|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #26 of 72
(17896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: linear rotation (rotation along the long axis) which would break them quick. PROBABLY be ok in most situations. why are you asking?
I was going to list that as anoher reason not to do it. I think you would need a large twisting force to make a carabiner to fail in this way thou, and I don't think such a force would be possible. I may be wrong thou.
Why do I ask? For various reasons. One being that I value my safety, and those around me, and would like to know as much as I possibly can about the equipment I use.
Trent
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:31 PM
Post #27 of 72
(17893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: i have to assume that is a joke i think the fact that twisting it fast causes them to unclip should be reason enough not to ever do it.
No. You read me wrong. Twisting it fast in Trents Home Experiments, causes it to unclip and RECLIP. I seen it with my own eyes! and can repeat it on command. Proper experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 2:36 PM
Post #28 of 72
(17888 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: linear rotation (rotation along the long axis) which would break them quick. PROBABLY be ok in most situations. why are you asking? I was going to list that as anoher reason not to do it. I think you would need a large twisting force to make a carabiner to fail in this way thou, and I don't think such a force would be possible. I may be wrong thou. Why do I ask? For various reasons. One being that I value my safety, and those around me, and would like to know as much as I possibly can about the equipment I use. Trent
"large forces" are what we deal with, the reason we discuss anchor configurations and saftey, why john long continues to refine his understanding of forces, loading. it's good to learn as much as you can. i learn every time i go climbing. as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe.
|
|
|
|
|
nepaclimber
Aug 21, 2007, 2:38 PM
Post #29 of 72
(17887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2007
Posts: 56
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: i have to assume that is a joke i think the fact that twisting it fast causes them to unclip should be reason enough not to ever do it. No. You read me wrong. Twisting it fast in Trents Home Experiments, causes it to unclip and RECLIP. I seen it with my own eyes! and can repeat it on command. Proper experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #30 of 72
(17873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: ok in that case i trust that means it is a 100% safe method to use and i shall start extending all my draws that way, because safty inspector trent can twist them out and back into each other and that will be how it happens in a real world senario all the time, you have cleared up everything for me
Ok nepaclimber, you obviously don't get my very clear patronizing tone; so I will spell it out as clear as I can. firstly I never wanted to hear anecdotal information. This is what you provided, and you weren't even the first in this thread to do so.
Secondly I have moved onto other issues which are more important. The unclipping of biners has a simple control measure, use a locking biner, so therefore anecdotal wanking on about this topic is a waste of everyone’s time.
Trent.
Oh, and by the way, Trents Home Experiments don't really exist.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Aug 21, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #31 of 72
(17863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
I wouldn't extend a draw using a biner to biner connection just because I wouldn't feel comfortable with the opportunity for something dicked up to happen. One bad mistake is all it takes to get you killed so stacking the odds in your favor, perhaps being a little paranoid, isn't necessarily out of line. I will (have; and lived to tell of it, though that's anecdotal) connect biner to biner in more static situations, it certainly isn't significantly worse than biner to bolt hanger.
Triaxial loading on the other hand is not good. Look on your biners at the strength ratings. If you triaxial load, you will be loading at least partially across the weak axis of the biner which generally is only about 1/3 as strong as the major axis. Not something to play with, especially for significant force levels.
|
|
|
|
|
snowboardercolo
Aug 21, 2007, 3:10 PM
Post #32 of 72
(17857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 87
|
What I don’t see is you realizing the force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing.
There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction, so I asked around. Not a good idea. Has anyone done it, a couple of climbers have said yes in an emergency situation. From the point I first started climbing I was told no metal on metal. If you are going to extend webbing then remove a biner. The purpose of the webbing is so it can twist and guide the rope, safely .
If it were safe don’t you think it would be sold as such in stores? Just because it isn’t in the warnings doesn’t mean it is safe. With that logic I don’t think you will be climbing long.
Would you feel safe falling on two biners that you clipped together even if they held would you keep using them? Would you feel safe for your fellow climbers? I can tell you I won’t climb on his gear. The same point can be raised would you climb on a biner or ATC that had taken a good fall with visual damage? How much is your life worth? How much is the life of the person you are climbing with worth?
|
|
|
|
|
dalguard
Aug 21, 2007, 3:11 PM
Post #33 of 72
(17857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2003
Posts: 239
|
Biner-to-biner is a stiff connection, even stiffer than a stiff dogbone. There are several disdavantages to stiff connections as compared to floppy ones.
* more likely to self-unclip
* more likely to cause gear to walk/pull/zipper
* more likely to twist in such a way that a biner is loaded across something and breaks
At an anchor, to clip one thing to another, I use biner-to-biner all the time. I'm not going to fall on those biners and they're being weighted in a nice, predictable downward fashion where my eyes can see them.
On gear, as I'm climbing, I don't use biner-to-biner due to the disadvantages described above. There is seldom any reason why you'd want to anyway. If you're needing to extend quick draws by clipping other quick draws into them, I suggest you buy some slings.
(Yes, biner-to-bolt is also a stiff connection which is why biners sometimes self-unclip from bolts and why you're supposed to be trying to keep the spine of the biner against the hanger to control the way the biner gets loaded.)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:12 PM
Post #34 of 72
(17857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe.
The noise is getting louder. I guess you have nothing much to do like me. Just posting useless crap every now and again. I don't want rules of thumb, and "don't do it" isn't good enough. And again, welcome to the thread Reg: You got it, I'm here to learn. I don't know how you thought I wasn't.
Trent
[I'm not sure how this forum works, but it seems more like a knitting circle to me. Correct me if I'm in the wrong forum, but I'm after some serious discussion on this topic. I would expect these replies in the general forum, and there is nothing wrong with that, but here I don't think it works]
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Aug 21, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #35 of 72
(17844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: as a rule of thumb i'd say don't do it untill you learn/realize there are times/situations where it's needed and/or safe. The noise is getting louder. I guess you have nothing much to do like me. Just posting useless crap every now and again. I don't want rules of thumb, and "don't do it" isn't good enough. And again, welcome to the thread Reg: You got it, I'm here to learn. I don't know how you thought I wasn't. Trent [I'm not sure how this forum works, but it seems more like a knitting circle to me. Correct me if I'm in the wrong forum, but I'm after some serious discussion on this topic. I would expect these replies in the general forum, and there is nothing wrong with that, but here I don't think it works]
oky doky trent - since no one has given you the highly technical answer your lookin for, why go with your inate feelings: "it's not good! i shouldn't do this." right? and then continue your quest for the answer. call the manufacturerers, go to the shops. actually go out to crags and watch. then come back and...... pearl 1- knit 2. oh..... stop being nasty
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #36 of 72
(17840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: he force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing.
Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.
In reply to: Would you feel safe falling on two biners that you clipped together even if they held would you keep using them? Would you feel safe for your fellow climbers?
Well, this is what I'm trying to determine. Welcome to the thread, finally.
In reply to: he same point can be raised would you climb on a biner or ATC that had taken a good fall with visual damage? How much is your life worth? How much is the life of the person you are climbing with worth?
What has this got to do with anything? There has been no mention of biner damage. Whats my life worth got to do with anything? You seem to be presuposing that biner to biner is dangerous. Just stick with your reasons and avoid the fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:33 PM
Post #37 of 72
(17836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: 2. oh..... stop being nasty
Hehehe. Sorry about the abrupt replies Reg :). I'm just passionate when it comes to safety. Thanks for your contribution.
Trent
(This post was edited by Trentw on Aug 21, 2007, 3:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 21, 2007, 3:42 PM
Post #38 of 72
(17827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
In reply to: At an anchor, to clip one thing to another, I use biner-to-biner all the time. I'm not going to fall on those biners and they're being weighted in a nice, predictable downward fashion where my eyes can see them.
Good point. Can you explain exactly how you do this? Thanks
Trent.
(This post was edited by Trentw on Aug 21, 2007, 3:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Aug 21, 2007, 3:45 PM
Post #39 of 72
(17825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
.............. Troll
Just like every other troll, the first sign is to disregard the knowledge of those who have greater experience in the field. I am not pointing to myself here, but to the many others who care to give you the time.
It is good that you question ideas, but when you have proof in your "Trent Home Experiment" which we know you didn't do, then why push it.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Aug 21, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #40 of 72
(17817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Wow! Just reading through this thread shows how much people like to talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about.
Trentw wrote: 1. They unclip easier, compared to using a sling
Trentw wrote: 2. The BD carabiner instructions doesn't warn against it
Back in the day before quickdraws, a "quickdraw consisted of an oval clipped to an oval. The only reason this should be warned against is #1 listed above.
Trentw wrote: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?)
Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.
Trentw wrote: 4. Clipping more then two biners into another biner can cause triaxial loading
Trentw wrote: 5. Triaxial loading can serverly weaken the biner (testing?)
Trentw wrote: 6. The BD carabiner instructions warn against triaxial loading
|
|
|
|
|
snowboardercolo
Aug 21, 2007, 10:07 PM
Post #41 of 72
(17761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 87
|
“Back in the day before quickdraws, a "quickdraw consisted of an oval clipped to an oval. The only reason this should be warned against is #1 listed above. “
Maybe that is why they were invented? To add additional safety to a dangerous sport.
“Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.”
Really, I guess that is why they are rated? Mine are 22 kN. I guess you can replace them with a bit of string? I am sure biner on biner or even a single biner is very safe when you are going over an edge and the biner will be loaded across the rock edge.
“Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.”
It doesn’t have to be “large” force at all. You are forcing a piece out of spec and design which is one of the things I asked about when I saw it. Hook 2 biners to an anchor, put a rope in it and pull down. What do you see? You are forcing a load at the point where the biners come into contact. Which way is the load going to be directed? It was demonstrated to me and it forces a diagonal load. Now, how are biners rated? Where is the strength in the design? There you have your answer.
Does it weaken them? I’m going with a YES it twists them with minimal hand pressure, watch the gates . On a fall I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it!
“What has this got to do with anything?” “There has been no mention of biner damage.”
You asked the questions yet you are very rude to the people on the board. The whole discussion evolves around possible damage.
“Wow! Just reading through this thread shows how much people like to talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about.”
You are not only including but starting with yourself here right?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 21, 2007, 10:16 PM
Post #42 of 72
(17755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
IMO
Hardware to hardware = not recommended
Hardware to software to hardware =ok
Biner to biner = not recommended
Single biner to biner Triaxial Loading = no
Single biner to 2 biner Triaxial Loading = possible
Single biner to 3+ biner Triaxial Loading = greater chance of failure
Multiple biner to multiple biner Triaxial Loading = 100% failures during sever shock loading
|
|
|
|
|
skinner
Aug 21, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #43 of 72
(17735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 1747
|
snowboardercolo wrote: There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction,
Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but why would you want a draw that created more friction?
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 21, 2007, 11:43 PM
Post #44 of 72
(17732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
skinner wrote: snowboardercolo wrote: There is a guy around here that uses biner on biner for draws. His claim is that is provides more friction, Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but why would you want a draw that created more friction?
When your belayer is using the foot belay.
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 21, 2007, 11:47 PM
Post #45 of 72
(17727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue.
With bolts you always use the same 'biner for your bolt and the same 'biner for your rope.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Aug 22, 2007, 12:10 AM
Post #46 of 72
(17717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
sinrtb wrote: In reply to: Wouldn't the same be true of carabiners through a bolt-hanger or a nut wire? I haven't seen these uses described as an issue. The nut wire would spread along the b'iner where as if you used a 'biner on another 'biner they don't spread their force across an area they focus all their force onto a specific point. This will cause a dent at least if not a full on gouge. Get enough of a dent/gouge and you have something that will damage your rope later. With bolts you always use the same 'biner for your bolt and the same 'biner for your rope.
That is just wrong. A one biner won't dent/gouge your other biner if your climbing on dynamic rope.
(This post was edited by rocknice2 on Aug 22, 2007, 12:13 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 22, 2007, 12:13 AM
Post #47 of 72
(17715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
Trentw wrote: In reply to: he force of a fall would twist the metal to metal. Biners are designed for opposing force loads not twisting force loads. When you clip into the anchor it can't unclip itself so the direction of the force is constant and opposing. Not sure exactly what you mean. I don't beleive that twisting forces would be large at all.
They dont have to be large because they are magnified through metal on metal leverage. biners are not meant to withstand any twisting forces let alone forces applied by a lever.
|
|
|
|
|
sinrtb
Aug 22, 2007, 12:28 AM
Post #48 of 72
(17705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Posts: 54
|
rocknice2 wrote: That is just wrong. A one biner won't dent/gouge your other biner if your climbing on dynamic rope.
Ya good point, didn't think about the dynamics of the rope thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 4:41 AM
Post #49 of 72
(17673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Hi Majid
In reply to: Hardware to hardware = not recommended Hardware to software to hardware =ok Biner to biner = not recommended Single biner to biner Triaxial Loading = no Single biner to 2 biner Triaxial Loading = possible Single biner to 3+ biner Triaxial Loading = greater chance of failure Multiple biner to multiple biner Triaxial Loading = 100% failures during sever shock loading
Thanks for your time, but I would prefer an explanation as to why you beleive this. I'm am not after rules of thumb, or a vote for the best method. If I did I would've posted in the beginners forum.
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
Trentw
Aug 22, 2007, 4:51 AM
Post #50 of 72
(17669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2007
Posts: 31
|
Thanks Trenchdigger for a well thought out reply.
In reply to: Trentw wrote: 3. Shock loading of two biners causes them to be severely weakened (testing?) Where'd you read this? Most slings are made of spectra and stretch very little. On top of that, carabiners and slings are just one link in the safety system. The rope is your main shock absorber. Switching out a sling with a carabiner will make virtually no difference in the shock load in a climbing situation.
I can't remember where I read this. Thats why I'm trying to confirm or deny it now. Swede brings up a point about the small surface area clashing together with biner to biner, and could be cause for concern. This does not happen with sling to biner.
This shock loading problem may not be a big issue, due to the millions of tests done every year on the cliffs with biners in hangers, and no reported failures (to my limited knowlegde).
Trent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
