Home - Destinations - iPhone/Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Two Opposite and Opposed Carabiners: Possibly Weaker Than a Single Carabiner
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Nov 17, 2013

Spri wrote:
My problem with this is the validity of the test. I wish 20KN would have posted the "study". All he posted was a video, and you cant tell much by that.

The OP did not post much more than what I included. But here is the link to the Facebook group where I got the info from: https://www.facebook.com/groups/RopeTestLab/


FLAG
By David Coley
From UK
Nov 18, 2013

20 kN wrote:
I actually tried to replicate the results using two oval solid-gate non-lockers, and I couldent break the gates. I'll try with some lockers. What is a snap gate?


A snap gate is just another word for a non locker


FLAG
By seth williamson
Nov 22, 2013

None of these test are very relevant considering that a force of 5kn is enough to kill you.


FLAG
By seth williamson
Nov 22, 2013

Ray Pinpillage wrote:
This is why I only top rope with 7 HMS biners.

lol I use all 12 that I own. safety first. i also climb with a 20mm rope just in case


FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Nov 22, 2013
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W. <br />

Xam wrote:
This is all wankery anyway but the people that are saying that the loads are way higher then will ever be achieved on TR, while correct, are missing the point. The point is that the two opposite and opposed lockers failed at LESS THEN HALF of the rated strength of the individual lockers due to an interesting failure mode. These were steel biners rated to 50 kN. Scaling to a pair of nominal aluminum lockers rated to 24 kN would imply the same failure mode causing failure at something less than 12kN, which might be concerning. This, of course, scales even lower for lower rated non-lockers, which might be more susceptible to this failure mode. This is 20kN's point.


No. This is not his point. Reread the op. The gates of locking biners prevent the biners from hanging flush. When subjected to high loads, the gates get forced together leading to their failure. So, you cannot make any direct correlation to non locking biners that hang flush.

If you want to draw any conclusion, it is that biners that don't hang flush and forced together by a load, may lead to premature gate failure leaving the biner in a situation similar to open gate.

So, two aluminum lockers, gate open strength of 6kN each: Exceeding 12kN = moot point for top rope. Hard to achieve even in a lead fall. Then again, who takes a lead fall onto two opposite and opposed lockers.

Bearbreeder's points emphasize this thread is fun conversation but not relevant to real world scenarios.


FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Nov 23, 2013
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W. <br />

seth williamson wrote:
None of these test are very relevant considering that a force of 5kn is enough to kill you.


Incorrect. But, we are not talking about the force on the climber. We are talking about the force on an anchor that could cause its failure. So, any force that leads to anchor failure can kill you.


FLAG
By 20 kN
From Hawaii
Nov 23, 2013

seth williamson wrote:
None of these test are very relevant considering that a force of 5kn is enough to kill you.

It depends on how long you are subjected to the force. Exposure to 5G for an hour would kill you. But exposure to 5G for under 100mS (which is typical in rock climbing) is not dangerous at all (in most conditions). The UIAA allows for an impact force of up to 12kN for a reason. The military found that the maximum amount of force a paratrooper could withstand for a short burst is 12G. In racing collisions, drivers have survived very-short instances of force exceeding 100G, which for a 225 lb person would be 100kN.

As it relates to climbing, a climber subjected to 5kN in a lead fall is very unlikely to sustain an injury, let alone death.


FLAG
By Xam
From Boulder, Co
Nov 23, 2013

@ greg D...I am sorry I wasn't more clear but I agree with what you said in the previous post (the one referencing my earlier comment) and don't think what I wrote is in opposition, just making a more general point perhaps unclearly. If you read what I wrote later it might become clear that I understand your points and agree with them.

I still think it is interesting to show how two opposite and opposed biners can fail at a load less then a single biner due to open gate failure from this kind of gate loading. I think it does apply to wire gate opposite and opposed ovals as I have seen the photos of them both opening simultaneously under top rope loads. And yes I agree that this will virtually never happen and the loads to cause both biners to fail are higher then would be observed in a TR...thus, why I called it wankery (i.e. an interesting discourse with little real world application).

To reiterate: I agree with what you are saying, never disagreed, and think that any failure to communicate these things is due to a lack of clarity and specificity in my previous points due perhaps to the medium of communication. I did not mean to draw any general conclusions with my posts...just trying to make clear to people that were dismissing the OP out of hand that they might have been missing the point.


FLAG
By OAW
Nov 23, 2013

So yes this is interesting, but not a myth and easily explainable. First the strength of the carabiner is strongest along its spine correct? So if you start moving that force farther away from the spine like when using smaller width spectra slings or a single rope compared to a 1 inch wide nylon sling you will start to see your minimum breaking strengths go down tremendously. Almost in half depend on the shapes of the carabiner. Pear shaped and some d-shaped carabiners have been seen to do this more. This was also the topic of some recent ITRS presentation over the last couple of years and has been reproduced numerous times in slow pull tests. The thing is is that if you understand the physics of carabiners especially in rescue situations using a two person load on static ropes, you will never even remotely approach half the MBS of carabiners if you set up and use your systems appropriately. Which is why we only use 1 single locking carabiner usually > 26kn in our rescue systems. Two carabiners were found to be too redundant especially in systems that were set up appropriately. So now transfer that to rock climbing where we use dynamic ropes with one person loads. One locking carabiner is perfectly safe at your anchors as long as you are not threeway loading your locking carabiner. Now this is a very simple explanation to this so I suggest you take a rigging for rescue class to learn the facts and myths of climbing gear physics. Anyways I hope this helps. By the way we use single Petzl AMD lockers all through out our rescue systems with comfort, always knowing what forces our rescue systems will see. Also the human body starts to see tissue damage at 8 to 12 kn depending on the governing teasing agency. Take care and thanks for bringing this to the attention of the climbing community.

Matt


FLAG
By seth williamson
Nov 23, 2013

20 kN wrote:
It depends on how long you are subjected to the force. Exposure to 5G for an hour would kill you. But exposure to 5G for under 100mS (which is typical in rock climbing) is not dangerous at all (in most conditions). The UIAA allows for an impact force of up to 12kN for a reason. The military found that the maximum amount of force a paratrooper could withstand for a short burst is 12G. In racing collisions, drivers have survived very-short instances of force exceeding 100G, which for a 225 lb person would be 100kN. As it relates to climbing, a climber subjected to 5kN in a lead fall is very unlikely to sustain an injury, let alone death.



How do you figure that? 100kn = 22480.89 lbs. youre telling me that you can survive a force of 22480.89 lbs?


FLAG
By Buff Johnson
Nov 23, 2013
smiley face

i can kill a man with my pinkie toe


FLAG
By slim
Administrator
Nov 23, 2013
tomato, tomotto, kill mike amato.

seth williamson wrote:
How do you figure that? 100kn = 22480.89 lbs. youre telling me that you can survive a force of 22480.89 lbs?


20kN's explanation pretty much sums it up as simply as possible. i am trying to come up with another simple analogy/example. one way of looking at it is that you can have a very high peak load with a small duration, so the total energy under the curve might not be that much compared to a lower peak load with a long duration.

an example of this is in vehicle dynamics (i worked testing and modeling vehicle dynamics on high speed trains for almost 10 years). sometimes you have really high lateral loads at the wheel/rail interface due to transient pieces of track (say a joint in the track, point of turnout, frog, etc). these extremely short duration loads at the wheel/rail interface aren't necessarily a cause for concern because they are so quick that they don't really result in much lateral movement of the vehicle.

on the other hand, if you had the same lateral load and it was applied over a long duration (on the order of several seconds) you would be in the ditch for sure.

there are a ton of factors that play into this - speed/acceleration, mass, stiffness of the items, damping of the items, etc. a climber's body is fairly soft in terms of stiffness, particularly considering our ability to 'bend' versus the tie in point. with a short duration load, like a lead fall, our bodies dissipate much of the energy through movement/deformation.


FLAG
By Jim Titt
From Germany
Nov 23, 2013

seth williamson wrote:
None of these test are very relevant considering that a force of 5kn is enough to kill you.


Where on earth do you get that rubbish from? Zydrunas Savickas has lifted near enough that off the floor (504kg or 4.94kN).
Enough race drivers have survived over 100G and the record is over 200, F1 car cells are crash tested to 80G. Even airline seats these days are rated to 16G.


FLAG
By Tom Mulholland
From #1 Cheese Producing State!
Nov 23, 2013
Whiskey-a-Go-Go

OAW wrote:
Also the human body starts to see tissue damage at 8 to 12 kn depending on the governing teasing agency.


Please tell me how to get a job here.


FLAG
By Adam Stackhouse
Administrator
Nov 23, 2013
Courtright Reservoir, September 2013

I have used two opposing scary non-lockers all of my climbing career. I guess "I'm gonna die™"


FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 3 of 3.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3