|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Gear Heads:
Rope Specs and Differences between Brands: Falls Held:
Edit Log
|
|
mattm
Oct 26, 2010, 6:44 PM
Views: 4648
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
I'm pretty savvy on rope mechanics, specs etc. The only ones I truly look at are Impact Force, Falls Held and gr/m weight. Maybe sheath percentage as well. The others are a bit less informative and a lot of the time you need a hands on to evaluate how a rope is "built".
So here's the tech question of the day. Why is there a HUGE difference in # of falls held between two ropes that seem SOMEWHAT similar. I realize these are due to design intents to some degree but I wonder about WHY these choices were made.
Specific Example: Beal vs Sterling. I've been a Beal guy for the past few years due to impact force ratings. My local climbing area changed and that's not a huge issue anymore (mostly bolted sport now vs: trad) so I've been looking at some Sterlings that many people swear by.
A Sterling Marathon Pro 10.1mm Specs out at 6 falls, 8.6kN and 63g/m - No Sheath % listed.
A Beal Flyer 10.2mm Specs out at 10 Falls, 7.4kN and 64g/m, 38% Sheath.
There are slight differences in the specs but what stands out to me id the # of falls held. Seems like a BIG difference given that A) the min is 5 and B) The beal is only slightly larger.
Is # of Falls Held a less relevant stat than I'm thinking it is? Is it not the indication of durability that I think it is?
Why design a rope to just barely make the falls held when others double it? What's the thought process here? Just want to educate my self and satisfy my inner engineer a bit more.
(This post was edited by mattm on Oct 26, 2010, 6:45 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by mattm
() on Oct 26, 2010, 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
