UIAA Water Repellent Ropes

Have any of you guys studied up on the new UIAA certification for water repellent ropes? I found it interesting that based off the new test for certification, most of the current "dry ropes" on the market were absorbing 20-40% water. Now, to be certified, they have to absorb less than 5%. Beal and Edelweiss are the only two brands that have already been making ropes that meet that standard.

If you want to read up on it, here's a little article I wrote: libertymountainclimbing.blo…

John Wilder wrote:they all use the same stuff.

Please expound on that statement. Both companies apply their treatment to all fibers of the sheath and core, before they are woven together. Their treatment differs a lot from the "same stuff" that you refer to.

From my understanding, John is correct that most rope companies employ the same method of minimizing the hygroscopic behavior of the rope in that they typically use PTFE (or similar fluoropolymer). That said, there are other factors that impact end-use performance, such as the extent to which it is applied (sheath vs sheath and core), application conditions, weave, etc. which can all affect the degree to which the dry coating works in the real world. I've tried to probe into those processes in the past out of my own curiosity (I do materials research for renewable energy technologies), but of course that stuff is all proprietary. I'd be very interested in hearing from someone with greater knowledge and familiarity with the entire treatment process!

I will agree that MOST rope brands use the same stuff. That's why all of their dry ropes are absorbing around 20-40%. But it goes to show, with less than 2% absorption, that Beal and Edelweiss don't fall into the MOST bucket. I'll start digging around for some more insight on their treatment process.

I would like to see the rest of the data.

I have a half set of Edelweiss oxygen ropes and they do great. But after a hard day on the ice I feel that the do pick up a bit of weight.

I also have a Millte 9.2 single rope that I FEEL does a better job of NOT soaking up the water on a wet day of ice climbing. I have been using both the Edelweiss Oxygen 8.2mms and the Millet 9.2 off and one for two seasons. My Millet, the water beads off like mercury beads.

sooooo..... I dont know...

Here's the current UIAA report about the new certification: theuiaa.org/news-88-New-UIA…

The certification process goes like this:
"To qualify for the new standard, a rope sample is subjected to subject to light abrasion over its entire surface, equivalent to a few days’ use. The rope is then soaked for 15 minutes following a precise procedure. To pass the test at a certified laboratory, the amount of absorbed water must not be greater than 5% of the rope’s weight. For comparison, a non-treated rope absorbs around 50% of water in this test, and ropes labelled as "dry” but lacking adequate treatments can absorb between 20% and 40% of water."

Here's the document shows how the test is set up. Look at page 5. theuiaa.org/upload_area/Saf…

Until the UIAA came out this this new standard, I never really wondered how water repellent my "dry ropes" were. I just trusted the marketing jargon, especially the word "dry". I never really wondered if the dry treatment made a small difference or a large difference. This new standard is here to protect us as climbers. Before now, there was nothing stopping someone if they wanted to just spray a rope with camp dry and call it a "dry rope", leaving us to believe that it shed just as much water as the ropes that were treated in other ways. There wasn't anything out there to say if Mammut's dry treatment shed more water than the treatment that Sterling uses. Not everyone uses the same processes. So how were we suppose to really compare one from the other. We couldn't. Now we can. According to these tests, non-treated ropes absorb 50% and treated ropes absorb 20-40%. That's not a huge difference...yet we assumed that any dry treatment would make a huge difference. Knowing that there are ropes out there that only absorb 5%? Now we are talking.

I agree John. I'd love to hear what the other brands are saying about the test, the standard, and the value of the certification. I'm also curious to see which brands will work to get the certification and which ones will see it as not necessary. As you said earlier, having a rope that absorbs less than 5% water is good news for ice and alpine climbers. But it means little for those that climb in mostly dry conditions. I can see the brands that focus heavily on ice and alpine equipment jumping on this band wagon.

John Wilder wrote: and, fwiw, the UIAA test is not there to protect the consumer. its there to be used as a marketing power for a product because consumers believe in labels.

Ain´t that the truth!

John Wilder wrote:and, fwiw, the UIAA test is not there to protect the consumer. its there to be used as a marketing power for a product because consumers believe in labels.

But isn't the UIAA protecting the consumer from the false labels? There's a huge difference between 5% and 40% water absorption, yet both ropes were labeled as dry. Now you know if its labeled as dry there's a standard that is being followed.

Its just like the sleeping bag rating debate. Now that the EN has created a standard people know what they are getting.