|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Nov 7, 2006, 7:32 AM
Post #226 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: As you guys continue your pointless pissing match, you're ignoring the only undeniable fact: Todd Skinner would still be alive if he hadn't bet his life on worn-out gear.
In reply to: For now, the only death I can find was the one posted in the UIAA report.
In reply to: To think that people still don't trust belay loops is just funny at this point. |
|
|
|
|
leezerdgirl
Nov 7, 2006, 5:54 PM
Post #227 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 141
|
In reply to: You can design a test to prove all sorts of things, but if they aren't born out in the real world, they don't mean a whole lot. The method used by many climbers that you don't like has apparently worked well, within the constraints of the real world.
This quote reminds me of the grand cordalette anchor debate. On the one hand, yes, widespread real world climber experiences are, by definition, a good gauge of the safety of a system / technique / piece of gear under real world climbing conditions. On the other hand, our thinking about safety and techniques does evolve through the ingenuity of climbers looking at their gear, techniques, and experiences and devising new ways. I appreciate the time and effort good people have put into testing and comparing methods.
So yeah, we all make our choices about what trade-offs we want to make using one technique vs. another. I appreciate debates like this that help us look at the data and the reasoning and make more informed choices. However, after we've made all the important arguments and given each other food for thought, maybe it's time to let it go. At least until there is new data.
Is there any more word about whether Todd's belay loop underwent a professional analysis?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Nov 8, 2006, 7:34 PM
Post #228 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: In reply to: Multiple deaths have been attributed to your method of connecting biners to ones harness.Do you have any proof, or are you pulling this from your ass?
In a fairly recent incident, a death using the clip bypassing the loop led to a lawsuit which put Hugh Banner (HB) out of business. He folded up his tent right after the lawsuit was settled.
There was a thread with various relatives and affected people which took place right here on RC.com. I tried a search, but the site is all twisted right now and isn't doing searches for me. It's here.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Nov 8, 2006, 7:57 PM
Post #229 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: In reply to: Multiple deaths have been attributed to your method of connecting biners to ones harness.Do you have any proof, or are you pulling this from your ass?
BOTH :lol:
G, it's wasn't that long ago that HB (Hugh Banner) was put out of business by a lawsuit from a death for this very reason. It was discussed ad Nauseum on this very site.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Nov 8, 2006, 8:07 PM
Post #230 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Multiple deaths have been attributed to your method of connecting biners to ones harness.Do you have any proof, or are you pulling this from your ass? :lol: G, it's wasn't that long ago that HB (Hugh Banner) was put out of business by a lawsuit from a death for this very reason. It was discussed ad Nauseum on this very site.
Again, this deals with a figure 8, and it is not totally clear what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Nov 8, 2006, 8:51 PM
Post #231 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: Again, this deals with a figure 8, and it is not totally clear what happened.
Again: (I just wanted to say again again, this is really the first time. ) :lol:
G, I think I was only trying to respond to what Jim Davis was referring too, ie, In reply to: "When you lock a biner in a rigid possition...then it doesn't take much force (out of line with its spine) to break it...."
Pretty much gets summed up with the HB litigation. The litigants claimed that as that fact was well known in the climbing world, ie "When you lock a biner in a rigid position...then it doesn't take much force (out of line with its spine) to break it....", that HB should have warned the N00B who had bought the beefy HB locking carabiner which had the gate easily break due to the twist in the figure 8 as he was a NooB and didn't know this very apparent fact, while HB were experts in gear and did know that this can and does occur.
Presumably warn him sometime before the twisting motion of a figure 8 snapped off the locked gate and the N00B plunged to his unfortunate death.
So there you have both the Allegations and the Alligators talkin sh*it about it.
Pretty sad all the way around for HB, us and the family. Money didn't bring him back and we all paid the price by way of loss of HB as a vendor.
_______________________________________________________
Now, if you ask me, the risk of this happening to just about anyone is very very minuscule, and knowing that it can happen, you will check for it as you step over the edge to rap, and not use a figure 8 either. So I don't give a sh*it if you clip directly to your harness and bypass your belay loop, I climb with people all the time who do this and it makes sense to me, although I don't do it myself.
-that said-
Harness just don't fail. Even old beat ones. Locking biners occasionally do and it's shocking how easy it is to make one fail while locked. But then there's Todd's harness....... on body weight, and Todd's bodyweight at that which isn't a hell of a lot, so go figure.
Pretty damn sad as he was an awesome dude. So much positive energy.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Nov 9, 2006, 1:26 AM
Post #232 of 237
(16397 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Again, this deals with a figure 8, and it is not totally clear what happened. Again: (I just wanted to say again again, this is really the first time. ) :lol:
From earlier posts:
In reply to: And from from what I read it had to do with the carabiner not being strong enough to withstand the levering action of the figure 8. In reply to: I've even seen the same report on figure 8s posted twice in this thread as evidence (though it is talking about something different) In reply to: What death? It was talking about figure eights levering on biners, metal on metal? Not what we are talking about.
All that is why I said again.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Dec 11, 2006, 6:23 PM
Post #233 of 237
(3453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 270
|
In case you missed it, Rock & Ice has an accident report in their latest issue. I don't know who wrote it, but it seems accurate. They don't post it on the web so you'll have to go find it in a library, bookstore, or on a friends coffee table, if you'd like to read it.
|
|
|
|
|
ellingwood
Dec 23, 2006, 4:26 PM
Post #234 of 237
(3307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2006
Posts: 27
|
seems pretty simple,use the harness per the manufacturers instruction and back it up!!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 23, 2006, 5:25 PM
Post #235 of 237
(3283 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
8flood8 wrote: In reply to: In reply to: The other common practice is to attach a friction knot to one leg loop. Hanging from this might be rather startling & uncomfortable, but it might work. It is incredibly uncomfortable, and I've only tried it while upright and switching rappels. If we are operating undere the assumption that your belay loop has failed, then there is nothing keeping you from falling-out of your leg loops except your thigh straps (mine are dinky little elastic bands). If this whole scenario is truly a concern for you, might I suggest a klemheist placed above your rappel device and tied-in to your rodeo bar. The klemheist is easier to loosen once weighted, and it is highly unlikely that you will be able to extrude your upper body (or lower, in the case you become inverted) through your swami belt. Placing the stopper-knot above your rappel device will also decrease the extension in the system in the event of failure, and will prevent whip-lash. the reason that most people give for placing your backup BELOW the belay device is because you can shockload your backup and depending on the device, damage your rope. what i do is extend my belay device (shorter than my weighted, upward reach) and place my backup (a petzl shunt - which is a mechanical prussik) on a biner on my belay loop. more details -- I have a 7mm cord that is girth hitched through my tie-in points extending my rap device about 2 feet off of my harness, once again my backup is on my belay loop. This system is redundant and i can still reach above my belay device to unweight it, should i need to. Another way to eliminate your fear of the belay loop breaking is to get a metolius safe-tech harness. Almost every piece on that harness is rated to withstand a fall (except for the leg bungees in the back, i believe) or you can go all out and get a metolius safe-tech waldo - which has 2 belay loops. hope that helps
First of all, Todd's tragedy notwithstanding, fear of your belay loop failing is irrational. Every time you get into an automobile, or even cross a busy street, you are taking a far greater risk of death then you are from a belay loop failure. Nonetheless, if you want to back up your belay loop, simply tie a second belay loop made from cord through your tie-in points, parallel to the manufacturer's one.
Better yet, be smart, and replace your harness regularly. If you climb frequently buy a new harness, say, every 2nd year. This will amount to an investment of about $35 per year, hardly a budget buster for most climbers.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 23, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #236 of 237
(3280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
[quote "fitzontherocks"]Isn't a belay loop called a belay loop because its real purpose is to hold your ATC while you're belaying? I've used mine to rap from, but it makes me a little nervous, even though I've seen many, many MANY times that "It's the strongest point on your harness." 99% of the time, I'll put my locking biner around the waistband AND leg-connecting-web-thingy (did someone call that a "rodeo bar"?). And when I do that, it FEELS more secure, because there's more strong webbing under the biner. So, tell me why it's known as a "belay loop" and not a "rappel loop." (This thread is the very first time I've seen it called a "rap loop.")[/quote]
Why don't you try reading the manufacturer's instructions for your harness, and quit worrying about what the loop is called. That said, Petzl refers to it as a belay/abseil loop. Does this knowledge somehow comfort you suddenly?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2006, 9:07 PM
Post #237 of 237
(3212 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: [quote "fitzontherocks"]Isn't a belay loop called a belay loop because its real purpose is to hold your ATC while you're belaying? I've used mine to rap from, but it makes me a little nervous, even though I've seen many, many MANY times that "It's the strongest point on your harness." 99% of the time, I'll put my locking biner around the waistband AND leg-connecting-web-thingy (did someone call that a "rodeo bar"?). And when I do that, it FEELS more secure, because there's more strong webbing under the biner. So, tell me why it's known as a "belay loop" and not a "rappel loop." (This thread is the very first time I've seen it called a "rap loop.")[/quote] Why don't you try reading the manufacturer's instructions for your harness, and quit worrying about what the loop is called. That said, Petzl refers to it as a belay/abseil loop. Does this knowledge somehow comfort you suddenly? Jay
Sure, but what if he wants to rappel rather than abseil?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
