Do you trust one bolt?

kennoyce wrote: Now if we're talking about bolts that have been over-tightened to the point of almost breaking, again, that's why you need redundancy, so that hopefully the second bolt was placed well and not over-tightened. Again, equalization doesn't buy you anything.

now you are going back on what a few other besides yourself have said- "equalization is only important on sketchy gear", I think bolts qualify as gear eh? I'm playing devils advocate once again but I believe in it more than usual this time.

MJMobes wrote: now you are going back on what a few other besides yourself have said- "equalization is only important on sketchy gear", I think bolts qualify as gear eh? I'm playing devils advocate once again but I believe in it more than usual this time.

Yep, but there comes a point where you just have to accept the risk, climbing is an inherently dangerous sport, and there is always the risk of death. If both bolts in an anchor were tightened to the point of almost breaking, the probability is pretty high that all the bolts on the route were over-torqued the same amount, so it's much more likely that you're going to die when you whip onto one of the protection bolts before you get to the anchor.

Having two almost broken bolts equalized just means that the anchor will take a few more raps/lowers before it breaks than having them unequalized. So either you die today when both bolts break, or you die in a year when they've been further fatigued and they both break even though they're equalized.

limpingcrab wrote:No I don't. I've seen bolts break in half while being tightened after placement more than once (not by me). Who's to say the bolt you're trusting isn't 1/100th of a turn close to snapping because it was placed wrong? You can't tell by looking at it, that's for sure.

Most of us would change the type of bolt we used:-)

I managed to scrounge up some old archived video of multiple bolts exploding in a single fall. Skip to about 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uxtg7raPDYo#t=90

kennoyce wrote: So either you die today when both bolts break, or you die in a year when they've been further fatigued and they both break even though they're equalized.

and of course since locker hasnt spoken up already-----> ur gonna die!

I just hope its not because of anchor failure

I thought Kelly was a girls name?

Jim Titt wrote: Most of us would change the type of bolt we used:-)

Hey Jim,

This is my problem with NOT having a second bolt and second ring. If you or many of the people in this discussion did all of the placements and manufacturing, I'd be fine withjust one. the problem is I don't know who placed it, who might have tampered with it, etc (yes, I'm talking bolts and rings here). Two just beats one in that case. I see that "redundancy" is built in, so to speak, by making it so strong, but if its not tested and it might have had a flaw in the manufacturing process, it would be better to back it up. Even Boeing and Airbus back up their most important structures, and they are the most tested and retested companies in the world.

Just my feeling on this.... thanks for making the best products out there.
Sam

No, I know that I trust a singular piece all the time. I have to. Sometimes, I have to when rappelling, but I would prefer it if I didn't have to. It seems to me this discussion is about making an installation that is good for many people to use over and over again, and for those people to fell comfortable with that installation (lest they come and add to it).

And for what its worth, i am NEVER comfortable falling onto a single piece that is close enough to the ground that another does not back it up. That include bolts. I do it, but I never like it. And yes, I have had that single piece fail and it wasn't good.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:No, I know that I trust a singular piece all the time. I have to. Sometimes, I have to when rappelling, but I would prefer it if I didn't have to. It seems to me this discussion is about making an installation that is good for many people to use over and over again, and for those people to fell comfortable with that installation (lest they come and add to it). And for what its worth, i am NEVER comfortable falling onto a single piece that is close enough to the ground that another does not back it up. That include bolts. I do it, but I never like it. And yes, I have had that single piece fail and it wasn't good.

I think that this is the point that I have been more or less trying to make. However, the response to this argument that I keep seeing is somewhere along the lines of: "...single rings and bolts are so strong that anyone complaining is just a whiny baby that needs everything to be gym soft charmin safe."

I think that these folks are missing the point. Do I always require everything in climbing to be sanitized safe? No, of course not. I have rapped off of sketchy rock spikes "frozen" in ice, slings over rounded blocks, single nut placements, etc etc that made me die a little inside. But as Sam said, I never like it. I do it, but I wish I didn't have to. And that is the point I think. If its super easy to make a system safer, then there is no reason not to do it. Its not about being a weenie, its about stacking the odds whenever you can, no matter how trivial.

That said, the point that Jim made about the strength of the fat rap rings being 25 kN even before you add the weld does make me feel a lot better about rapping off of a single one. I will continue to install two independent thread points on anchors that I install, but I will be happier next time I have to rap off a single ring. However, the thing that I hope I don't start seeing is people thinking that just because a single fat welded ring is common, then why not a single hardware store chain link (which I have seen quite a few of out there). As Sam said earlier, its one thing when Mr. Titt is doing the manufacturing and installation. Its quite another when Joe Schlub is doing it and has minimal understanding of what he is doing. In this case I would rather that Joe Schlub thinks that the "standard" is two independent anchors and thread points.

I see Jim's point about the cost factor for the European hardware. It is possible to assure a high level of safety through super tight production controls, raw material inspection, and final inspection, even for non-redundant items. Doing that drives costs through the roof. That's why it used to cost us thousands of dollars to change a light switch in a nuclear building. It's unfortunate that it seems that in the EU they have to have that kind of pedigree on items, that while important, still aren't nuclear reactor controls.

It is possible to just add a quick-link to the Fixe Trad anchor further up the chain to complete the redundancy of that set-up. Also, if you arrange it in such a way that the quick-link takes the load/wear, then that can be replaced when the time comes without having to dismantle the whole rig. This is important in high traffic areas where the anchors seem to wear out in just a few years.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:I see Jim's point about the cost factor for the European hardware. It is possible to assure a high level of safety through super tight production controls, raw material inspection, and final inspection, even for non-redundant items. Doing that drives costs through the roof. That's why it used to cost us thousands of dollars to change a light switch in a nuclear building. It's unfortunate that it seems that in the EU they have to have that kind of pedigree on items, that while important, still aren't nuclear reactor controls.

It took a lot of lobbying for climbers to get off so lightly! The original legislation which covered protection from falls at height would have lumped us in with rope access work and all that stuff since the EU were simply concerned with protecting its citizens, not the subtleties of whether they were dying having fun or working if you see what I mean:-)
The equipment legislation is reasonable enough, I DO want my rope, harness and all that stuff made to a good standard and I doubt anyone disagrees with a need for this and anchors come into this whether they are nuts, cams or bolts. Climbers are free to use any old rubbish they like, the legislation only covers the manufacture and sale and in fact for bolts it is fairly reasonable. If we worked to the same requirements as other items a lot of the gear would be probably 30-50% more expensive and some would probably dissapear (there isn´t any chain made for example).

The wear issue- well I do refurbishment for chainsets mainly for climbing walls where it´s worth their while sending a reasonable number in but generally they don´t bother since they can spread the cost over a lot of paying customers. Outdoors if a lower-off is that worn then it means thousands of climbers have used the equipment and the climbing community has failed to work out an reasonable way to finance replacement. The contrast between the collection of cars at the parking lot, the $400 jackets flung on the ground at the base of a route and the hard-pressed bolt fund guys scratching for a few bucks doesn´t go unnoticed!

Sounds like it could've been worse there in the EU where there tends to be a lot of regulation. Still $60 or $80 for a top anchor set is pretty pricey if most of the cost is really for "certification". It seems that the UIAA & other certifications for climbing gear that are industry based vs. government based haven't hit quite so hard here in the US. I do recall a few years back a big deal about counterfeit grade 5 and grade 8 bolts from China and Korea, that while appearing to meet the high standards for those applications were pretty bad. It will be good if we can get more extensive local climbing groups in the US to cover hardware maintenance as that cost really is trivial compared to everything else, even microbrews....

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:It will be good if we can get more extensive local climbing groups in the US to cover hardware maintenance as that cost really is trivial compared to everything else, even microbrews....

Nothing is trivial when it comes to brews.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:Sounds like it could've been worse there in the EU where there tends to be a lot of regulation. Still $60 or $80 for a top anchor set is pretty pricey if most of the cost is really for "certification". It seems that the UIAA & other certifications for climbing gear that are industry based vs. government based haven't hit quite so hard here in the US.

The certification for bolts under the current system is cheap (it´s free in fact), it´s using good quality material and the QC to ensure it achieves certification that costs. I have to break stuff which means it´s a lost sale and testing takes time. It isn´t in any companies interests to use cheap shit either, put a load of rubbish onto the market and you´re finished. Making a good product at a fair price is anyway more satisfying than forever chasing the lowest possible cost, if I wanted to do that I´d move to China!
Chainsets in particular involve a lot of skilled hand work and are difficult to really automate so will never be particularly cheap, for what they do they are excellent value for money anyway!

The certification of climbing gear is an industry system but obviously designed to meet the requirements of the relevant legislation and those of the users. To get the UIAA Safety Label (or more correctly to pay the UIAA to use it) you have to first be certified to the relevant European Standard no matter what country you are in. It´s a bit confusing as bolts are category 0 under the system, if they had been cat.3 like most gear then the certification costs would be much higher.

from TABVAR facebook group ....

this should realistically end all arguments about "trusting" a single bolt when theres two there

of course on sport there are times you whip on a single bolt and would deck if it pulls ... thats the risk you take

stupid to die on rap or lower because you decided to clip only one bolt when two were placed by the developer for some reason

;)

Ground up ethics