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.

Enough said.

JL

1) you totally cheestitted that quote

2) john, your gripe hardly seems to be with the gear manufacturers, eh? holding them accountable for not testing systems that may or may not be ubiquitious or made from their products seems like you are just lashing out. perhaps your initial impulse to look towards the AAC was more appropriate. in fact all in all the beginning of this thread was far better than the end.

i must preface this next point with: i really have the utmost respect and gratitude for your work and your writing. HOWEVER, the end of this thread has not shown some of your best attributes. it has reduced you to whining and pointing blame at those who do not deserve it.

i was excited by the start of this thread and by this point feel like i may just not return. hmph.

~alex

I completely agree with your premise. 100%. There is probably nothing more dangerous than listening to advice given on "personal experience" when that experience (no matter how long and varied) does not include any real life "testing" (not in the scientific way but in the "i fell on this system and x happened way).

No arguments there. And I commend you for recognizing the problem, not back-peddling when it came to your previous recommendations vs what you and Jim found about the cordallette, etc.

Sorry, I actually do think I missed your earlier point about gear companies testing these systems b/c they are the ones with the drop towers. That is a very valid point. Although to my credit, you did very quickly leave that course and started hammering on the gear. And most everybody else picked up on that and we had some serious though subtle 'thread drift'.

The problem comes into time, money and resources. Gear companies have the drop towers- how often are they free, what kind of liability do they or do they not face by testing anchor systems and publishing the results, do they have the personnel resources to do the testing, etc. Would looking for a grant from the AAC and renting time on a drop tower work? Would they (either the AAC or the companies) be amenable to that idea?

I think that what I was trying to get across was that while I totally agree with your sentiment (at least the academic side of me) I think that pretty quickly, in this thread the means became unproductive- it simply seemed like an unwarranted lashing out at the gear companies (and the AAC, though perhaps that is more warranted...)

Certainly interesting stuff here; we are not only asking questions about fundamental facts about our safety systems out on the rock, but also really about who is responsible for ensuring that our communal knowledge is accurate and up-to-date. Perhaps the AAC, most likely not the gear companies, perhaps a new organization?

My gut reaction is that if any gear companies should/would get involved it makes most sense for the rope/soft goods manufacturers to, for at least at this stage of the game it seems to be the interaction between their goods and our safety systems that we want to research. But this does not mean that they are the only ones that CAN, or that they have some responsibility to do the testing, etc.

I hound the gear companies because they are the only ones who have the UIAA drop towers and the personel to do the testing. I hound the AAC because in other countries the alpine clubs do testing all the time.

That much said, it's hard to imagine getting more resistance from people about the need to do more actual drop testing ON ANCHORING SYSTEMS, not on individual pieces of gear, for which slow pull tgesting is probably sufficient. Fact is, while I understand that companies do not sell anchoring systems, slow pull tests can contribute only so much here, as can other mechanical models from which things are being extrapolated.

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.

I'm very much in favor of the AAC moving into this arena. Gear companies, I'm not so sure. I don't think there's an inherent conflict of interest there, but the potential for it is undeniable. Mal and the Trango folk, Jim Ewing, the BD and Petzl guys, many more... they're all fantastic -- trustworthy -- people, IMO. But they won't always be there.

As far as the AAC goes, I don't know the reasons why they haven't gone there yet. I suspect it has to do with a lack of funds and a slew of other issues.

To be honest, as I sit here at the helm of a site that routinely runs the spectrum from utterly useless to somewhat relevant to the greater climbing community, I'm wondering if there's any small thing we can do to help this become a reality. We have a website with an audience, after all. Then again, perhaps the answer is as simple as helping the Italians with translations. I don't know, but I'd like this conversation to continue.

Edited because I also cheesetitted the quotes.

I'm very much in favor of the AAC moving into this arena. Gear companies, I'm not so sure. I don't think there's an inherent conflict of interest there, but the potential for it is undeniable. Mal and the Trango folk, Jim Ewing, the BD and Petzl guys, many more... they're all fantastic -- trustworthy -- people, IMO. But they won't always be there.

As far as the AAC goes, I don't know the reasons why they haven't gone there yet. I suspect it has to do with a lack of funds and a slew of other issues.

Once some kind of consensus is arrived at per what the real questions are, we might move to devising ways to conduct the tests that will in turn give us the best results. One thing Colin was quite sure of – and I totally trust him on this one since he’d been testing gear for years – is that the working up of what tests need to be made and how to conduct them is totally crucial and needs to be done long before a team heads into the lab.

So that, perhaps, is a starting point we can launch into on this site: What are the most pressing and unsettled issues per the roped safety system; what are the tests that can best address these issues; and how should the tests be carried out in order to yield the most definitive results.

JL

In reviewing most of the testing done world wide, the vast majority are slow pull tests, even though no one ever falls like this, and gear is never impacted with super heavy loading (in a real world climbing situation) via slow impact. It's like mashing a car with a hydraulic compactor, instead of driving it at speed into a brick wall. If you want to know how the car actually responds in a wreck, you have to go for the head on.

We need to encourage those with drop towers to start doing the work, tedious and involved as it is.

JL

Sounds like you just volunteered, Jay..



Joking aside this is the kind of testing and discussion that you were looking to see here in The Lab when you came up with the idea for it, isn't it? Just throwing the idea out there, but what if we were to take The Lab to the next level and try to tackle some of these issues for the benefit of us all?

Its kind of a different model than the non-profit mountaineering organizations, but there may be a way to make it work....

Jay, I think rc.com already is serving exactly the purpose it's best at - allowing a forum for the free flow of ideas.

GO

Fewer accidents will happen when climbers worry less about how to rig the latest and most fashionable equalized, cordaletted anchor and start thinking

My main frustration is that there is no national safety commission or anything like it that can coordinate comprehensive tests and, moreover, can amass the tests that have been made into some coherent whole.
JL

So far as this site is concerned, can't one of the online wonks compile a list of links to external sites that include already published research?

Does this mean I'm a wonk?

Maybe trying to find some translating is our next step here. Thinking...

I hound the gear companies because they are the only ones who have the UIAA drop towers and the personel to do the testing. I hound the AAC because in other countries the alpine clubs do testing all the time.