Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Bolts Bolts Bolts
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 5 of 9.  <<First   <Prev   3  4  5  6  7   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By John Braun
From Hendersonville, NC
Jul 21, 2012
Aric Datesman wrote:
Do you mean other than opinions about Wave's quite misleading testing in comparison to Bolt Products bolts, in which they compared pullout strength with the holes for the Bolt Products bolts drilled oversize? No, no opinions. Other than the obvious.


I think I missed this - source/etc? You're saying they tested half inch bolts in 9/16 holes or something?

FLAG
By Aric Datesman
Jul 21, 2012
John Braun wrote:
I think I missed this - source/etc? You're saying they tested half inch bolts in 9/16 holes or something?


It was something along those lines... The Bolt-Products need a Metric hole and they drilled an incorrect-size-for-the-bolt English hole and then went on and on how the Bolt-Products bolts were inferior because they wouldn't stay in the hole. Was a big ugly mess on RC when Jim Titt called them out on it. I don't remember when it was or which forum (Lab/GH/general?) but should be easy enough to find.

FLAG
By mattm
From TX
Jul 21, 2012
Grande Grotto
Aric Datesman wrote:
It was something along those lines... The Bolt-Products need a Metric hole and they drilled an incorrect-size-for-the-bolt English hole and then went on and on how the Bolt-Products bolts were inferior because they wouldn't stay in the hole. Was a big ugly mess on RC when Jim Titt called them out on it. I don't remember when it was or which forum, but should be easy enough to find.


Forum topic where the issues cropped is linked up thread a bit. Wasn't quite that nefarious but certainly misleading. I'll fill in blanks later...

I can also give an updated head-to-head review on the Wave and Titt bolts later. I just got back from using both again today - just don't have time for the write up right now

FLAG
By Aric Datesman
Jul 21, 2012
mattm wrote:
Forum topic where the issues cropped is linked up thread a bit. Wasn't quite that nefarious but certainly misleading.


Nefarious, misleading... Tomato, tomahto... My only recollection of it was something about holding strength without epoxy and it being the first and only time I've seen Jim go back and remove posts (once he and the Wave guy settled the issue). Iirc the missing posts were rather heated.

EDIT- Here's where it started: rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum...

Wavebolt@RC: "Sorry to revive an old thread, but Wave Bolts (wavebolt.com) are a new and superior alternative to all other glue in bolt designs. Three major advantages: unlike all other designs they will not slide out of a hole before the adhesive sets, they are made in the US and ready to ship, and they are less expensive than others! Check out the website for more info."

JimTitt@RC's response: "Bolt Products Twisted Leg Bolts are interference fit for the last 20mm before the eye to prevent them sliding out. They have been like this for more than 10 years. They also have considerably higher dry (no glue) extraction resistance than Wavebolts in both radial and axial testing. Before making advertising claims one is well advised to check, incorrect claims reduce the credibility of the company and its products. That you consider your bolts `the bestīis natural but others may for example think that the SeaWater series of bolts we manufacture from 1.4462 Duplex stainless steel are superior in both strength (100kN) and corrosion resistance. "

As I recall it got a bit heated after that and posts were pulled.

FLAG
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Jul 21, 2012
I cant comment on any of the discussion about BoltProduct's bolts, but I did call out Wave Man for posting erroneous info about his bolt's strength. He said that one of his 1/2" Wave Bolts was stronger than two 1/2" Power-Bolts, which is complete bull. But having talked with Wave Man (Isaac) on multiple occasions about his product, I don't think he is out to scam people, he is just trying to sell his product. He is pretty a knowledgeable climber, and he knows quite a fair bit about bolting. He has also been working to improve his product. He fired his machine shop a while back because they were not meeting his quality requirements, and now he refers to his newly machined bolts as "Wave Bolts 2.0".

FLAG
By mattm
From TX
Jul 23, 2012
Grande Grotto
20 kN wrote:
The Wave Bolts are designed that way. Maybe there are production consistency issues as well, but the Wave Bolt was designed to enable bolters to place them in roofs and clip into them before the epoxy cures. They designed the legs to be wider than the hole diameter so you have to force them into the hole. When you do so, the legs compress and they provide enough resistance to allow you to clip into them and hang on them. However, they were designed mainly for the RRG, which has soft sandstone. When you try to use them in hard rock, forget it, it is impossible to get them in if you do not oversize the hole.


I'll concur with this as well. I just put in 4 of the Waves and 4 of Bolt Products bolts in good limestone. I had to bash the sh*t out of the Waves to get them in. Fairly frustrating. "1/2in" Waves definitely need an oversized hole in anything but soft rock. I have a 9/16th SDS so I'm going to see how that goes.

The 12mm Bolt Products bolt slipped right in of course. (12mm bolt in 12.7mm hole). I need to try them in a true 12mm hole to see how their interference fit is. The Titt bolt is designed for an interference fit in only the last little bit which I think is better for all but the really overhanging stuff. I hope Bolt Products can tweak their jig for US 1/2in use. Just a bit more flair on the last, parallel legs portion should do it.

I did a quick test with some water on the volume of the Titt Bolt vs the Wave. Many, including myself, seemed to think the Wave needed more glue. I got a 10mL tube and filled it with water. I then submerged each bolt into the "hole" the same distance and checked how much water was displaced (and thusly, how much glue would be needed to fill the hole). It was pretty much identical from what I could tell without a more precise system. So for the same size hole, expect to use the same amount of glue. Of course, if you're drilling "correct" size holes (12mm for the Titt, probably 9/16th for a Wave in anything but soft rock) the Titt will require less glue and the Wave more.

FLAG
By Sam Lightner, Jr.
From Lander, WY
Jul 23, 2012
The Shield
Just a few things on various points made above.

I think arguing over the strength of wave bolts, or any other certified glue in (Fixe, Petzl, etc) compared to Powers is a waste of time. They are both far stronger than we need. The difference is that the powers will not last as long... eventually it will spin. TheGlue in is not under pressure when there is no fall, so it stays put. It will simply last longer.

Also, 316 breaks down just as fast in Thailand as 304. There was no appreciable difference.

FLAG
By Chris Vinson
Jul 24, 2012
Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:
\Also, 316 breaks down just as fast in Thailand as 304. There was no appreciable difference.


Really? That's really interesting to hear considering the whole point of going from 304 to 316. I believe you though and am not challenging this, at least your observations but that really doesn't make much sense to me.

Here's a link:
simple breakdown

Manufacturers would have no reason, given the increased cost, to go to 316 if there wasn't a higher degree of resistance to corrosion.

Out of curiosity, can you explain? Thanks!

FLAG
 
By coop
From Glenwood Springs, CO
Jul 24, 2012
Indian Creek Climbing
Why doesn't FixeUSA or others sell a torque wrench?

FLAG
By Perin Blanchard
Administrator
From Orem, UT
Jul 24, 2012
Racking too much gear, as usual.
Chris Vinson wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you explain?


See here.

FLAG
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Jul 24, 2012
Chris Vinson wrote:
Really? That's really interesting to hear considering the whole point of going from 304 to 316. I believe you though and am not challenging this, at least your observations but that really doesn't make much sense to me. Here's a link: simple breakdown Manufacturers would have no reason, given the increased cost, to go to 316 if there wasn't a higher degree of resistance to corrosion. Out of curiosity, can you explain? Thanks!


You can roughly break down the corrosion issue into areas of:-
No risk (indoors)
Low Risk (inland in temperate climates, dry areas etc)
Medium Risk (near/at the coast in temperate climates)
High Risk (tropical coastal areas, areas with high pullution, certain iron and halides containing rock types)

And then roughly decide on suitable materials:-
No risk- plated steel
Low risk- 304 stainless
Medium Risk- 316
High Risk- something considerably better.

Experience or some very expensive research are the only true guide to what really works in a specific area.

316 is favoured for marine applications as it is less prone to surface discolouration so keeps those yachts nice and shiny, it is definitively not classified as `marine gradeī by the stainless steel industry due to itīs lack of corrosion resistance. Stainless steels immersed in sea water need a PREN (one of the measures of corrosion resistance) of at least 40 and 316 is around 27.
316 is better than 304 against some types of corrosion but not hugely better and somewhere like Thailand it realistically wouldnīt make any difference since we are talking about moderate resistance and slightly more noderate, probably in most areas it doesnīt either. The manufacturers pass the extra material cost on to the customer anyway so some offer both grades and some donīt. Many customers think 316 is vastly better and wonīt buy anything else and trying to convert them to reality isnīt the manufacturers job, we can only give them the choice and at the end of the day it is up to them.
I probably sell as many 316 bolts for inland areas in N Europe as I do 304 ones to customers in coastal areas in the Mediteranean (or the Far East for that matter). If the customer is experienced in what works in his area then this is o.k.

FLAG
By Sam Lightner, Jr.
From Lander, WY
Jul 24, 2012
The Shield
This is all from my head, but as I recall the DMM Eco Anchor was made of 6mm 316. We got a whole bunch of these from Mr. Petro. I specifically placed them on a number of routes, including Strider, D-Whinge, and Jaidom. They were showing surface trouble within a year and pretty bad iin two years. A couple of them broke eventually. This was quite a bummer as they requred 3/4 inch holes that really crushed the drills. In any event the breakdown was at about the same rate.

Just to throw something out there for discussion, the steel bolts that lasted the longest, without question, were the Petzl Collinox. They did break down over time, but it took much longer. They are 304 like the Fixes and such. However, and this is just speculation on my part, I think they are forged in the shape you buy them in. The other bolts are all bent into that shape and then welded closed and such. The Collinox seems to be drop forged or something. That is the only reason I could come up with for their longer life.

FLAG
By Chris Vinson
Jul 24, 2012
Ah, so youre hypothesizing that it has less to do with the material and more to do with the processes then?

I knew about the Thaitanium project for a while now and am still not sure i can agree with going that way. at some point, any mechanical anchor will break down, glue ins are great, but not always ideal all of the time.

when jim says "something better" i dont know that the answer is in the material of the anchor as much as the process of installation of the bolts themselves.

what do guys think about about being able to replace the anchor easily and efficiently as they wear down? something like the fixe triplex perhaps? thoughts on the triplex?

reusing the same placement over and over in thailand would likely be better than a glue in for extreme conditions? this could apply to every crag couldn't it?

-CV

FLAG
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Jul 24, 2012
The corrosion resistance of stainless steels has a lot to do with the manufacturing processes and the treatments afterwards, basically itīs dead easy to get a highly resistant piece of stainless and turn it into rusting junk so a certain amount of care is called for. The DMMīs have never given any problems in the UK that I know of but certainly in some areasthey are starting to be replaced but I donīt know why apart from wear on a lot of them.
Nobody makes a replaceable bolt of a higher grade than 316 so that is a moot point anyway and the whole issue of bolts in Thailand and similar areas is regrettably not as clear and easy as one would think from afar. Fundamentally we have the situation that a second-world (if that) country cannot afford or is not prepared to pay to provide the level of equipment that first world tourist would prefer. The bolt manufacturers can and will provide suitable bolts if customers are prepared to pay, capitalism works that way!

FLAG
By mattm
From TX
Jul 24, 2012
Grande Grotto
While "googling" PREN info I came across this:

Marine Stainless Steel Applications

Several other articles out there like it.


Thanks, as always, for the info Jim.

FLAG
By Chris Vinson
Jul 24, 2012
Jim Titt wrote:
Nobody makes a replaceable bolt of a higher grade than 316 so that is a moot point anyway and the whole issue of bolts in Thailand and similar areas is regrettably not as clear and easy as one would think from afar. Fundamentally we have the situation that a second-world (if that) country cannot afford or is not prepared to pay to provide the level of equipment that first world tourist would prefer. The bolt manufacturers can and will provide suitable bolts if customers are prepared to pay, capitalism works that way!


Good points Jim. The issue with replaceable bolts like the triplex is cost then?

Id still think that they should be made out of stainless so it lasts a couple years in the harshest of environments. The crux would still likely be cost, but do you think, that if they are relatively inexpensive to the installers this could be a solid alternative given that you could use the same placement over and over again, say 5 times?

This might be a solution to the harshest of environments?

FLAG
 
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Jul 24, 2012
Chris Vinson wrote:
Good points Jim. The issue with replaceable bolts like the triplex is cost then? Id still think that they should be made out of stainless so it lasts a couple years in the harshest of environments. The crux would still likely be cost, but do you think, that if they are relatively inexpensive to installer this could be a solid alternative given that you could use the same placement over and over again, say 5 times? This might be a solution to the harshest of environments?


The problem is that bolt-ins have been failing in less than a year which is almost inevitable considering they have loads of stress points and areas where water can stagnate, the two things that kill stainless. So you would need a replacement program of less than every year which is going to costs a lot of money and work. Or you go to a glue-in which has less or no permanent stress and is less liable to corrosion but harder to replace. Alternatively you abandon certain areas as being unclimbeable which in effect is what happens if the condition of the bolts becomes so bad climbers are reluctant to go there.
Both bolt-ins and glue-ins are available in considerably higher corrosion resistant grades than 316 (1.4529 for bolt-ins and 1.4462 for glue-ins) but the hangers for the bolt-ins would need to be custom made and only wedge bolts are available in this grade which canīt be easily removed. Price-wise 1.4462 glue-ins are cheaper.
However the early propaganda about titanium has made it difficult to persuade people to use other materials and now the sourcing of cheap titanium bolts has become difficult there is something of a stalemate. This might be resolved when/if the UIAA publish their recommendations since this is also an issue in other areas where there is more willingness to pay.

Cheap and corrosion resistant will never go hand in hand, the material we use (1.4462)costs 6 times the price of 316 and the work involved is probably fourfold, with the additional office and stockholding costs I make exactly the same profit as with a normal bolt.

The big issue is not a technical one, we can make you a ceramic-coated boron-fibre alloyed gold bolt if you want. The issue is as always where the emphasis is placed by climbers on value and safety. We know from various surveys in the UK for example how much money is invested in sport climbing (personal equipment, travel etc) and how much goes into the bolt funds and is personally donated and the figures really donīt make much sense.

On the other hand the search for the perfect bolt is in fact not the best investment one can make in terms of climbing safety when budgets are limited, equipping sport routes with lower-offs that donīt require re-threading or abseiling are where the greatest returns are to be made and is where most organisations are spending their money.

FLAG
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Jul 24, 2012
Chris Vinson wrote:
Good points Jim. The issue with replaceable bolts like the triplex is cost then? Id still think that they should be made out of stainless so it lasts a couple years in the harshest of environments. The crux would still likely be cost, but do you think, that if they are relatively inexpensive to the installers this could be a solid alternative given that you could use the same placement over and over again, say 5 times? This might be a solution to the harshest of environments?


The Triplex bolt is not only a crap bolt, but it is certainly not appropriate for a marine environment. You do not want to use bolts that have exposed threads in a marine environment! When you have exposed threads sticking out of the rock, salt crystals in the air can and will land in the threads causing highly concentrated pitting corrosion and/ or stress cracking corrosion. All of the bolts I have replaced in Hawaii that failed catastrophically with a half of a turn of a wrench were bolts that had exposed threads (such as a wedge bolt). The bolts would snap like glass. A bolt like the Triplex bolt could become dangerous in as little as a few months in a place like Thailand.

mattm wrote:
I'll concur with this as well. I just put in 4 of the Waves and 4 of Bolt Products bolts in good limestone. I had to bash the sh*t out of the Waves to get them in. Fairly frustrating. "1/2in" Waves definitely need an oversized hole in anything but soft rock. I have a 9/16th SDS so I'm going to see how that goes. The 12mm Bolt Products bolt slipped right in of course. (12mm bolt in 12.7mm hole). I need to try them in a true 12mm hole to see how their interference fit is. The Titt bolt is designed for an interference fit in only the last little bit which I think is better for all but the really overhanging stuff. I hope Bolt Products can tweak their jig for US 1/2in use. Just a bit more flair on the last, parallel legs portion should do it. I did a quick test with some water on the volume of the Titt Bolt vs the Wave. Many, including myself, seemed to think the Wave needed more glue. I got a 10mL tube and filled it with water. I then submerged each bolt into the "hole" the same distance and checked how much water was displaced (and thusly, how much glue would be needed to fill the hole). It was pretty much identical from what I could tell without a more precise system. So for the same size hole, expect to use the same amount of glue. Of course, if you're drilling "correct" size holes (12mm for the Titt, probably 9/16th for a Wave in anything but soft rock) the Titt will require less glue and the Wave more.
If you want to install the bolts with no standing tension, and you want them to just slide in you need a 5/8" / 11/16" bit. I use these bolts in Hawaii, so I am concerned with Stress Corrosion Cracking issues. SCC is enabled and amplified by standing tension. Accordingly, I do not want to force the bolts into the hole and have the legs compress together, so that is why I use a larger bit.

FLAG
By Chris Vinson
Jul 24, 2012
20 kN wrote:
The Triplex bolt is not only a crap bolt, but it is certainly not appropriate for a marine environment. You do not want to use bolts that have exposed threads in a marine environment! When you have exposed threads sticking out of the rock, salt crystals in the air can and will land in the threads causing highly concentrated pitting corrosion and/ or stress cracking corrosion. All of the bolts I have replaced in Hawaii that failed catastrophically with a half of a turn of a wrench were bolts that had exposed threads (such as a wedge bolt). The bolts would snap like glass. A bolt like the Triplex bolt could become dangerous in as little as a few months in a place like Thailand.


Cool, I agree with your opinion on bolts with exposed threads, regardless of the brand. This is what Climbtech is developing and should be available to the market very soon. In 1/2" and 3/8". If you see any problems with these, give me a holler and we'll consider it. We are working very closely with the Access Fund and should have a refined solution in the coming months.

Climbtech SS Removable Climbing Anchor


Holler, let me know what you think, please excuse the initial quality of the demo. We will shoot a formal one as we continue. Basically its a three piece expansion bolt with a flange on the sleeve. Hex head, 300series stainless, fully removable, you can pull it out from the hanger itself, we aim to market these at half the price of the triplex and it will include a SS hanger.

FLAG
By Perin Blanchard
Administrator
From Orem, UT
Jul 24, 2012
Racking too much gear, as usual.
^^^^
Very nice.

All else being equal I'd switch to those from SS Powers 5-piece bolts.

Now put it under a light salt water spray at 85 F for a couple of years and see if you can still remove it :-)

(Which is my concern relative to your question above about reusing the same hole four or five times: If the bolt needs to be replaced, it's likely to be because of corrosion. If the bolt is badly corroded, it may not be at all easy to remove.)

FLAG
By Sam Lightner, Jr.
From Lander, WY
Jul 24, 2012
The Shield
There was a period of about 2 months that we were onvinced the future of thailand was in removeable bolts and everybody coming there would bring their own like a set of quickdraws... then we saw haw easily they get stuck and that was that.

As per replacing and reusing holes, its not practical. The best is to use Ti, do it once and be done with it until the next ice age. If you aren't in a marine environment, then use SS, glue it once, and be done with it.

We have very thoroughly gone through this and worked it all out. The order of bolts, best to worst, is about like this:
1. glue in Ti bolt
2. glue in Petzl Colinox
3. Glue in any other SS bolt
4. Mechanical (5 piece or other) SS bolt with SS hanger
5. Poop that will last maybe 15-20 years and then need to be replaced and you likely will not be able to get the rusting relic out of the hole (if over 20).

FLAG
By Mr. Holmes
From Cascade West
Jul 24, 2012
#2
Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:
We have very thoroughly gone through this and worked it all out. The order of bolts, best to worst, is about like this: 1. glue in Ti bolt 2. glue in Petzl Colinox 3. Glue in any other SS bolt 4. Mechanical (5 piece or other) SS bolt with SS hanger 5. Poop that will last maybe 15-20 years and then need to be replaced and you likely will not be able to get the rusting relic out of the hole (if over 20).



+1!
<but, why no love for the wave bolt

FLAG
By Mr. Holmes
From Cascade West
Jul 24, 2012
#2
Video from the Access Fundon on Bolt Replacement Testing - Core Drill & Hydraulic Punch Driver ...

youtu.be/OfPtwr3wSB0

FLAG
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Jul 25, 2012
Cool, I agree with your opinion on bolts with exposed threads, regardless of the brand. This is what Climbtech is developing and should be available to the market very soon. In 1/2" and 3/8". If you see any problems with these, give me a holler and we'll consider it. We are working very closely with the Access Fund and should have a refined solution in the coming months. Climbtech SS Removable Climbing Anchor
>
The whole flange thing is what makes the Triplex bolt dangerous. The problem is that when the bolt gets loose, and every crag in the world has spinners, then the load is being equally applied on the flange and the cone. That can easily result in the bolt pulling. Now, you can put the hanger over the flange, but then you have a gap between the rock and the hanger which makes it significantly easier for the hanger to become a spinner. When it does, the nut can easily fall off because there is no washer so any spinning action conducted by the hanger will transfer to the nut.

There is no way [currently on the market] to make an expansion bolt easily removable without reducing the security of the bolt, that is just how it goes. Yea it sucks to have to drill new holes and all that jazz, but decking because the bolt pulled sucks a lot more. A bolt manufacturers main priority should always be safety and security, not ease of replacement. Unfortunately you have to trade one for another, you cant have both. Although removable bolts have some limited applications, I believe that creating a removable bolt so that bolters can replace old bolts easily is a fancy way of ghetto rigging the route. It is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. It is a band aid. The correct solution is to just use the appropriate grade of material in the first place so you dont need to replace the bolts!

This is a very serious issue, on more than one occasion I have been able to remove a loose Triplex bolt by hand on a route. Just the other day I tuned a PG rated sport climb into an X rated free solo because one of those crap triplex bolts pulled out by hand, and I had nothing left between me and a fall onto a big spike field. There have already been a few incidents where people have pulled loose Triplex bolts, adding another version of the Triplex bolt to the market will just make it worse. Do not produce another version of the Triplex, the Triplex flange design is flawed and unsafe. But all that said, I do think that bolt is better than the Triplex by the looks of it.

Also, who are you working with at the Access Fund? Are you going to be at the Access Fund bolting conference in October?

FLAG
 
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Jul 25, 2012
As 20kN says, the problem with the Triplex design and the flange is if it comes loose it doesnīt hold. With wedge bolts the tightening is irrelevant and the pull-out strength the same no matter what. If you used the Triplex in my local area and a lot of others in Europe they would be pulled and replaced.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 5 of 9.  <<First   <Prev   3  4  5  6  7   Next>   Last>>