Trench

Answer me this

What is the purpose of the lock on a locking-biner ?

A-is to stop gate flutter
B- To prevent the gate/hook misalignment
c- I do not know what to say
D other reason like.......................

Since the reply was to my post, here's my answer.
The purpose is to prevent the gate from opening (and consequently the pin disengaging) for ANY reason, gate flutter being one.

What are you trying to get to at this point?
As if it was necessary, you were presented evidence that the pin/notch design does exactly what it's supposed to do, the carabiners in the video had their gates kept open.
You gave the impression that you thought the pin is the component of the carabiner that normally fails, and you were proven wrong.
Actually you've seen many failed carabiners with pin/notch intact, and instead of coming to the obvious conclusion, you thought that the design was faulty.

You know, if I were to use your style, I could tell you that since you have no basic background in mechancal engineering and design, all this makes no sense to you, and this post should have been open in the beginners forum, not the lab. But I, like many others, don't like this style.

I been looking at biner failures for long time and recently I reviewed the UIAA test page that offers several films related to biner failures during pull test. it seems to me that locking pin on the gate does not appear to catch the hook during shock load or pull test.

The way I see it, the pin and the little hook do nothing. Basically, they are both worthless and I am pretty confident that, this is the biggest Screw-up in the history of climbing gear design and yet, manufactures are still making them with the same problem

The pin does not interlock with the hook under tension period.

Trench

Answer me this

What is the purpose of the lock on a locking-biner ?

A-is to stop gate flutter
B- To prevent the gate/hook misalignment
c- I do not know what to say
D other reason like.......................

The way I see it, the pin and the little hook do nothing. Basically, they are both worthless and I am pretty confident that, this is the biggest Screw-up in the history of climbing gear design and yet, manufactures are still making them with the same problem

The pin does not interlock with the hook under tension period. If the hook is there to stop the gate from bending backward (extend travel) then they could just cut the notch and keep the hook straight like a regular Chinese key chain biners .

Gi Gi
Unless you log in with user name Trench then I am ok your answer. If you were only trying to contribute to this post then that is fine too but do not make any assumption about my background and please read the entire post and then drop your comments. Also If you think, this belongs to a beginner forum or any other place then you should ask mods to relocate this post. Till then, This discuccion is going to stays here till we get some answers.

so, has anybody done any pulling on this?
without that this is just speculation.

Not true. Closed gate strength are significantly stronger than open gate strengths. Thus, logically, the hook must catch on the pin.

I don't know why this is even being debated. Carabiners are simple engineering and have been rigorously tested by manufacturers. I don't see how you could possibly claim that there is a problem.

There is no argument about how strong the biners with their gate closed and this is not what were are taking here, however, I am questioning how efficient the the pin-hood do their job during shock load. From what I can see ( based on several bend biners with undamaged pin-hook) the hook does not fully engages with the pin and shortly after initial shock, the hook pushes the pin (gate) backward causing misalignment which eventually causes axis line to bend faster during tensioning .

Again ,if pin-hook are fully engaging during tension mode then we should see some sort of damage to the pin or the hook.

I mean how much forces would it take to bend a pin or snap the hook off the biner ?

There is no argument about how strong the biners with their gate closed and this is not what were are taking here, however, I am questioning how efficient the the pin-hood do their job during shock load. From what I can see ( based on several bend biners with undamaged pin-hook) the hook does not fully engages with the pin and shortly after initial shock, the hook pushes the pin (gate) backward causing misalignment which eventually causes axis line to bend faster during tensioning .

Again ,if pin-hook are fully engaging during tension mode then we should see some sort of damage to the pin or the hook.

I mean how much forces would it take to bend a pin or snap the hook off the biner ?

You should not see damage to the pin or hook. You are continuing to ignore how biners work. They are effective enough at keeping the load on the spine side of the biner that the pin/ notch does not receive enough force to be damaged before the biner breaks at the elbow or the biner bends enough to disengage the pin and the biner breaks at the elbow.

You don't argue against the closed gate strength of the pin/ notch style biner. And it's been demonstrated that the failure during closed gate occurs without damage to the pin Therefore the fact that you see field failures without pin damage does not logically lead to the conclusion that the pin/ notch do not engage properly.

I want to see some damaged pins or destroyed hook

Attention all rock climbers, please show me some proof that a pin or a hook that has acutely been damaged during drop test or an actual fall.

I want to see some damaged pins or destroyed hook

Attention all rock climbers, please show me some proof that a pin or a hook that has acutely been damaged during drop test or an actual fall.

Till then, MS will continue to press on this pin-hook misalignment myth.

There is no argument about how strong the biners with their gate closed and this is not what were are taking here, however, I am questioning how efficient the the pin-hood do their job during shock load. From what I can see ( based on several bend biners with undamaged pin-hook) the hook does not fully engages with the pin and shortly after initial shock, the hook pushes the pin (gate) backward causing misalignment which eventually causes axis line to bend faster during tensioning .

Again ,if pin-hook are fully engaging during tension mode then we should see some sort of damage to the pin or the hook.

I mean how much forces would it take to bend a pin or snap the hook off the biner ?

The way I see it, the pin and the little hook do nothing. Basically, they are both worthless and I am pretty confident that, this is the biggest Screw-up in the history of climbing gear design and yet, manufactures are still making them with the same problem

The pin does not interlock with the hook under tension period.

The way I see it, the pin and the little hook do nothing. Basically, they are both worthless and I am pretty confident that, this is the biggest Screw-up in the history of climbing gear design and yet, manufactures are still making them with the same problem

The pin does not interlock with the hook under tension period.

OK, you've put it in bold, but didn't comment. Does that mean you accept the argument and we can go home now? Because, the reported closed gate strength is the point at which the biner bends far enough for the pin to be push passed the notch.

Here's a video you dismissed earlier http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZyVD0FBLiFQ. In this video we see a carabiner that is loaded to its breaking point. The gate is closed until it breaks, and yet magically the biner breaks at the elbow. This is proof that you will not see damaged pins or destroyed hooks. But this is not evidence that the pin/hooks does not work.

Show me a notchless style biner where the opening in the gate has been stretched around the biner's nose?


That's right, pin-hook misalignment is a myth, and if you can't demonstrate it's not a myth, you should stop perpetuating it.

no it means that you are supporting my fact that pin-hook barley become engage and that is why there are no sign of damages and if the biner fails before pin becomes engage with the hook then what is the purpose of the pin or hook?

The person who conducted that pull test is BOB. He is a friend of mine and we done some testing together but unfortunately what he is showing in youtube is invalid due to fact that he is using two big fat shackle that applies forces to the middle of the biner and away from the axis line.

applying forces to the middle of the biner causes tension to be divided evenly along the both axis line which does not allow the axis line to bend. this is like applying forces to an OVAL biner which load is evenly applied till gate gives up.

So to valid his test, BOB should use a bolt hanger on one side ( to subsitute as a climbing protection) and a
smaller size cable to substitute as climber's rope under full falling load.

remember, the radius ( diameter) of the shackle pin makes a huge difference during biner's pull test and its result.

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1248/screenhunter1de2.jpg[/IMG]

edit to add; there are some biners with deeper groove in the hook which engage better than others pins. Not sure about omaga biners but I have seen some improved biners out there but still, majority of commonly used biner lack from hook-pin full engagement.

Hey Bob, you got some time to break few of my biners ?