAY I would swing DOWN onto a single rolled aluminum rap ring, that is truly asking for it.
I know it's beside the issue, but as a side question that I've been burning to ask since this thread started; don't arborists know about redundance? I never, ever, ever rap on a single one of those things. For 2 or 3 bucks, it's just not worth the risk.
I remember a thread from not long ago at ST.com and some guy said that a second ring brings you 0% added security because a single one is 100% secure. (he/she may have been talking about a steel one though)
|
|
|
|
|
Blinky
Aug 14, 2010, 9:26 PM
Post #37 of 89
(9286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2010
Posts: 6
|
Yep we know about redundant systems and backups... we use them wherever practical. Keep in mind this is production work so we can't really use fully redundant systems very often but it's normal to put two ropes in a tree, we backup mechanicals, sketchy anchors, stuff like that but frequently the harness and rope ARE the backup. We position with a rated hip to hip lanyard more than we do the lifeline.
Rock climbers do similar things, rapping without a second rope attachment, jugging without backing up the devices.
You can't back up everything and still work though. The bridge, that orange rope with the rings on it in the above picture, is an absolutely crucial link and so are the rings... that's why you see two rings on that harness, I clip into both at once. There is no backup for that piece of rope though... but that's a whole other debate for arbos to sort out. Bottom line, we'll backup any load bearing component we can practically back up, operative word being 'practically'.
...it's actually pretty weird to be connected to both rock and tree disciplines because they are done very differently but use lots of the same gear.One is work, the other is fun and that difference alone makes the ring thing important. We don't have the option of just not doing it, we'd starve. We HAVE to use safety equipment to earn our living and we don't mind paying for quality. With Kong, we paid but they failed to deliver.
It's great fortune that one us wasn't killed simply because somebody at Kong didn't follow through on QA. To me, with life support gear that's unforgivable.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Aug 15, 2010, 5:26 PM
Post #38 of 89
(9173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
There is no CE/EN standard for belay and abseil devices for climbing as these are not items of PPE (they are exempted as they depend purely on operator input to have any function whatsoever). The CE numbers carried by various manufacturers (Trango, Petzl etc) on their devices are standards invented by the manufacturers themselves and the requirements of these standards are not public. These standards are meaningless as more than one company has admitted, they are there because customers like to see them.
Rope Access equipment is different but there again the USA is not Europe so you will have another set of standards.
The UIAA have nothing to do with industrial safety equipment.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 15, 2010, 8:04 PM
Post #40 of 89
(9131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In the beginning of your vid, you show us two of Kongs rings (etched with Kong) and tell us that these were of the ones that were recalled. I read the rings in question were not marked. What exact rings did SherillTree or anyone else recall. Also, the ring that broke was on the guys harness bridge, but I appreciate the vid of other gear used. Is the harness purchased with the ring already on the bridge and who manufactured the harness?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Aug 15, 2010, 8:53 PM
Post #41 of 89
(9115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
JimTitt wrote: There is no CE/EN standard for belay and abseil devices for climbing as these are not items of PPE (they are exempted as they depend purely on operator input to have any function whatsoever). The CE numbers carried by various manufacturers (Trango, Petzl etc) on their devices are standards invented by the manufacturers themselves and the requirements of these standards are not public. These standards are meaningless as more than one company has admitted, they are there because customers like to see them. Rope Access equipment is different but there again the USA is not Europe so you will have another set of standards. The UIAA have nothing to do with industrial safety equipment. Jim
I guess its hard to find a standart for rappel/belay devices (eg. whereas an 8 is load bearing, a tube only gets compressed), but if kong (or DMM or black diamond, or whichever manufacturer) stamps 35kn on their device, there should be some mechanism that verifies that these devices will meet those 35kn, with the same margin of error as a carabiner would.
And not to get totally of topic: the same should apply for a marked rap ring. To stay with kong: on their website they say that their 8s are individually tested, which is some kind of assurance of their safety, whereas the rings are not.
so what exactly are those rings supposed to be used for (or from an european/ professional perspective: allowed to be used for)?
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
nickfromwi
Aug 15, 2010, 9:26 PM
Post #42 of 89
(9108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 8
|
Moosedroppings- I apologize for the confustion. My exact words were "these two were part of the recall that sherrill issued a while ago." Specifically, these were the replacement kong rings that sherrill sent out after I had sent back what I had left in stock.
Here's part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHT1gb0I3Fs
|
|
|
|
|
ensonik
Aug 15, 2010, 9:32 PM
Post #43 of 89
(9107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2009
Posts: 134
|
nickfromwi wrote: Moosedroppings- I apologize for the confustion. My exact words were "these two were part of the recall that sherrill issued a while ago." Specifically, these were the replacement kong rings that sherrill sent out after I had sent back what I had left in stock. Here's part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHT1gb0I3Fs
Thanks for the videos Nick. It makes it all much clearer.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 15, 2010, 11:45 PM
Post #44 of 89
(9082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
nickfromwi wrote: Moosedroppings- I apologize for the confustion. My exact words were "these two were part of the recall that sherrill issued a while ago." Specifically, these were the replacement kong rings that sherrill sent out after I had sent back what I had left in stock. Here's part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHT1gb0I3Fs
Yes, I listened quite attentively to your words.
Verbatim:
"You can see right here that these two were part of the recall that..um Sherill issued a while ago, there's the Kong logo on that one and you can just barely see it on this one, I will not sell these rings, um were going to use them later in the video, and they'll probably get destroyed after that".
So the ring in question wasn't marked and was of the bad batch and the Kong replaced ones (in your vid) were perfectly good with the Kong logo on them. Why did you say you'd destroy the perfectly good replaced ones.
It just seems like your trying a little bit of slight of hand which won't go over very good in a court proceeding.
Also, please tell me what I asked above.
The ring that broke was on the guy's bridge. Who made the harness and does the harness come with that ring on the bridge or is it added after the purchase, and if so who added it?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
nickfromwi
Aug 16, 2010, 12:50 AM
Post #45 of 89
(9064 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 8
|
Please clarify where you're seeing attempted slight of hand.
The rings that Sherrill recalled were non-marked. No logo. What you see in the video is what they sent back to me after I had sent them what they had recalled.
The DMM rings and the steel rings were pulled from inventory from my rope splicing business. These will get spliced onto to custom made pieces for tree climbers.
The Kong rings have been just sitting there, unused for months now. I won't sell Kong gear to my customers. I can't sell what I myself can't trust. I can't sell them, I can't climb on them. They are garbage to me.
They were sitting there today, and rather than use (and scratch up) things that I could sell, I thought I would use the Kong rings (knowing I wasn't going but a foot off the ground, if that) and I wouldn't be out any money. These rings cost quite a bit more than a standard rap-ring. I pay about $12 for the DMM rings so I didn't want to waste that money for a demo vid.
I don't know what harness Jay was climbing on and so can't comment on whether or not it was a manufacturer installed ring or Jay-installed ring.
Your asking raises a very interesting point, however. I am assuming that you are looking at it from a liability standpoint. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that your thoughts are:
1- if the mfr put the ring on the harness, then it is their fault (at least partially) &
2- if Jay put the ring on, then he modified the harness, nulling warranties and whatnot, and it's Jay's fault.
If this is why you are asking, I ask that you remember why the tree climbers came over here. We didn't come to help get liability advice to make sense of a situation. We collectively have a very good idea of what happened here. A ring that Kong somehow was dealing was used in a way that it was designed to be used. In a completely normal (or maybe even more gentle than normal) situation the ring broke.
I don't know about the other tree guys, but my motivation in telling you this is not about a Kong witch-hunt. It goes back to trust. We want to spread the word. Don't trust Kong.
I've never heard of another reputable manufacturers gear just completely letting go. Perhaps if it was abused, used to long, or used in a way it wasn't designed, but this is just bonkers. The ring just completely let go.
This ring did come (somehow or another) from Kong.
love
nick
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 16, 2010, 3:16 AM
Post #46 of 89
(9042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
nickfromwi wrote: What you see in the video is what they sent back to me after I had sent them what they had recalled.
Who's they?
The slight of hand comes from your video when you state that "these two were part of the recall that Sherrill issued a while ago.", implying that those rings with the Kong logo on them are bad as you show in your vid. There is no way anyone that isn't following this could take it any other way. You then add to it that these (bad ones with Kong logos) are not to be resold and will most likely get destroyed, which is nothing more than your now saying that the replacements are bad too. That's a lot of distortion directed at Kong's rings. Maybe it was all unintentional but it clouds up the truth that the real recalled rings were the rings without any markings on them.
In reply to: I don't know what harness Jay was climbing on and so can't comment on whether or not it was a manufacturer installed ring or Jay-installed ring.
I would think these questions would be on the top of the list and easily answered. It would be at the heart of the matter as far as liability goes.
In reply to: We didn't come to help get liability advice to make sense of a situation.
Why not, it seems the whole agenda of this thread and that at the other site is to hold Kong liable. I would think you would want it to make sense.
In reply to: We collectively have a very good idea of what happened here. A ring that Kong somehow was dealing was used in a way that it was designed to be used. In a completely normal (or maybe even more gentle than normal) situation the ring broke.
Bolded above is the crux. For me I'll need more than "a very good idea" before I give my allegiance against a company that for years has sold solid products. Don't get me wrong, I'd side against them in a heartbeat if there is proof of their negligence. I just require more than a "we say so" approach.
In reply to: This ring did come (somehow or another) from Kong.
So some one says. How did it get to where it was and what it was on.
I just get this uneasy feeling that all the cards on the table aren't face up yet.
Good luck.
edited for bolding
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Aug 16, 2010, 3:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
nickfromwi
Aug 16, 2010, 4:10 AM
Post #47 of 89
(9023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 8
|
They = Sherrill. Kong didn't recall anything.
Here's what I'm trying to say. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have to pay Jay's bills. If you buy Kong things, you very well could be getting things that haven't met our (tree climbers, rock climbers, etc) expectations of how safe they should be. There is additional risk with Kong equipment.
That's all.
If it turns out that Kong did not hand the rings to Sherrill, and Sherrill got the rings directly from some "other" mfr, then that changes everything. But at this time, Kong has denied manufacturing the rings, but doesn't deny involvement.
SomeONE doesn't say the ring came from Kong. Dozens of people say. Sherrill says. And by not denying it, Kong also says that the ring came from them.
If they weren't responsible in any way for the ring they would have come right out at the beginning and said so.
|
|
|
|
|
avalon420
Aug 16, 2010, 4:52 AM
Post #48 of 89
(9015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 281
|
How would Kong (or you guys) KNOW that an UNMARKED ring was in fact their product. Could have come from Home Depot from what I"ve with the given info. And often times, from the legal stand point, it is best for a company to not deny things (even if they arent responsible) if a jury gets involved. No contest is not a synonym for guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Aug 16, 2010, 4:57 AM
Post #49 of 89
(9012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
nickfromwi wrote: They = Sherrill. Kong didn't recall anything. Here's what I'm trying to say. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have to pay Jay's bills. If you buy Kong things, you very well could be getting things that haven't met our (tree climbers, rock climbers, etc) expectations of how safe they should be. There is additional risk with Kong equipment.
That's all. If it turns out that Kong did not hand the rings to Sherrill, and Sherrill got the rings directly from some "other" mfr, then that changes everything. But at this time, Kong has denied manufacturing the rings, but doesn't deny involvement. SomeONE doesn't say the ring came from Kong. Dozens of people say. Sherrill says. And by not denying it, Kong also says that the ring came from them. If they weren't responsible in any way for the ring they would have come right out at the beginning and said so.
So Sherill gave you a marked Kong ring as a replacement? Blasphemy. And you say it's no good?
How dare SherillTree.
I understand what your trying to say, it just seems to be slanted from my perspective.
You continue to blurt out things about Kong with no proof (again bolded above).
Kong came out at the very onset and said they were not their rings. Does this make them not liable, I don't know, but it does fly in contradiction to what you say about them not saying anything about their responsibilities, much like your vid focuses on the rings with Kong's logo as being the bad ones. It's like you've got your sights on Kong and aren't open to anything else. Seems to be to many inconsistencies, unanswered questions and contradictions for me to jump on board at this point. Dozens doesn't make things right anymore than the dozens of us that are in question of some of the facts makes us right. The real truth, if that's what you want and not just liability, will come out, it's part of the nature of this kind of equipment. The innocent will shed as much as is needed to clear themselves, then there will be just one standing.
I understand you came to this site looking for compassion from others that use equipment like this.
The fellowship of the rope is earned, not expected.
Good luck and best of outcomes to the original party injured.
|
|
|
|
|
whipper
Aug 16, 2010, 5:21 AM
Post #50 of 89
(8999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 241
|
Moose, you have really picked a bone with this issue....I feel like it has been all in the name of him trying to inform us of the issue....Why dont you quite being so hostile, I think we can all make our own opinions at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
