Forums: Climbing Information: Accident and Incident Analysis: Re: [moose_droppings] Rope severed by worn carabiner at RRG, climber decks: Edit Log




jt512


Oct 5, 2010, 2:23 PM

Views: 4353

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [moose_droppings] Rope severed by worn carabiner at RRG, climber decks
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  

moose_droppings wrote:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
jt512 wrote:

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

Jay

Practice what you preach.

I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up.

Jay

OK, easy enough.

jt512 wrote:
I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength. 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

More talk of biner strength.

jt512 wrote:
As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose.

Jay

To pretend you aren't helping perpetuate talk of the semantics of biner strength and therefore not "practicing what you preach" is nothing more than obvious denial of facts.

If you think that that is arguing over semantics, there's not much I can do to help you. At best, I could spend way too much time and effort explaining why it is not, only to have you still not get it.

Edit: You're so lost that you don't even see that the second quote isn't even about biner strength, in any sense of the term.

I think is stupid enough to be considered your first strike.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 5, 2010, 2:36 PM)



Edit Log:
Post edited by jt512 () on Oct 5, 2010, 2:26 PM
Post edited by jt512 () on Oct 5, 2010, 2:27 PM
Post edited by jt512 () on Oct 5, 2010, 2:35 PM
Post edited by jt512 () on Oct 5, 2010, 2:36 PM


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?