|
miklaw
Nov 2, 2010, 6:13 AM
Post #1 of 12
(6718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 99
|
The aim of this testing wasn't to test gear, it's mostly well made and strong, but to test placements-a) their strength
b) how well we can assess this
4 people placed 16 piees of gear in total, each rated all the gear, then we destroyed it all.
Although it's hard to rate gear from a single photo, you can go this site and rate the gear, then see the results, you'll need to log in.
http://www.sanguma.org/destructo
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Nov 2, 2010, 1:38 PM
Post #2 of 12
(6652 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
Nice test, some very good info in here.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 2, 2010, 2:34 PM
Post #3 of 12
(6620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
miklaw wrote: The aim of this testing wasn't to test gear, it's mostly well made and strong, but to test placements-a) their strength b) how well we can assess this 4 people placed 16 piees of gear in total, each rated all the gear, then we destroyed it all. Although it's hard to rate gear from a single photo, you can go this site and rate the gear, then see the results, you'll need to log in. http://www.sanguma.org/destructo
Cool idea, but there are some serious flaws with this.
1) You are slow-pulling all of these pieces in the direction that they are most likely to hold in. In reality, a fall would pull in multiple directions (typically slightly outward, then downward). Outward, jerking pulls would have absolutely blown some of those pieces. As a result, you are encouraging false confidence and poor placements.
2) It's really effing hard to see this stuff from a single picture, but you stated that explicitly.
|
|
|
|
|
nkane
Nov 2, 2010, 2:35 PM
Post #4 of 12
(6619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 143
|
Fascinating.
But it seems to me that some of the marginal-looking pieces held because they were pulled in the exact right direction- I wonder if some of them would have popped out from rope drag or from a slight outward force.
(This post was edited by nkane on Nov 2, 2010, 2:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
miklaw
Nov 3, 2010, 2:20 AM
Post #5 of 12
(6510 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Yes, we haven't published the summary yet, but 'obvious;y' with poor pieces, you sling them counter weight them etc so they are subject to anything but a downward force.
As much of the gear was strong, but gear still seems to come out in real falls, it follows that security (ability to stay in place from other forces) is the issue.
I don't belioeve laoding rate (shock vs static) makes any difference to sterngth, just security, but we will be getting a load cell and testing this also, I'm happy (and fascinated) to be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Nov 3, 2010, 11:08 AM
Post #6 of 12
(6421 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
miklaw wrote: I don't belioeve laoding rate (shock vs static) makes any difference to sterngth, just security, but we will be getting a load cell and testing this also, I'm happy (and fascinated) to be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 3, 2010, 11:20 AM
Post #7 of 12
(6414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
shoo wrote: 1) You are slow-pulling all of these pieces in the direction that they are most likely to hold in. In reality, a fall would pull in multiple directions (typically slightly outward, then downward). Outward, jerking pulls would have absolutely blown some of those pieces. As a result, you are encouraging false confidence and poor placements.
Slow pulling, if anything, is more severe on gear than a 1second at the peak force.
There is little to suggest that pulling slighly out on cams beforehand will make things worse. Regarding nuts why aren't you using slings!?
Also remember that all this is MARGINAL gear placements in average rock. Given that the performance was fantastic.
(This post was edited by patto on Nov 3, 2010, 11:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 3, 2010, 1:48 PM
Post #8 of 12
(6365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
patto wrote: shoo wrote: 1) You are slow-pulling all of these pieces in the direction that they are most likely to hold in. In reality, a fall would pull in multiple directions (typically slightly outward, then downward). Outward, jerking pulls would have absolutely blown some of those pieces. As a result, you are encouraging false confidence and poor placements. Slow pulling, if anything, is more severe on gear than a 1second at the peak force. There is little to suggest that pulling slighly out on cams beforehand will make things worse. Regarding nuts why aren't you using slings!? Also remember that all this is MARGINAL gear placements in average rock. Given that the performance was fantastic.
Yes, I agree that slow pulling is more stressful on the gear. However, the strength of the gear is rarely the issue regarding placement failure. The real issue is placement "security" (I like that term and am going to use it from now on). A jerking motion slightly outward may pop pieces, and thus makes any strength test irrelevant.
With regards to slings on nuts, slings will reduce, but not eliminate, outward pull from a fall and/or potential walking from rope drag on a piece.
What this test shows is that gear, when pulled in an ideal direction, is generally pretty damn strong. However, the test DOES NOT effectively show what constitutes a good or a bad placement. I'll wait to see what goes in the analysis from the authors.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Nov 3, 2010, 2:48 PM
Post #9 of 12
(6341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
shoo wrote: With regards to slings on nuts, slings will reduce, but not eliminate, outward pull from a fall.
You have not yet established this.
Sure alot depends on the climb and the fall. But that is why you take all this into consideration when placing the piece.
I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make here. That trad gear isn't reliable?
(This post was edited by patto on Nov 3, 2010, 2:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Nov 3, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #10 of 12
(6319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
patto wrote: shoo wrote: With regards to slings on nuts, slings will reduce, but not eliminate, outward pull from a fall. You have not yet established this.
Are you making the argument that slinging passive pro completely eliminates outward pull on a piece? Decades of practice and a common sense is against you on this one. This is already well established.
patto wrote: Sure alot depends on the climb and the fall. But that is why you take all this into consideration when placing the piece.
Absolutely. I agree 100%.
patto wrote: I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make here. That trad gear isn't reliable?
My point is that the above tests are inadequate for demonstrating quality of placement, as it only demonstrates strength, and not security. That is all.
Having taken dozens of falls on gear, I know how reliable it can be when placed well. Furthermore, having had more pieces pop on me than I would have liked (i.e. more than 0), I am well aware of just how fickle it can be.
As I have stated (and repeated), it is extremely rare that the mode of failure is the gear breaking due to lack of strength. Placement failure is almost always related to other factors. These tests do not adequately address these other factors. I would be happier with these tests if this was stated more explicitly.
|
|
|
|
|
superstu
Nov 3, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #11 of 12
(6257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2010
Posts: 2
|
One aspect that was being tested is placement strength in this rock type. The sandstone found around Sydney (and the Blue Mountains near by) produces some great climbs but isn't great rock. Its a variable mix of sandy cracks, crystal grains and solid features and faces hiding softer rock behind (look at the pics of the failed testing bolt in #16 to get an idea). One cam (test #3) did "pull through" an otherwise good placement, but did so at a force above a normal fall. The horizontal nut (#15) that popped looks terrible in the photo but did appear all right on the day when it was eyeballed by four different climbers. The lip of the horizontal break chipped at a very low force and the placement failed.
(This post was edited by superstu on Nov 3, 2010, 9:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
miklaw
Nov 4, 2010, 1:23 AM
Post #12 of 12
(6171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 99
|
The ratings we made on the gear have been released on
http://www.sanguma.org/destructo
A few other comments, security of gear will be tested in the future, but doesn't require much funky gear, just flick the rope a few times. About half the pieces were tested with a significant (> 10 degrees) outwards force component.
As this gear appeared strong, even in very poor rock, why does so much come out in falls, covered in the analysis, but my guess is rope movement. (And no, slinging obviously doesn't change the pull angle, but it can reduce the amount of rope movement transmitted to the gear)
Suffice to say our ratings were embarrassingly random. Though they were generally conservative, we over-estimated the strength about 10% of the time, so back up your gear if "failure is not an option".
By a simple statistical correlation, I had the least accurate ratings of the gear's strength, so there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
