Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Gear4Rocks Plastic Nuts Review
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Patrick Feeney
From hartland vt
Mar 4, 2011
i would like to say that i have taken BIG falls on this product and they hole up fine and im 250lbs

FLAG
By Matthew Carlson
Mar 4, 2011
Great review.

While I have no doubt that these would hold a fall I wonder on their long term durability. Some have already pointed out UV damage could effect these nuts in the long term. Another thing to think about is the number of compress cycles these could handle before they become too elastic. Plastics degrade much differently from metal (as most of you probably know).

I'm not sure the $40 price tag is worth it if you have to replace them every 2-3 years. Compare that to the typical aluminum nut that lasts forever as long as you don't fall on it too hard.

Another issue would be ease of identifying when to retire these. With an aluminum nut you can visually inspect the nut and say to yourself "this looks sketchy I'm not using it anymore". With plastic would it be as easy to tell?

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Mar 4, 2011
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
Ogre wrote:
NNEEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDDSSSS!!!!!


Absolutely! Let's think about it... Jocks Vs Nerds...
Who was the classic Jock? Michael Jordon? Let's think it over.
He made $300,000 a game: $10,000 per minute presuming 30 minutes of play per game.
With $40,000,000 in endorsement contracts per year at his peak, he made $178,100 per day, every day, playing or not. So assuming he slept 8 hours a night he made over $44,000 while he slept on every night. When he went to see a movie it probably cost him $10, but he'd make $18,550 while he was there. A brand new Ferrari would cost him only 4 nights sleep... quite literally.
If Jordon were to put the federal maximum of 15% of his total earnings into a 401K deferred tax shelter, he'd have hit the federal cap for those deductions before 10am on January 1st.
If he gave you 1/10th of one penny for every dollar he made, you'd live comfortably on $65,000 per year- about twice the take home pay of a teacher with a master's degree...
At his peak, he made more money than all of the US Presidents made in all of their terms combined.
All of this is amazing. HOWEVER:
Micheal Jordon would have to save 100% of his peak income before taxes for 270 years to have the net worth that Bill Gates accumulated in his time.
NERDS RULE!

FLAG
By Jared R
May 13, 2011
Me on Sticky Revelations
Tony B wrote:
Absolutely! Let's think about it... Jocks Vs Nerds... Who was the classic Jock? Michael Jordon? Let's think it over. He made $300,000 a game: $10,000 per minute presuming 30 minutes of play per game. With $40,000,000 in endorsement contracts per year at his peak, he made $178,100 per day, every day, playing or not. So assuming he slept 8 hours a night he made over $44,000 while he slept on every night. When he went to see a movie it probably cost him $10, but he'd make $18,550 while he was there. A brand new Ferrari would cost him only 4 nights sleep... quite literally. If Jordon were to put the federal maximum of 15% of his total earnings into a 401K deferred tax shelter, he'd have hit the federal cap for those deductions before 10am on January 1st. If he gave you 1/10th of one penny for every dollar he made, you'd live comfortably on $65,000 per year- about twice the take home pay of a teacher with a master's degree... At his peak, he made more money than all of the US Presidents made in all of their terms combined. All of this is amazing. HOWEVER: Micheal Jordon would have to save 100% of his peak income before taxes for 270 years to have the net worth that Bill Gates accumulated in his time. NERDS RULE!


Wow. that is really cool. I didn't know that about MJ.

FLAG
By Nick Przybysz
From Boulder, CO
May 15, 2011
Matthew Carlson wrote:
I'm not sure the $40 price tag is worth it if you have to replace them every 2-3 years. Compare that to the typical aluminum nut that lasts forever as long as you don't fall on it too hard.


Well yeah gear will last forever if you don't fall on it....or use it.

FLAG
By PDXGREG
From Portland, Oregon
May 17, 2011
Out in the OZONE
these work great. I actually use them more than my BD's

FLAG
By Isaac Dority
Jan 16, 2012
Sooo.... Here's the lowdown on the math that Phil was talking about in the original review post.

The guessed figures given didnt quite jive with the inevitable rope stretch but from the pictures it appears he may have been farther off the ground than he thought.

A body free falling for a distance of around 7 feet will atain a velocity of around 21.2 feet per second at the end of seven feet.

At this point the rope will begin to take weight and stretch. A static stretch factor of around 30% could be assumed for most modern ropes. With about 25 feet out, this means that Phil fell for an adittional 7.5 feet before stopping. During this deceleration his force maxed out at around 139.78 lbs.

There are 224.8 lbs PER Kilonewton. This means he exerted ONLY LESS than 0.7 KN. You need to fall like thirty to forty feet to begin to approach the 9 KN rating for the smallest plastic nut.

Any volunteers?

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
Isaac Dority wrote:
A body free falling for a distance of around 7 feet will atain a velocity of around 21.2 feet per second at the end of seven feet. At this point the rope will begin to take weight and stretch. A static stretch factor of around 30% could be assumed for most modern ropes. With about 25 feet out, this means that Phil fell for an adittional 7.5 feet before stopping. During this deceleration his force maxed out at around 139.78 lbs.

Uhhhh... No. Not only is the math wrong, but your boundary conditions are set up all wrong. Double check and try again. If you don't find the problems, I'll explain. Meanwhile, I'll start with 2 questions:
What was on the other end of the rope away from Phil? and How much does Phil weigh?

FLAG
 
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
Isaac Dority wrote:
You need to fall like thirty to forty feet to begin to approach the 9 KN rating for the smallest plastic nut.


30 or 40ft? A 40ft fall with 120ft of rope in the system is going to be roughly the same fall factor as an 8ft fall with 24ft of rope in the system. The logic that falling farther will produce a higher ff and thus greater forces on the protection is incorrect. You must take into account the amount of rope in the system AND the distance fallen. There are other variables as well such as rope properties, weight of the climber, how dynamic or static the belay is, etc., but these two pieces of data (rope in system and distance fallen) are the foundation for determining FF and forces on protection/anchors.

Also, a lead fall of 7-9ft is 100% of the time going to put at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection and the probability that a fall of that length will produce at least 1kn of force on the piece fallen on is very high (unless the climber is absolutely tiny).

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
muttonface wrote:
Also, a lead fall of 7-9ft is 100% of the time going to put at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection and the probability that a fall of that length will produce at least 1kn of force on the piece fallen on is very high (unless the climber is absolutely tiny).

You guys are not catching on at all, are you?
How much force does it put on a piece of gear when a climber RESTS on the rope on it? 1g force = a climbers weight?
More like twice his weight if the next bit of pro is directly down from it.
Math is math, but you still have to set up a force balance. This is not rocket science.

Ahhh... the internet!

FLAG
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
Tony B wrote:
You guys are not catching on at all, are you? How much force does it put on a piece of gear when a climber RESTS on the rope on it? 1g force = a climbers weight? More like twice his weight if the next bit of pro is directly down from it. Math is math, but you still have to set up a force balance. This is not rocket science. Ahhh... the internet!


Idk what you're talking about. I'm talking about the force that it takes from a fall, not resting static weight. I don't know that anyone else was talking about simply resting on the gear either. In fact, I know of no one else but aid climbers (and perhaps to set a quick rap anchor) that would give a shit about such data; and aid climbers really only concern themselves with the specifics of micro pieces because the big ones are more than up to the job of holding static body weight.

Here's what Isaac said:
"A body FREE FALLING for a distance of around 7 FEET... his force maxed out at around 139.78 lbs."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but since this is a discussion on the forces put on the plastic nuts, I assumed that Isaac was talking about
Tony B wrote:
Uhhhh
the forces put on plastic nuts when arresting a lead fall.

If my assumption is correct, there's a very slim chance that the force on the nut that caught the fall was only 139.78 lbs; unless of course Phil weighs as much as a first grader or less.

I don't quite understand your cocky rebuttal to what I said. I also don't understand what your rebuttal of static weight on a piece of pro has to do with an educated guess of the forces of taking a 7ft lead fall onto it.

I understand that it's not rocket science, and admittedly I'm in no way, shape or form an expert. I have however learned enough to know that
Tony B wrote:
Uhhhh
comparing static weight to a lead fall is like comparing assholes and oranges.

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
muttonface wrote:
I also don't understand what your rebuttal of static weight on a piece of pro has to do with an educated guess of the forces of taking a 7ft lead fall onto it.

You obviously do not know what I am talking about, and your reply is ignoring the similarity in the system. Your response to my deliberate attempt to get you to even think about the simplest part of your system for yourself was ironic and the tone undeserved. Your eagerness to poo-poo anyone who doesn't agree with your fundamentally flawed ideas is going to make you the fool, not me.

You and the guy you were "correcting" are BOTH missing the point that the rope has 2 ends, and both pull downward with equal force on the same piece. He was obviously wrong. So are you if you equate rope tension to force on a placement.

Why would anyone be interested in either of your dynamic models when neither of you can even set up the boundary conditions for a static model? It is a indisputable fact that a rope in tension pulls from both ends, and the stopper has to balance all of that to a net force of 0 or the biner and the stopper will "accelerate."

Let me spell that out for you. Even statically, you have to roughly DOUBLE any force exerted by the climber (rope in tension) to figure what the protection will see. Dynamically the same thing is true.

There is a second lesson here too. Everyone is an expert on the internet, right? But I bet only one of us taught mechanics to engineers at a university and does mechanical failure analysis work for a living. And I don't think it is you, so please give that a long hard thought before flaming someone or even dismissing them lightly on the net. You never know who they are. Maybe they have a point...

FLAG
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
My ONLY point was that the forces that Isaac mentioned were much greater than he alluded to. That's it. I'm well aware that the anchor that holds a fall, even statically, still takes anywhere from 1.6 to roughly 1.8 times the force that the climber feels. The belayer feels about 2/3 of the force that the climber feels. Guess what? I don't have to be a goddamned engineer to know that you're arguing a point that was never made.

How about figuring out an equation that defines the direct correlation between your compulsion to spray about your academic accolades and your pompous prickish behavior.

I would like you to quote where I said the anchor only feels one side of the rope's fall or that the behavior of the rope, excluding dynamic stretch differs statically and dynamically. Please tell me where I even so much as hinted at any of the things that you feel warrants this unrelenting nerd pomp:

Tony B wrote:
Uhhhh... No. Not only is the math wrong, but your boundary conditions are set up all wrong. Double check and try again. If you don't find the problems, I'll explain. Meanwhile,


Back at the unjustifiably arrogant nerd cave...

Tony B wrote:
You obviously do not know what I am talking about


Presumptuous and pompous. Obviously I do. I just drink beer and get laid every once in a while so it only looks like I'm not smart.

Tony B wrote:
Your response to my deliberate attempt to get you to even think about the simplest part of your system for yourself was ironic and the tone undeserved


The irony, paradoxical nature and hypocrisy of this sentence is enough, in Dan Aykroyd's words, to "suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro."

Tony B wrote:
You and the guy you were "correcting" are BOTH missing the point that the rope has 2 ends, and both pull downward with equal force on the same piece. He was obviously wrong. So are you if you equate rope tension to force on a placement.


Rule number one: If you start out "correcting" someone with a smartass "uhhhh, no.", you then do not afford yourself the opportunity to point out a lesser deficiency of the same nature to someone else. In other words: More hypocrisy. Rule number two: You should probably wait to proclaim someone wrong until they actually say something wrong and not just "if" they happen to agree sometime in the future.

Tony B wrote:
Let me spell that out for you... There is a second lesson here too.


LOL. Record yourself saying these things out loud then play it back; and let's see if you can learn a lesson.

Tony B wrote:
Everyone is an expert on the internet, right? But I bet only one of us taught mechanics to engineers at a university and does mechanical failure analysis work for a living. And I don't think it is you, so please give that a long hard thought before flaming someone or even dismissing them lightly on the net


Uuhhh... scroll up smartass. Who flamed who first with a demeaning pompous tone? I just said he was incorrect. I didn't start a sentence belittling the guy like I was talking to a retard. Shitbird.

FLAG
By DBarton
From CENTENNIAL, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Moab, Potash Road and Ice Cream Parlor
muttonface wrote:
My ONLY point was that the forces that Isaac mentioned were much greater than he alluded to. That's it. I'm well aware that the anchor that holds a fall, even statically, still takes anywhere from 1.6 to roughly 1.8 times the force that the climber feels. The belayer feels about 2/3 of the force that the climber feels. Guess what? I don't have to be a goddamned engineer to know that you're arguing a point that was never made. How about figuring out an equation that defines the direct correlation between your compulsion to spray about your academic accolades and your pompous prickish behavior. I would like you to quote where I said the anchor only feels one side of the rope's fall or that the behavior of the rope, excluding dynamic stretch differs statically and dynamically. Please tell me where I even so much as hinted at any of the things that you feel warrants this unrelenting nerd pomp: Back at the unjustifiably arrogant nerd cave... Presumptuous and pompous. Obviously I do. I just drink beer and get laid every once in a while so it only looks like I'm not smart. The irony, paradoxical nature and hypocrisy of this sentence is enough, in Dan Aykroyd's words, to "suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro." Rule number one: If you start out "correcting" someone with a smartass "uhhhh, no.", you then do not afford yourself the opportunity to point out a lesser deficiency of the same nature to someone else. In other words: More hypocrisy. Rule number two: You should probably wait to proclaim someone wrong until they actually say something wrong and not just "if" they happen to agree sometime in the future. LOL. Record yourself saying these things out loud then play it back; and let's see if you can learn a lesson. Uuhhh... scroll up smartass. Who flamed who first with a demeaning pompous tone? I just said he was incorrect. I didn't start a sentence belittling the guy like I was talking to a retard. Shitbird.



BAM!!

FLAG
By Cory
From Boise, ID
Jan 17, 2012
Relaxing in the Tuttle Creek Campground after a fun day in the Hills
Isaac Dority wrote:
A body free falling for a distance of around 7 feet will atain a velocity of around 21.2 feet per second at the end of seven feet.


Correct.

Isaac Dority wrote:
At this point the rope will begin to take weight and stretch. A static stretch factor of around 30% could be assumed for most modern ropes. With about 25 feet out, this means that Phil fell for an adittional 7.5 feet before stopping. During this deceleration his force maxed out at around 139.78 lbs.


Close, but not quite. Assuming a uniform deceleration, he will need to decelerate at a=(21.2ft/s)^2/(2*7.5ft) = 30ft/s^2. For this to occur the RESULTANT force on the climber will need to be F=ma=(4.69slugs)(30ft/s^2)~140lbs, which is what you said. But you stopped one step short. In order for the RESULTANT force on the climber to be 140#, the force in the rope needs to equal 140# plus any other downward vertical force acting on the climber (gravity). Thus the tension in the rope will be about 140 + 150 = 290#.

Assuming the belay side of the rope takes 2/3 of the climber side tension due to friction, the force on the nut would be 1.67x290=484#, or about 2.2KN.

Yes I'm a nerd.

Cheers,
Cory

FLAG
By Boissal
From Small Lake, UT
Jan 17, 2012
muttonface wrote:
How about figuring out an equation that defines the direct correlation between your compulsion to spray about your academic accolades and your pompous prickish behavior.


Bravo.

FLAG
 
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
Cory wrote:
Correct. Close, but not quite. Assuming a uniform deceleration, he will need to decelerate at a=(21.2ft/s)^2/(2*7.5ft) = 30ft/s^2. For this to occur the RESULTANT force on the climber will need to be F=ma=(4.69slugs)(30ft/s^2)~140lbs, which is what you said. But you stopped one step short. In order for the RESULTANT force on the climber to be 140#, the force in the rope needs to equal 140# plus any other downward vertical force acting on the climber (gravity). Thus the tension in the rope will be about 140 + 150 = 290#. Assuming the belay side of the rope takes 2/3 of the climber side tension due to friction, the force on the nut would be 1.67x290=484#, or about 2.2KN. Yes I'm a nerd. Cheers, Cory


Awesome.

FLAG
By Ogre
Jan 17, 2012
NNEEEEEEEERRRRDDDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

FLAG
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
Stan says no.
Stan says no.

FLAG
By Ogre
Jan 17, 2012

FLAG
By MegaGaper2000
From Indianola, Wa
Jan 17, 2012
the dragon's tail, or dragon's tooth, or whatever. And me.
Phil Lauffen wrote:
However, we were not able to remove the nut. ... If someone is able to remove it from Captain Natural I would love to have it back


Who ever heard of asking pirates to return BOOTY?!

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
As for the technical difficulties, I have the following response:
muttonface wrote:
Also, a lead fall of 7-9ft is 100% of the time going to put at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection and the probability that a fall of that length will produce at least 1kn of force on the piece fallen on is very high (unless the climber is absolutely tiny).


I didn't say he was right, I said he was wrong before you even posted. I said, furthermore, that your correction of him was also off by at least a factor of two, a point which you can either concede right now and step down of the "I'm right" soap box, or continue to defend... I advise the former.

If you didn't read your own post, then you missed this:
muttonface wrote:
Also, a lead fall of 7-9ft is 100% of the time going to put at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection...

Much more informed and intelligent would have been to say:
"at the very least twice the weight of the climber on the protection"

So I told you to balance the forces and said that EVEN HANGING STATICALLY it is twice the weight of the climber on the gear (not just once) and so a fall would certainly not be the weight of a climber, but more than twice the weight on a climber. And you proceeded to insist 1) that you indeed knew what I was talking about and 2) you were right. Well you were wrong on both counts.

If you are going to pick a fight with a nerd, you should be more careful. Your effort to barf up a bunch of stupid insults doesn't make your correction of him any more right or your attempt to rebut my correction of you any more right.

Both force applied by a dead weight and a fall, regardless of the movement of the rope, are "static" so far as the protection is concerned. In both cases, the protection is in a force balanced state and is not being propelled into space. And if a static "rest" on gear produces twice the weight of the climber, then most certainly saying that a fall produces
muttonface wrote:
at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection...
is ignorant.

FLAG
By Tony B
From Around Boulder, CO
Jan 17, 2012
Got Milk? How about forearm pump? Tony leads "Alan Nelson's Bulging Belly" (5.10, X) on the Lost and Found Flatiron. Belayer is Mark Ruocco. Photo by Bill Wright, 10/06.
As for the soundbytes, then I say the following:

First 2 rules when you don't know what you or the other guy is talking about:
#1) Don't say:
muttonface wrote:
Idk what you're talking about.

#2) Don't bring foul language into it, IE:
muttonface wrote:
comparing static weight to a lead fall is like comparing assholes and oranges.

unless you want a proportionally disrespectful response.

muttonface wrote:
I'm well aware that the anchor that holds a fall, even statically, still takes anywhere from 1.6 to roughly 1.8 times the force that the climber feels. The belayer feels about 2/3 of the force that the climber feels.

You want a nerd war? OK.
Should I even point out why that isn't right either? You are trying to look smart here, but you are failing. What is the difference between what the belayer "feels" and what happens at the gear if the difference is friction? Your 'model' is wrong again. You don't look much smarter for trying to equate the belayer and the protection, if you get right down to it. The closest thing to what is going on one one side of the protection is what is going on on the other side, unless there is only one piece of protection. And even then, now YOU are settling in dynamic and static friction and confusing hanging with falling. I was just saying that in any case you need to balance the forces in a system, no matter your system, and I simplified that to static as an example to make it easier to understand. It is not difficult to follow the logic that if hanging produces about twice the force of the weight of a climber, then stating that falling produces at least that force (as opposed to twice that force) is a poorly considered statement.

muttonface wrote:
I would like you to quote where I said the anchor only feels one side of the rope's fall or that the behavior of the rope, excluding dynamic stretch differs statically and dynamically.

OK, If you insist:
muttonface wrote:
Also, a lead fall of 7-9ft is 100% of the time going to put at the very least the weight of the climber on the protection...

There I have done your bidding. Do you feel better?
You should have said 'at the very least nearly twice the weight.'

muttonface wrote:
I just drink beer and get laid every once in a while so it only looks like I'm not smart.

It might be one of the reasons, but its always been my experience that people that are smart have no trouble at all drinking beer and getting laid. They just don't bring it up in the context of force balance modeling...
There are a multitude of reasons why that supposed 'contrasting characterization' of me is funny. I won't bother listing them. But then again, you didn't know anything about a force model and kept talking... So why should I be surprised that you don't know anything about me, but keep talking? It seems to be a pattern for you.

muttonface wrote:
Rule number two: You should probably wait to proclaim someone wrong until they actually say something wrong and not just "if" they happen to agree sometime in the future.

Ummm... you said something wrong. Several times now. Keep it up.

FLAG
By Crag Dweller
From New York, NY
Jan 17, 2012
My navigator keeps me from getting lost
So, would one of the nerds please get to the point? Will the plastic nuts withstand the forces generated by a fall or not?

FLAG
 
By Jake Jones
From Richmond, VA
Jan 17, 2012
Me and the offspring walking back to the car after a day of cragging.
Jesus. Isaac stated that the forces on the nut were around 139 lbs. I thought that was way low, given that Phil took a lead fall; which is why I said AT THE VERY LEAST. Great with math apparently... English, not so much. That is the only point I made. "At the very least" means just that. In fact, if you have mastered the English language it actually implies that by stating the very bare minimum, much more is very feasible and highly likely. I'm sorry you got asshurt to the point of spewing your academic resume only to disprove a technical point that was never uttered. I retire from this flamefest as I would have better luck trying to discern the page number of a history textbook that a 70 year old Alzheimer's victim read when he was 13.

Have a swell evening.




LOL
LOL

FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>