Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
$40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


tradmanclimbs


Apr 23, 2012, 5:40 AM
Post #76 of 92 (4142 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy's senario will not work unless the biners are loaded ove an edge in which case lockers will also break. in a straight direction of pull the rope always breaks at a knott even with retired non locking biners in the system.


NikNak


Aug 3, 2012, 3:38 PM
Post #77 of 92 (3922 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2012
Posts: 38

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Apologies to all for digging up a done and dusted thread, but I have a lot of catching up to do (being a complete noob)

Thanks to various thread on these forums I became aware of the story relating to Lynn Hill, I know all of the people here already know the story, and being a complete noob I do not have the qualifications, expereince, skill or knowledge to dare point out that the tragic accounts of accidents or misjudgements of expereinced climbers happen far too often.

But the fact is the simplest of noob errors are not restricted purely to noobs. I would like to thank cracklover for the demonstration of how this might occur, it has certainly reinforced in me a drive to not become complacent in my new found passion for rock climbing.


Syd


Oct 28, 2012, 2:37 AM
Post #78 of 92 (3620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [NikNak] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

How about giving double the money for locking biners ?

It takes a bit of fiddling, but set up 2 opposed locking biners in a top rope situation. Rotate one of the biners, so they are still opposed but gates are on the same side. Now push one through the other till it jams, with the rope passing over the locked gate. The rope can be shredded ! It has actually happened.


Syd


Feb 22, 2013, 1:32 AM
Post #79 of 92 (3354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Where's my $40 ?


bearbreeder


Feb 22, 2013, 1:39 PM
Post #80 of 92 (3293 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

the gyms here use 2 opposed non lockers ... they see millions and millions of laps a year

the ropes havent gotten shredded Wink

toppu roperu tofu guys are the "climbers" who will tell you the many ways youll die ...

Tongue


virial


Feb 22, 2013, 3:06 PM
Post #81 of 92 (3278 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Posts: 9

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

possible both gates open weaken binner 'gate slap'
In reply to:
, anybody think about setting up anchor on multi pitch what if the anchor is the top rope....failure of the system could happen, not sure which part would fail first, they have books on climbing accidents, and I have seen binners that have failed....overussage of the binner can cause a groove to form and weaken the binner further. I have also seen binners that have been bent...probably from falling on them many times or overusing them to the point where the gate no longer catches right, but you sounded like you were talking brand new gear with no wear


Syd


Feb 22, 2013, 4:48 PM
Post #82 of 92 (3253 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A rope was shedded this way some time back in Queensland Australia. I thought it was impossible but there is a configuration where it can happen. Very rare but possible. It takes seconds to check.


bearbreeder


Feb 22, 2013, 5:37 PM
Post #83 of 92 (3249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink


healyje


Feb 22, 2013, 5:59 PM
Post #84 of 92 (3245 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

The whole topic is way over-wrought even by genuine first world problem standards.


justroberto


Mar 18, 2013, 8:18 PM
Post #85 of 92 (3091 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
The whole topic is way over-wrought even by genuine first world problem standards.

Hasn't that been the MO for the Lab for years now?


Syd


Mar 22, 2013, 2:15 PM
Post #86 of 92 (2990 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink

My comments are in relation to the bet. Unfortunately he did say "non locking", otherwise I'd be demanding $40. He obviously assumed lockers were totally safe.


distantThunder


Aug 2, 2013, 7:41 AM
Post #87 of 92 (2273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 4, 2012
Posts: 43

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.

cheers,
dT


(This post was edited by distantThunder on Aug 2, 2013, 7:42 AM)


marc801


Aug 2, 2013, 7:57 AM
Post #88 of 92 (2267 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [distantThunder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

distantThunder wrote:
just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.
It's so emotional because a certain percentage of rc posters live there entire life mitigating against "what if" events, no matter how remote or unlikely the occurrence of a given event. Underlying this is the misinformed and breathtakingly naive idea that risk in rock climbing can be reduced to zero.


Partner cracklover


Aug 2, 2013, 9:12 AM
Post #89 of 92 (2256 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [marc801] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
distantThunder wrote:
just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.
It's so emotional because a certain percentage of rc posters live there entire life mitigating against "what if" events, no matter how remote or unlikely the occurrence of a given event. Underlying this is the misinformed and breathtakingly naive idea that risk in rock climbing can be reduced to zero.

I didn't see any such scaredy-cat posters getting emotional in regards to this thread. The only folks who seem to be up in arms are people like you and Healyje, tilting at windmills.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Aug 2, 2013, 9:13 AM)


Partner cracklover


Aug 2, 2013, 9:15 AM
Post #90 of 92 (2253 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10010

Re: [distantThunder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not sure if you mean to imply by the following...

distantThunder wrote:
the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.

... that the biners used in my demo were Ds? If so you are mistaken, they were actually ovals.

GO


marc801


Aug 2, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #91 of 92 (2215 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I didn't see any such scaredy-cat posters getting emotional in regards to this thread. The only folks who seem to be up in arms are people like you and Healyje, tilting at windmills.
Up in arms? Hardly, as that has been my only post in this thread. I was merely reacting to the "emotional" comment by dT. Some of the others in the thread, though, are completely wrapped around the axles about this mythical situation.


Syd


Aug 2, 2013, 3:02 PM
Post #92 of 92 (2197 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink

Prior to doing some testing I thought that the biners only had to be in opposite rotations, that is it was OK for gates to be facing the same direction as long as one biner could be rotated so that the gates could be opposed with both wide ends towards the climbing rope. The gates must also be facing in opposite directions to prevent the chance of rope shredding. It's easy for one biner to rotate if rapping past it over an edge.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook