The distinction between the value of drop testing vs, pull testing comes into sharp relief when one sees the relatively recent tests on dyneema slings, which will break in a factor-2 fall.

On the other hand, when it comes to metal gear, I think I remember Chris Harmston saying some years ago on rec.climbing that drop and pull testing yielded essentially equivalent results.

2. Tie-in knots absorb a small but not insignificant amount of the load. But not after the first fall when they have tightened up.

It would be very helpful to get their reports translated from Italian. I begged the AAC to do this with little or no results that I'm aware of. It is really close to a scandal that such thorough work has not found its way to an international audience.

Climbing equipment manufactures are doing drop tests and independent companies/organizations are in fact doing drop tests. Ever noticed that climbing gear is rated in kN?

I see some purpose in Largo's post.

Why is gear not drop tested? [If this is the line of thought he is going.]

Hardware is staticly pulled to failure. We know the manufacturers state the maximum dynamic loading (MDL) on their gear, or at least thier suggested failure load. Why not subject this gear in a drop rig with loads that have been calculated to meet and/or exceed the MDL of the piece. It's a great idea and it would be interesting to see the results of a load-to-failure drop on a piece of hardware.

Claims that slow pull and drop testing yield the same results are not terribly convincing.

"Actually, there's quite a bit of testing to support the validity of static pulls for most climbing gear."

I think this is probably true per individual pieces of gear - i.e., how "strong" is this SLCD or that biner. But for systems, such as belay rianchor rigging, et al, for slow pull testing to be valid it would have to have been contrasted with drop tests, with both drop and pull test results worked up into a proper statistical model, contrasted, etc. If this has actually been done, I'd very much like to see it.

"On things like harnesses, it's actually more brutal."

It's likely more brutal with any single piece of gear, though I certainly don't know for sure, nor have I seen those contrasting tests that would prove it so.

"All of this was discussed extensively when there was a movement afoot to create ASTM standards."

When, exactly, was this, and who was it who extensively discussed it? Not doubting this information, I just am totally in the dark about the facts of this.

"That effort was abandoned when the conclusion was reached that the UIAA standards were adequate to protect companies from lawsuits, their primary purpose."

Again, I think this was all in reference to individual pieces of gear, such as nuts and cams and biners and ropes. But the relative strength and performance perameters of said gear is not and has never been the topic of these long winded discussions on fall factors and whether or not we should clip through the anchor and the forces involved when falling directly onto the belay anchor and rigging for equaization and no extensions cha cha cha. Clearly, pull testing would not disclose what we need to know about the above; and I question anyone who claims that it would. How would they know that without contrasting both drop and slow pull testing?

"Rgold is correct that the AAC is absolutely pathetic when it comes to testing gear and improving climbing safety (cordelettes are a great example). Instead they focus money on a lame museum, a nice library, and feel-good projects and parties that don't help the majority of climbers.

I see some purpose in Largo's post.

Why is gear not drop tested? [If this is the line of thought he is going.]

Hardware is staticly pulled to failure. We know the manufacturers state the maximum dynamic loading (MDL) on their gear, or at least thier suggested failure load. Why not subject this gear in a drop rig with loads that have been calculated to meet and/or exceed the MDL of the piece. It's a great idea and it would be interesting to see the results of a load-to-failure drop on a piece of hardware.

I don't think I've ever seen MDL ratings...on anything. Care to point me to some from any of the major gear companies.

I don't think I've ever seen MDL ratings...on anything. Care to point me to some from any of the major gear companies.

[I agree, though, with the opinion that the loading characteristics between a static pull and a dynamic pull are different.

Unless some research shows up that slow pull testing, can mask a significant failure mode under dynamic conditions, then there will be no change to testing.

It would be very helpful to get their reports translated from Italian. I begged the AAC to do this with little or no results that I'm aware of. It is really close to a scandal that such thorough work has not found its way to an international audience.

I think this logic is exactly backwards.

The "research" is basically functional, real world climbing, which involves dynamic loading scenarios.
As mentioned earlier, in automotives, they don't allow accident testing to take place in a slow, hydraulic compactor - they require that cars be driven into walls, since that's an actual accident, not a replicatd accident in slow motion (compactor).

but, what about systems (belay systems, rigging systems, and issues like using a redirect off the belay) - these are what remaikn huge question markms for all of us.

Consider the drop tests Rock and Ice mag. did a few years ago on using a Spectra daisy chain as a belay anchor tie off. You could have slow pull tested all the components in the system - the anchor, the rigging (cordelette), the biners, the spectra daisy itself, and all would have returned high performance numbers. But when they actually dropped a 150 lb. weight onto a Spectra daisy connected directly to an anchor, shit started blowing up.

Again, the testing normally done is with individual pieces of gear, whereas systems and procedures - the topic of discussion on these threads - remain huge unknowns and are IMO not going to give up thir secrets with slow pull testing.