What about all-galvanized hardware?

John Byrnes wrote:

It may seem so but that is not the case.  It performs better than 304 but 316 in a seaside environment will also corrode, due to SRB, sometimes in only a few years.  What's worse is that the corrosion can be invisible; hidden behind the hanger so the bolt looks fine.  The advantage of a galvanized bolt is that you can see the rust once the Zn is consumed and know that it is no longer safe and needs to be replaced, but you'll quickly tire of rebolting routes.

A few decades ago in Brazil they used a lot of thick mild-steel "pitons" in their seaside cliffs.  The ethic and practice, then and there, was to carry a few new ones with you and replace the ones that were rusted and scary.  But the community got really tired of having to constantly replace them.  So they used the same design but switched to Stainless expecting to end their rebolting burden. When they switched to stainless steel, they found that the SS bolts would still break, sometimes without warning, after only a few years.  They were pissed!  They'd spent a lot of weekends and money and STILL had to replace the bolts -- more often than the mild steel ones!

So if you want to do it right, and NOT have to do it again, use Ti in all seaside environments and learn from the Brazilians' mistake.

Sample of the stainless Brazil "pitons" I was sent.

Even though I believe David's work is excellent, I'm still not convinced about 316 not being affected.  For one thing, there has been lots of hardware stamped "316" that, when analyzed, is not!! Secondly, Angele Sjong analyzed a cracked hanger from Thailand that was clearly 316L*.  

Having rebolted several dozen stainless steel routes, hundreds of bolts, with Ti on Cayman Brac, I wouldn't consider placing 316 there for a microsecond.  

* Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 2008, 8;410-418  DOI 10.1007/s11668-008-9158-1  Peer reviewed.

"Marine Atmospheric SCC of Unsensitized Stainless Steel Rock Climbing Protection"  

Didn't Davids testing show that most all failed 316 bolts were like not 316 at all? Maybe that was David's conclusion? I just remember him, or someone basically showing under the microscope that the failed 316 was likely 304 and that basically MFGs were not testing to confirm their metal stock is in fact the 316 they were being sold?

Either way, I fully support the best practice of Ti only in seaside environments..... because if MFGs are being sold bunk / low quality 316, it really makes any installation of 316 a faith based install and that's not enough for me!

wivanoff wrote:

For future reference try this using Google:

galvenized or zinc site:mountainproject.com

Thanks.  That's a  good tip.

Past User wrote:

I’m super interested to hear everyone’s thoughts regarding the newest Dewalt/Powers 1/2” 304 SS 5-piece bolts actually having a sneaky galvanized cone? I have heard it was to increase the KN’s of the bolt’s tension strength- because the carbon steel deforms and “bites-in”.

Cause for galvanic corrosion concern and or avoiding these bolt type? Why or why not?

Has something changed? The ss powers/dewalt 5 peice sleeve bolt has had a zinc plated 304 SS cone since as long as I can remember.  Are you mistakenly assuming that because it's zinc plated that the cone itself is carbon steel rather than SS?

DrRockso RRG wrote:

Has something changed? The ss powers/dewalt 5 peice sleeve bolt has had a zinc plated 304 SS cone since as long as I can remember.  Are you mistakenly assuming that because it's zinc plated that the cone itself is carbon steel rather than SS?

zinc plated *303 SS expander cone

Mr Rogers wrote:

Didn't Davids testing show that most all failed 316 bolts were like not 316 at all? Maybe that was David's conclusion? I just remember him, or someone basically showing under the microscope that the failed 316 was likely 304 and that basically MFGs were not testing to confirm their metal stock is in fact the 316 they were being sold?

Either way, I fully support the best practice of Ti only in seaside environments..... because if MFGs are being sold bunk / low quality 316, it really makes any installation of 316 a faith based install and that's not enough for me!

Yes, that is where I have got to. I do think there has been an improvement in the quality of steel of late, but the fact remains, that the importance of price to the the dirt bag climber puts a downward pressure on the quality of bar stock as purchased by the manufacturer. The base cost of nickel fluctuates, and this fact alone dictates what happens in the recycled stainless steel market. When you are offered some dirt cheap stainless steel, it is always worth reflecting why it would be offered at this price when its scrap nickel value was higher?

My memory is still somewhat trustworthy!

Can't say it enough David, thanks for the work you have done around this topic.
I have talked to couple folks who spec stainless components for major construction projects, and both claimed to me that most 316 is in fact not, but they only really verify components that are absolutely critical to be what they are said to be.....

DrRockso RRG wrote:

Has something changed? The ss powers/dewalt 5 peice sleeve bolt has had a zinc plated 304 SS cone since as long as I can remember.  Are you mistakenly assuming that because it's zinc plated that the cone itself is carbon steel rather than SS?

Good to know! Yes I hade assumed it was not SS 303 under the galvanizing!

Thanks to you and Jim for chiming in.

DrRockso RRG wrote:

Has something changed? The ss powers/dewalt 5 peice sleeve bolt has had a zinc plated 304 SS cone since as long as I can remember.  Are you mistakenly assuming that because it's zinc plated that the cone itself is carbon steel rather than SS?

Yes I had ASSumed (and heard) it was galvanized carbon steel. Thanks to you and Jim for chiming in with the deets.