|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Sep 28, 2010, 7:56 PM
Post #101 of 134
(14782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
hafilax wrote: rrrADAM wrote: bill413 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: iron106 wrote: Worn biners are usually stronger than new ones. Huh????? What leads you to believe this? Seriously, what? Do you have any data, or anything to support this? In all my years (22, the last 16 at nukes) of performing inspections of materials, and doing failure analysis, I have never, ever heard this... Worn = Less material = Less strength. At least one basis for the statement that worn biners are stronger is here, based on unofficial testing. However, here is unofficial testing that is specific to this type of accident. That is misleading, as the groove serves to keep the rope at the biner's/shut's strongest point, even though it has been weakened. The biner/shut is NOT stronger, as less metal equals less strength for two pieces of identical design. Period. Example: Would you rap off of a bush/tree that was 1" in diameter, strongly rooted, with a small groove worn into it at the base that was opposite the direction of force, if the load (rope) was just a few inches above the base/groove? Hell no! BUT, if the rope was in the groove, keeping it at the base, it would likely still be hella strong. Point... The base of the tree/bush is akin to the strongest point in the biner, and even though there is a groove, it is still string enough, BUT NOT AS STRONG as if there were no groove IF the load were applied outside that groove, it would be WEAKER. And where would the biner fail? At the weakest point, where significant metal loss has weakened it (I.e., the groove) By that logic, a biner is only as strong as it's cross-loading strength. It's difficult to generalize and not worth the effort. A worn biner is a worn biner. The rope might stay in the groove better and be fine. It might crossload and fail catastrophically. The point of this whole thread is that there is a new failure mechanism that most wouldn't be aware of and that is the rare case of a knife edge wearing into biners under very special circumstances. Sport climbers should be aware. The Squamish Access Society is currently replacing a lot of fixed hardware including draws at our most popular sport climbing area. There is a thread on our message board where people post reports of suspect gear and anchors and as well they can report it to the access society directly. IMO the community chooses where to put fixed gear and how to maintain it. There's not much more to it.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Sep 29, 2010, 2:13 PM
Post #102 of 134
(14711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner. Jay Ah of course so we should continue to saw through our fixed biners (because people will steal our convenience draws the bastards!), everything is A OK! DMT
Interesting. I inferred the exact opposite from the statement you quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
Ronadon
Oct 5, 2010, 12:12 PM
Post #103 of 134
(14630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2010
Posts: 14
|
Ask and you shall receive. I'm not sure if anyone put this up yet but here you go.
http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/journal/climb/knowledge/qc-lab-dangers-of-rope-worn-carabiners
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 5, 2010, 4:03 PM
Post #104 of 134
(14604 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Ronadon wrote: Ask and you shall receive. I'm not sure if anyone put this up yet but here you go. http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/journal/climb/knowledge/qc-lab-dangers-of-rope-worn-carabiners
As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 5, 2010, 6:51 PM
Post #105 of 134
(14572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Cover story on last month's issue of !DUH!Magazine: "Sharp Edges Can Cut Ropes!"
What, you guys don't have a subscription? Better get one!
The only thing shocking about this story is that climbers don't know this. How have y'all lived this long?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 5, 2010, 7:35 PM
Post #106 of 134
(14553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay
Practice what you preach.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 5, 2010, 8:13 PM
Post #107 of 134
(14536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay Practice what you preach.
I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Oct 5, 2010, 8:17 PM
Post #108 of 134
(14533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay Practice what you preach. I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up. Jay
Shut the fuck up.
Just shut the fuck up.
Shutthefuckupshutthefuckupshutthefuckup.
JT Eight Mile.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 5, 2010, 8:55 PM
Post #109 of 134
(14513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay Practice what you preach. I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up. Jay
OK, easy enough.
jt512 wrote: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength. Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner. Jay
More talk of biner strength.
jt512 wrote: As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose. Jay
To pretend you aren't helping perpetuate talk of the semantics of biner strength and therefore not "practicing what you preach" is nothing more than obvious denial of facts.
I would expect more, from of all people, you.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Oct 5, 2010, 9:19 PM
Post #110 of 134
(14501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay Practice what you preach. I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up. Jay OK, easy enough. jt512 wrote: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength. Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner. Jay More talk of biner strength. jt512 wrote: As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose. Jay To pretend you aren't helping perpetuate talk of the semantics of biner strength and therefore not "practicing what you preach" is nothing more than obvious denial of facts. I would expect more, from of all people, you.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 5, 2010, 9:23 PM
Post #111 of 134
(14497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger." Jay Practice what you preach. I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up. Jay OK, easy enough. jt512 wrote: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength. Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner. Jay More talk of biner strength. jt512 wrote: As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose. Jay To pretend you aren't helping perpetuate talk of the semantics of biner strength and therefore not "practicing what you preach" is nothing more than obvious denial of facts.
If you think that that is arguing over semantics, there's not much I can do to help you. At best, I could spend way too much time and effort explaining why it is not, only to have you still not get it.
Edit: You're so lost that you don't even see that the second quote isn't even about biner strength, in any sense of the term.
I think is stupid enough to be considered your first strike.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 5, 2010, 9:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 5, 2010, 9:44 PM
Post #112 of 134
(14477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 5, 2010, 10:57 PM
Post #113 of 134
(14452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: If you think that that is arguing over semantics, there's not much I can do to help you. At best, I could spend way too much time and effort explaining why it is not, only to have you still not get it. Jay
Didn't say you were arguing the point. Your talking about it just continues (perpetuates) the conversation about which (semantics) is stronger with posts like this
In reply to: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one.
Which you had asked earlier in the thread to stop.
jt512 wrote: Edit: You're so lost that you don't even see that the second quote isn't even about biner strength, in any sense of the term.
You got me there. I inferred from this statement below that one "of the risks" (plural) was one of the risks could of been of biner strength.
jt512 wrote: in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose.
jt512 wrote: I think is stupid enough to be considered your first strike.
Knock yourself out.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 5, 2010, 11:11 PM
Post #114 of 134
(14443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: If you think that that is arguing over semantics, there's not much I can do to help you. At best, I could spend way too much time and effort explaining why it is not, only to have you still not get it. Didn't say you were arguing the point.
You accused me of "derail[ing] this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'stronger'." I was not making a semantic argument at all; I was trying to raise a substantive point. However, you have chosen to derail the thread by accusing me (falsely) of doing just what you're doing. So, please, just shut the fuck up, unless you actually want to discuss the topic. Or, if you really think this matter warrants further discussion, start a new thread about it. Any further discussion of it here can only be construed as intentionally disrupting the thread.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 5, 2010, 11:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 5, 2010, 11:37 PM
Post #115 of 134
(14432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength.
Yep, your were just making a point.
That's all I did earlier too, which initiated your self appointed modding powers to curb the thread, which apparently also allows you to exempt yourself from making like points.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 5, 2010, 11:45 PM
Post #116 of 134
(14424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good?
fuck off
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 5, 2010, 11:49 PM
Post #117 of 134
(14422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength.Yep, your were just making a point. That's all I did earlier too, which initiated your self appointed modding powers to curb the thread, which apparently also allows you to exempt yourself from making like points.
I said I was making a substantive point that was germane to the topic of thread. You're just derailing the thread, and it is clear now that you are doing so intentionally.
Strike 2.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 6, 2010, 1:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 6, 2010, 1:07 AM
Post #118 of 134
(14396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: I said I was making a substantive point that was germane to the topic of thread. You're just derailing the thread, and it is clear now that you are doing so intentionally. Jay
I, I, I.
Takes 2 to tango, go ahead and mod yourself too.
Sure hope I can go on with life.
Please reconsider.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 6, 2010, 1:09 AM
Post #119 of 134
(14394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: I said I was making a substantive point that was germane to the topic of thread. You're just derailing the thread, and it is clear now that you are doing so intentionally. Jay I, I, I. Takes 2 to tango, go ahead and mod yourself too. Sure hope I can go on with life. Please reconsider.
Nope.
*plonk* for incorrigible stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 6, 2010, 1:52 AM
Post #120 of 134
(14368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jt512 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: jt512 wrote: I said I was making a substantive point that was germane to the topic of thread. You're just derailing the thread, and it is clear now that you are doing so intentionally. Jay I, I, I. Takes 2 to tango, go ahead and mod yourself too. Sure hope I can go on with life. Please reconsider. Nope. *plonk* for incorrigible stupidity.
Free at last from the tryanny.
May your security blanket force field forever keep you safe.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 6, 2010, 3:52 AM
Post #121 of 134
(14337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good? fuck off
jt512 wrote: So, please, just shut the fuck up
That's what I'm talkin bout!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 6, 2010, 4:19 AM
Post #122 of 134
(14329 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
hugepedro wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good? fuck off jt512 wrote: So, please, just shut the fuck up That's what I'm talkin bout!
I do what I can.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 6, 2010, 4:23 AM
Post #123 of 134
(14326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
jt512 wrote: hugepedro wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good? fuck off jt512 wrote: So, please, just shut the fuck up That's what I'm talkin bout! I do what I can.
Fuck you.
|
|
|
|
|
MS1
Oct 6, 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #124 of 134
(14281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2009
Posts: 560
|
hugepedro wrote: jt512 wrote: hugepedro wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good? fuck off jt512 wrote: So, please, just shut the fuck up That's what I'm talkin bout! I do what I can. Fuck you.
At a time like this, it is well worth revisiting the classics: http://www.youtube.com/...ature=related#t=1m4s
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Oct 6, 2010, 2:38 PM
Post #125 of 134
(14257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
MS1 wrote: hugepedro wrote: jt512 wrote: hugepedro wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: hugepedro wrote: I can't decide if this site would be more or less interesting without a bunch of pussies whining about Jay all the time. Christ people, what happened to the good old days when climbers used to just tell each other to fuck off and it was all good? fuck off jt512 wrote: So, please, just shut the fuck up That's what I'm talkin bout! I do what I can. Fuck you. At a time like this, it is well worth revisiting the classics: http://www.youtube.com/...ature=related#t=1m4s
Yes,  fuck you too ! ** waves good day**
|
|
|
|
|
|
