My Reverso tumbled down 300 ft of granite, is it still good???

Rick Blair wrote: Since he already stated that it is visibly deformed, the question answers its self.

Let's look at what he said.

Justin Tomlinson wrote: the thing is very well intact, aside from a couple sharp edges from the impacts

Please, Rick, explain to me what in that description gives us even an intimation that it's "visibly deformed". Sharp edges?

The word is "itself". Nice try.

j fassett wrote: Funny! Would have been really funny if the rope road up your shirtless back and burned the shit out of you...dork! That's your friends life up there, you could have dropped him!

He was able catch the climber and then help him yard him back up, looks like things were pretty under control.

I didn't feel insulted. I'm just editing papers right now and am in grammar Nazi mode. Since I'm in grammar Nazi mode, I'll go ahead and step into semantics Nazi mode.

While the technical definition of deformed is "unshapely or misshapen", that means that anything that alters the gear from its pristine state (scratches, identifying tape, etc.) "deforms" it. Under this definition, sharp edges would qualify.

In this instance, "deformed" is a term of art. It refers to some sort of structural deformation that would change the strength or functionality of the gear. So in this case, sharp edges don't count as a deformation.

Brian Adzima wrote: He was able catch the climber and then help him yard him back up, looks like things were pretty under control.

Like I said "shirtless back" That guy's lucky. Enough said

j fassett wrote: I've been at this for about 30 years now, both in rock and alpine climbing. There's nothing wrong with a hip belay. That was not a hip belay, it was an ass belay. Let's just say there was a little Russian roulette going on there and leave it at that.

You guys calm down. The guy in the beard beside him was my buddy Shaun who was backing up the hip belayer with a gri gir. Good harmless, semi-drunken fun in Rifle.

j fassett wrote: I've been at this for about 30 years now, both in rock and alpine climbing. There's nothing wrong with a hip belay. That was not a hip belay, it was an ass belay. Let's just say there was a little Russian roulette going on there and leave it at that.

hahahaha ass belay!!!! lol!!

seriously folks, it was a good thing there was a backup belay. like many types of belays there are good techniques to use and bad ones. the belay in the video happened to work but it was far from ideal.

i can vouch for jeff that he knows exactly what he's talking about, so for those of you who'd like to do regular hip belays make sure to get good training.

And as for the OP, I'd say (for items dropped short distances) unless something looks obviously wrong, you're probably ok. I've done a couple of tests on reversos and they are tough. Still, if you have any doubt, replace it. $30 isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

Haha! Yeah, it was more of an ass belay. It worked better than we thought it would. The way the rope forced the belayer to twist allowed for a soft catch even though he had 70 pounds on the climber. We weren't about to try it with the climber and belayer reversed.

Hey Will, remember when I caught you on a trad fall with a munter hitch? I would defintitely recommend this over the hip or ass belay.

As someone who grew up with hip belays and have caught all kinds of falls, including a factor-2 fall, with them, I can tell you that the fellow in the pictures is making some classic mistakes that we learned to avoid long ago.

Belaying under the butt that way seems to make sense, but it is very easy for the rope to drop just a little to low, in which case the belayer will find himself sitting on the ground with the rope behind his knees. If there is any serious impact, the belayer will be completely flipped and lose all control of the belay.

The correct position for the rope is on the hips just below the waist. But then there is a risk that the rope will be pulled up the climber's back and over his head, again resulting in total loss of control.

In order to give a hip belay that is actually safe and effective, the climber has to have a swami, a harness, or at least a loop of rope tied around their waist. A carabiner is clipped into whatever waist loop/harness is available, and the rope on the side going to the leader is clipped to the biner. This guarantees that the rope cannot be ripped off the belayer, either above or below.

Killis Howard wrote:I retired a Kong Gigi when I dropped it 400 feet off a cliff in Red Rock. Anyone dumb enough to use a piece of metal dropped off a (large) cliff to protect their life or that of a friend is beneath contempt and beyond my sympathy. If there's a one in 1000 chance that you've got an inobvious flaw in the piece that could kill you or someone you know, isn't that enough? Why not use a found locker from a rap station for your single point PAS attachment? Why not juggle knives, for that matter? Dumb, da dumb dumb.

hey killis,

i think a good rule of thumb is that if the piece of gear is making you worry, replace it. climbing gear is cheap.

it's worth noting, though, that small drops (say 10 meters) don't seem to create inobvious flaws (such as "microfractures") resulting in weakening of carabiners. this was tested by steve nagode at rei several years ago and similar tests have supported his findings.

Here's a revelation for you guys.

All metal, whether it's been dropped or is brand new, has "microfractures" in it.

You're all gonna die.

Geir Hundal wrote: hey killis, i think a good rule of thumb is that if the piece of gear is making you worry, replace it. climbing gear is cheap. it's worth noting, though, that small drops (say 10 meters) don't seem to create inobvious flaws (such as "microfractures") resulting in weakening of carabiners. this was tested by steve nagode at rei several years ago and similar tests have supported his findings.

I agree with your first part in that when gear goes beyond good physical condition it should be considered for replacement.

The second part is incomplete. While yes, microfractures are not an immediate concern, any loading on metal weakens it. I say that while yes, the testing may have provided that the amount of loads performed weren't substantial to provide failure, they can be over time.

This was provided by Garin Wallace of SMC in his work on high cycle fatigue testing with low loads, such as the small drops provided in Steve's sample. Garin's advice was that if you put gear to use, it will die, it's just a matter of when.

My takeaway is that the microfracture argument isn't that important but it does lend itself to the fatigue problem. Meaning that gear can withstand high impacts but not repeatedly and should be looked to be replaced as soon as you can. Further, the whippers typical in climbing should have gear be replaced at some point in time though they may not be subjected to a high load at any one time as you may not be able to pick up the actual physical fatigue damage equipment goes through.

So, yes, REI's test is viable to a point, but you need to look at gear over the course of its use and think about replacement, especially biners, when they get impacted.

A lot of people dont have a good understanding of what micro fractures are. Micro fractures occur when metal undergoes fatigue, such as if you were to connect a biner to an anchor and then pull on it. You would have to do this millions of times to see any sort of micro fractures appear. Dropping gear creates deformation, which is a form of strain hardening. When you bend a paperclip, you cant bend it back in exactly the same spot because the properties in that area of changed. so in reality, where the device is physically deformed is actually stronger. So it is impossible for gear to get micro fractures from simply dropping it. I say file it down and call it good.

Nick Przybysz wrote: so in reality, where the device is physically deformed is actually stronger.

I wouldn't go along with this, it depends on where the concentration of stress becomes prevalent. Though, yes, let's get off micro-fracture and call it more a focus of where fatigue wears on gear.

The insidious feature of fatigue failure is that there is no obvious warning, a crack forms without appreciable deformation of structure making it difficult to detect the presence of growing cracks.

Fractures usually start from small nicks, scratches, or fillets which cause a localized concentration of stress.

Now I realize what this is a topic of is more repeated use after use after use. It does lend itself to have climbers look are their gear and reflect on what it has been through and what it was intended for. I hear more about biner failure than anything else, which does seem to support where Garin is coming from. He deals with developing equipment failure as a living and for over a lifetime of materials engineering, construction, & testing; I'd certainly say he is worth taking notice.

Mark Nelson wrote:This was provided by Garin Wallace of SMC in his work on high cycle fatigue testing with low loads, such as the small drops provided in Steve's sample. Garin's advice was that if you put gear to use, it will die, it's just a matter of when.

hey mark,

i'd be interested in reading the studies that garin did. i have no doubt that metal fatigue happens with time. however, whether this happens to an extent that will cause a belay device to fail seems very unlikely. consider the fact that belay device failures aren't reported frequently. (actually, i have never heard of this happening during regular use.)

if you happen to have access to any of his studies, feel free to PM me, i'd like to read them. additionally, if you have a heavily used belay device that you feel may have been compromised due to metal fatigue, i'd be happy to pull test it. it would be interesting to see if it fails at a low load.

regards,
geir

Perhaps I am missing something here, but how/why would you pull test a tube style device? The device itself is not really load bearing, rather it just guides the rope to the belay biner (for lack of a more accurate term). The only loads the device sees is the force applied to the brake strand over the edge and the belay biner being pulled up against it, neither of which is likely to generate enough force to cause a dented or dinged device to fail.

Now, I can see how an original reverso, the roller parts that are riveted in to the main body, might sustain damage that could cause it to fail, but a traditional tube device, even if bent (depending on where), should continue to work without failing.

If the belay device were just a rope guide, then you would not see a difference in diameter to braking strengths; however you do see this -- keeping the same device, as you decrease rope diameter, you lose braking ability.

So the devices are not just guides, they are important in providing rope control and need to be kept in good physical condition.

Geir -- I think SMC runs their equipment into tens of thousands of cycles; his powerpoint is on the ITRS. Although, you'd just be looking at bullet points, he does offer why low loading & fatigue can become detrimental and difficult to visibly notice. I felt his mindset in the presentation was to think about some guidelines on equipment management and replacement, but not necessarily placing specific benchmarks on anything failing at some exact point in stress over time; only to be aware that gear can fail even if you don't subject it to the highest loading possible for its manufactured rating.

I wouldn't trust the manufacturer
You should ask over on rockclimbing.com
Those guys know everything

Mark - I see how there would be a relationship between the thickness of the tube and the rope diameter for purposes of braking capabilities and that you would want the device to be in good condition in that respect. So yes, if the dropped device resulted in a loss of material on the braking edge, that could affect the devices performance. However, I still don't see how a pull test would provide any real feedback related to whether the device has been compromised due to being dropped.

Mark Nelson wrote:Geir -- I think SMC runs their equipment into tens of thousands of cycles; his powerpoint is on the ITRS. Although, you'd just be looking at bullet points, he does offer why low loading & fatigue can become detrimental and difficult to visibly notice. I felt his mindset in the presentation was to think about some guidelines on equipment management and replacement, but not necessarily placing specific benchmarks on anything failing at some exact point in stress over time; only to be aware that gear can fail even if you don't subject it to the highest loading possible for its manufactured rating.

hey mark,

forgive my lack of knowledge - what is ITRS?

it makes sense that he's not placing benchmarks on anything failing at exact points over time, and that he kept things in general terms. i'll take a look at it (once i know what ITRS is) and maybe contact him directly.

my feeling is that in actual practice, it would be extremely unlikely that belay device failure would occur from metal fatigue. as i mentioned earlier, i have never heard of a belay device failing under normal use. it's not that i doubt the SMC research, i just am thinking that real application is not nearly so brutal.

for practical purposes and in the interests in checking real life applications, though, i have some devices that have been heavily used that i'd be happy to pull test. at the minimum, then, we could check to see if any glaring strength reductions are present with heavily used gear in real life application.

joe- to answer your question, i was thinking of testing a reverso or atc guide in autobloc mode.

regards,
geir

Geir, I noticed in your previous post you say that you did a couple of tests on reversos. Assuming you tested to failure in autobloc mode, what part of the device failed?