Paid for 70M only got 65, watch out!

Zappatista wrote: And if it does, this still comes down to personal responsibility.

So let me make sure I got this right. It is my responsibility to ensure the rope manufacturers comply with their own quality control measures with regard to rope length?

It is not the responsibility of the end user to verify the quality control of the product the user buys, that is the responsibility of the manufacturer. It is 100% reasonable for me to assume that a brand new rope listed as 70M is in fact 70m without measuring it. You dont measure the impact force of the rope, the diameter, the sheath slippage, or the elongation, so why should you have to measure the length of a brand new rope? You dont proof load your Black Diamond harness to ensure it actually holds the UIAA requirement of 15kN, and you dont proof load your quickdraws to ensure they hold at least 20kN. With regard to every other specification of every other piece of gear, you just assume it is correct because you trust the company knows what they are doing.

^^^^^^
Yes you have it right.
Actually you don't HAVE to but probably should measure the length of a brand new rope because despite everything you have written you still may end up with a 70M rope that is on 65. Just like I did.

cdec wrote:^^^^^^ Yes you have it right. Actually you don't HAVE to but probably should measure the length of a brand new rope because despite everything you have written you still may end up with a 70M rope that is on 65. Just like I did.

theres no excuse for that in this day and age for safety equipment ... especially with multiple ropes

;)

No it's not unreasonable to expect that the manufacturer is actually selling what they market, but they also add warning labels that warn you to always inspect your gear before use. And the QC checks are preformed by humans, and humans make mistakes. I mean these people check hundreds of products every single day, and I can't speak for others but I'm not perfect and chances are, I'd slip up after a few thousand. This is part of the reason we are instructed to regularly inspect our gear before every use. So while, yes, the manufacturer has made a mistake, as climbers, we share in the responsibility of accepting the potential consequences of this dangerous sport we all love.

bearbreeder wrote: theres no excuse for that in this day and age for safety equipment ...

Exactly...which is also why manufactures that can't even cut their ropes to the right length shouldn't be in the business of making safety equipment. This shit goes both ways.

cdec wrote:^^^^^^ Yes you have it right. Actually you don't HAVE to but probably should measure the length of a brand new rope because despite everything you have written you still may end up with a 70M rope that is on 65. Just like I did.

Okay, what about if Black Diamond accidentally uses cotton thread instead of nylon, and then you fall on the harness and it rips apart sending you to the deck. Is it still your own fault because you dident verify the harness was stitched with the correct material? At what point do we hold the manufacturer responsible for their own actions?

If course we should hold the manufacturers accountable. This doesn't mean, however, that they should be subject the senseless internet spray from the Proj, which is undoubtedly what would have happened had the OP revealed the name. The right way to handle this is that the manufacturer should replace OPs ropes with actual 70ms and should look into what resulted in the error. From that, they should be able to reasonably decided a plan to deal with it. As if yet, though, no injuries have resulted from this error, therefore the manufacturer faces no legal trouble, just PR. If the manufacturer chooses not deal with the problem or had somebody suffered injuries as a result, then internet forum spray may be warranted, but we should give them adequate time to resolve the issue before crucifying their PR. For the time being, the best course of action for concerned climbers would be to double check the actual length of their ropes to make sure they weren't affected and to start/continue the practice of tying knots in the ends when rappelling.

eli poss wrote:If course we should hold the manufacturers accountable. This doesn't mean, however, that they should be subject the senseless internet spray from the Proj, which is undoubtedly what would have happened had the OP revealed the name. The right way to handle this is that the manufacturer should replace OPs ropes with actual 70ms and should look into what resulted in the error. From that, they should be able to reasonably decided a plan to deal with it. As if yet, though, no injuries have resulted from this error, therefore the manufacturer faces no legal trouble, just PR. If the manufacturer chooses not deal with the problem or had somebody suffered injuries as a result, then internet forum spray may be warranted, but we should give them adequate time to resolve the issue before crucifying their PR. For the time being, the best course of action for concerned climbers would be to double check the actual length of their ropes to make sure they weren't affected and to start/continue the practice of tying knots in the ends when rappelling.

bull

we arent talking about surfing barbies or tickle me elmos here

were talking about safety equipment

a manufacturer that produces safety equipment better damn sure get it right ... its what we pay the $$$$ for an our lives depend on

this isnt one of those "obvious" errors like that mis-sewed PAS posted recently ... its something most folks wont catch until they hit the end of their rappel or lower and get stuck ... and if they didnt tie a knot in the end (which some very experienced MPers have claimed emphatically not to do to prevent stuck ropes) then they die ... period

how many folks here actually measure up every one of their ropes, and those of their partners that the climb on as well ??? .... hands up please ???

there is a UIAA certification test which we trust to be accurate ... just like we a static rope not to be mislabelled as dynamic ... and a carabiner to actually meet its UIAA ratings

anything less is absolutely unacceptable

;)

Many years ago REI was selling ropes that were up to 20 feet short. The problem was pretty simple. REI was buying big spools of rope and then cutting them to length to sell. What was happening was that they were pulling the rope off the spool and when the spool was wound full of rope it weighed a lot and required a lot of force to pull the rope off. This caused rope stretch and the result was short ropes.

reboot wrote: Exactly...which is also why manufactures that can't even cut their ropes to the right length shouldn't be in the business of making safety equipment. This shit goes both ways.

What if, hypothetically, BD produces a Camalot and 3 of its lobes is faulty. Let's say this causes it to pull out on a tiny fall that would normally have held and a climber is seriously injured as a result. According to your logic, despite BD being generally considered as the golden standard in SLCDs, BD should not be making cams because they allowed a faulty cam to fall into the hands of a consumer.

eli poss wrote: What if, hypothetically, BD produces a Camalot and 3 of its lobes is faulty. Let's say this causes it to pull out on a tiny fall that would normally have held and a climber is seriously injured as a result. According to your logic, despite BD being generally considered as the golden standard in SLCDs, BD should not be making cams because they allowed a faulty cam to fall into the hands of a consumer.

CCH

if BD produced nine faulty cams broke apart and that reached the market, and caused accidents ... they better damn sure do a recall

and this is 3 ropes that the OP owns and another 6 that he knows about ... which means theres likely quite a few more out there ....

;)

20 kN wrote: So let me make sure I got this right. It is my responsibility to ensure the rope manufacturers comply with their own quality control measures with regard to rope length?

It is your responsibility as the end user to perform PMCS. Inspecting your rope for defects should be a normal part of those checks and services. Should the rope be free from defects? Of course. Will it always? Even a cursory search of this forum proves defects happen.

Bruce Hildenbrand wrote:Many years ago REI was selling ropes that were up to 20 feet short. The problem was pretty simple. REI was buying big spools of rope and then cutting them to length to sell. What was happening was that they were pulling the rope off the spool and when the spool was wound full of rope it weighed a lot and required a lot of force to pull the rope off. This caused rope stretch and the result was short ropes.

Nonsense. 10% (on a 60m rope) too short because of the spool weight? I've bought a spool, there isn't enough weight to stretch a rope 10% of it's total length. Mammut claims 7% with 88kg static on a 10.2mm cord. Sterling claims 8%.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: It is your responsibility as the end user to perform PMCS. Inspecting your rope for defects should be a normal part of those checks and services.

Except the problem here is there is no limit to how far we could go with that notion. Rope length? Okay. What about rope elongation? Should I test that? How about should I inspect how many bartacks are on my harness and verify with the manufacturer that none were missed? What about proof loading of the harness to ensure there are no sewing defects? We could go on forever about all the mistakes that could kill a climber that would have been prevented if the climber performed some type of inspection. But the truth is it is physically impossible for any climber to inspect every possible angle in which a defect could occur. That is why it is the manufacturer's job. They have the ability to inspect and verify every possible angle--we do not.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: Nonsense. 10% (on a 60m rope) too short because of the spool weight? I've bought a spool, there isn't enough weight to stretch a rope 10% of it's total length. Mammut claims 7% with 88kg static on a 10.2mm cord. Sterling claims 8%.

I agree. Unless the spool had 50,000' of rope on it, the spinning spool wouldent produce enough drag to elongate the rope that much. Even if you tied the rope off to the wall and pulled so hard that your feet were sliding on the floor, you still would have trouble reaching 10% elongation.

Should manufacturers be accountable for producing products that meet the specifications they publish? Of course. But at the end of the day, the only rope measurement that means a damn thing is the one I make: Are both my ends down? If they don't and I miss it, it's my own fault. Full stop.

^^^^
+1

My point exactly.
No one is shirking responsibility or purposely selling faulty gear.
No one has been injured, warranty has replaced the ropes and the problem is being looked into.

We'll see about a recall or announcement.
In the mean time check your stuff, or don't.

20 kN wrote: Except the problem here is there is no limit to how far we could go with that notion. Rope length? Okay. What about rope elongation? Should I test that? How about should I inspect how many bartacks are on my harness and verify with the manufacturer that none were missed? What about proof loading of the harness to ensure there are no sewing defects? We could go on forever about all the mistakes that could kill a climber that would have been prevented if the climber performed some type of inspection. But the truth is it is physically impossible for any climber to inspect every possible angle in which a defect could occur. That is why it is the manufacturer's job. They have the ability to inspect and verify every possible angle--we do not.

PMCS stands for Preventative Maintenance, Checks, and Service. Visual inspection is the very first step and easily within the capability of any user. I don't think we need to build strawmen, we're only taking about simple visual inspection. I'm sure you inspect your cams for defects, its no different for ropes. I weigh ropes for planning purposes, I also measure them out of curiosity.

You can complain about about who should be responsible for QC but it's your safety on the line. Manufacturers do their best, most are probably three or four Sigma which means they are going to kick out a few lemons. Statistically it will happen whether you like it or not. The only question is if you will be part of the deviation and how greatly it will impact you.

Here is a fun calculator: westgard.com/six-sigma-calc…. You can plug in the sample size (ropes produced), observed defects (short ropes), and then calculate the defects per million (failure rate) and Sigma (Deviation). All manufacturers strive for no defects but they still happen, the calculator shows you to what extent they happen and how statistically likely you are to receive a defect. You can then decide for yourself if you want to continue thinking visual inspection is not your responsibility.

"But at the end of the day, the only rope measurement that means a damn thing is the one I make: Are both my ends down? If they don't and I miss it, it's my own fault. Full stop."

That's all well and good, until you're high on a wall, and have a rappel route that is exactly 35M many times in a row. Something that should be straightforward is now going to be dangerous and/or expensive.

My question is this, and seems to lie at the heart of the matter-- do manufacturer's have to follow any rules/certifications for rope length? In other words, does a rope need to be within +/-10% of its stated length? 1%? If there are no guidelines, or if a wide variance is allowed, then it wouldn't be surprising if there are relatively short and long ropes out there.

mpech wrote:"But at the end of the day, the only rope measurement that means a damn thing is the one I make: Are both my ends down? If they don't and I miss it, it's my own fault. Full stop." That's all well and good, until you're high on a wall, and have a rappel route that is exactly 35M many times in a row. Something that should be straightforward is now going to be dangerous and/or expensive. My question is this, and seems to lie at the heart of the matter-- do manufacturer's have to follow any rules/certifications for rope length? In other words, does a rope need to be within +/-10% of its stated length? 1%? If there are no guidelines, or if a wide variance is allowed, then it wouldn't be surprising if there are relatively short and long ropes out there.

Test Method for Rope Length Measurement

Apparatus: Metric tape measure, pulley with a sheave root diameter of 20-200 mm, karabiner, sling,
meter stick.

Procedure: Secure the centre of the rope in a pulley mounted 1 meter high. Align the ends of the rope to
be even. Pull the ends of the rope at a height of 1 meter this pulling may be done by hand. Pull with a
force enough to just lift the low point of the rope off the ground. Use a meter stick as a "plumb-bob" to
mark a position on the floor equal with the ends of the rope. Use a tape measure to measure between the anchor point and the mark under the ends. Multiply this measurement by two, and round down to the
nearest 0.1 meter.

UIAA june 2014

theuiaa.org/upload_area/UIA…

to put it simply having three short ropes bought by the SAME person and another 6 out there that he personally knows about ... this is a serious issue

this isnt the very rare piece that slipped through the cracks

getting the length right on ropes should be something that would be second nature to a top tier rope company ... and having the QC to make sure 9 samples known to the same person doesnt get shipped out

if the OP owns 3 and knows about 6 others ... how many others do MPers think are out there???

most quality rope manufacturers should be cutting their ropes a few % longer to account for shrinkage over use

;)