Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
CozGrove:
"I work close with BD when they design the belay loop and prior to that with Tom Jones the man who design the current BD belay loop. We disagreed on bar tacking through two or three layers.
So again what I'm saying is a fact and you sir either have an agenda or you are completely stupid and blind."
True dat, the facts at least. But your conclusion...
The belay loop is the strongest part of any (modern) harness, BD's efforts included. Mostly, because it is EASY to make that 5000 lbs. It is also true that using the same webbing, we could have gotten 10,000 lbs out of it by tacking through all 3 layers. So what? Other companies use thinner webbing and tack through all 3 layers - so what?
Lots of shade-tree engineers pontificating about stuff that makes no difference at all. We achieved what we wanted to out of the BD belay loop: robust strength, substantial durability, and a specific stiffness that makes using it easy. As I remember, our main disagreement was that Coz wanted the belay loop a lot softer - the consensus of climbers on the design committee went the other way.
The bartacks go through two layers. The third layer adds stiffness and protection.
Bartacking through three layers would be close to impossible. Certainly it would add considerably to the cost with no benefit to the consumer. Some people will and do prefer a less-stiff belay loop. Twenty-three years on, I'm pretty happy with that decision.
Tom
|
|
Old5Ten
Trad climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
from the bd website (http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/sustainability.html);:
The BD Asia global distribution center is a 70,000-square-foot warehouse attached to our BD-operated manufacturing and office facilities, and allows us to aggregate the shipping of all of the BD goods made by or for us throughout Asia. This means fewer shipments, greater efficiency, higher inventory turns and a blessing for our global distributors and key retailers. It also greatly reduces the size of our global shipping energy footprint.
The product manufactured by our subsidiary in China is sea-freighted to our Europe warehouse in Basel. The product is first transported by container ship to Rotterdam and then transferred to canal barges. The CO2 footprint is several times lower than for air-freighted product.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Are the nuts still made in Utah? Thousands every year.
oh....wait....you meant climbing hardware! I thought you meant people.
Grigri is obviously unfit for rappelling for the reasons stated earlier. You WANT to reduce the impact force on both the rope and the anchor, not to mention your gonads. That is achieved by gradually reducing your speed.
I always tie into the rope around my leg loops and belt. Not through the belay loop. Consider the proper use of the belay loop: belaying someone. It has no redundancy for anchoring. By the way, the belay loop is a fairly recent invention. Late 80's maybe?
When you arrive at the anchor, things get interesting. Locking 'biner through the belay loop is quick and reasonably safe IF there's no chance of a high fall factor fall. But it's nearly always better to anchor with your "knot of choice" directly in the rope.
I anchor with a girth hitched runner around leg loop and belt loop when I need to untie for some reason. And then I'm very very careful. I will ask my partner to double check if it's dark or nasty weather etc.
As for failed harnesses. I'm afraid that's only a result of overuse or maltreatment.
now back to your usual programming
Edit: "Made in China"?? Meh.....Nearly all of Apple's products are made in China. And they are among the most reliable of their kind. It all depends on HOW the supply chain is managed. Although there are of course many inferior products from China (and the US) when cost becomes more important than quality.
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
Mucci dit:
"Ha!
Ratagonia bring us the TRUTH!!!
Are they, or are they not manufacturing in China?
The move was to save operating cost, or increase quality?
Are the nuts still made in Utah?"
First of all, in 1990 when BD was born, some products were made in the USA, and some were made in Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan, Italy, etc. Since I was there then, I know as much about the general manufacturing plan as my poor memory allows. Some stuff made in USA, some stuff made elsewhere. Just as you would expect of a $10 million dollar company.
I left BD in 2002 - I like to say we came to a mutual misunderstanding. So I know what the manufacturing plan was then, and less about where each item is placed now, but I can give my best guesses.
Yes, BD is manufacturing in China. But the statement was incorrect. BD also manufactures packs and harnesses in the Philippines, and other stuff in various places around the globe. Simple blanket statements not so useful.
"The move was to save operating cost, or increase quality?" Yes.
It's complicated. Right now my new company is placing my canyoneering packs in a factory in Shanghai. Is it to save cost or to increase quality? Well, yes. I can get finished packs made in China and delivered to my doorstep for approximately what it costs to buy the materials in the USA. I have been shopping my simplest products in the US and continue to find prices that are 50% higher than what I can get from China LDP, PLUS I would have to spend 10 hours a week on production tasks, PLUS I would likely not get the quality I want.
BD had a sewing plant in Utah for harnesses and tents for a long long time, run by Peater W of Gramicci fame. It was a super-efficient operation with steady demand, etc. etc. - everything you could ask for to make a sewing operation efficient. We finally closed that down in 2002 because we could no longer get materials in the USA. When the basic industrial base goes elsewhere, it is then impossible to make the final product.
That's not to say there are not products that can be made successfully in the USA, if done smartly. BD manufactures some products in Utah because it is the smart thing to do, to achieve the quality needed, and the price points desired. I understand the wired nuts are in this category. But there are a LOT of products that just cannot be made competitively here in the USA. Get over it. This is the real world.
Tom
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
"I always tie into the rope around my leg loops and belt. Not through the belay loop. Consider the proper use of the belay loop: belaying someone. It has no redundancy for anchoring. By the way, the belay loop is a fairly recent invention. Late 80's maybe?"
About 1984, Bill Forrest
Many would not consider that "recent". I consider it the birth of the modern harness.
Tom
|
|
miwuksurfer
Social climber
Mi-Wuk
|
|
But there are a LOT of products that just cannot be made competitively here in the USA. Get over it. This is the real world.
I got over it a long time ago. That is why I buy Metolius cams, Misty Mountain and Yates harnesses, and Rock Exotica biners.
|
|
scooter
climber
fist clamp
|
|
Buying gear that is not made in the USA for a completely useless and selfish sport is REALLY stupid and wasteful. Can't believe climbers buy BD crap anymore. If one has a choice between having gear made with poor ethics and zero regard for the environment (BD) or lets say gear produced to the US EPA standards by people who live in the USA and need the work (metolius)....I would say the choice is pretty clear.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
Buying gear that is not made in the USA for a completely useless and selfish sport is REALLY stupid and wasteful. Can't believe climbers buy BD crap anymore. If one has a choice between having gear made with poor ethics and zero regard for the environment (BD) or lets say gear produced to the US EPA standards by people who live in the USA and need the work (metolius)....I would say the choice is pretty clear.
Tru dat!
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Ratagonia
We don't need to get over anything...just don't buy black diamond
|
|
AlanDoak
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
One afternoon I was slacklining with my buddies on 1" tubular webbing that had a ~10% nick in it. Over the course of the session, we abused that line: bouncing, jumping, surfing, retensioning, 2-3 slackers at once.... The nick slowly grew and frayed way out and eventually broke. It was not a sudden catastrophic failure, we watched it slowly get worse and worse while amazed that the line was still holding. The 777lbf capacity of the 90% cut loop doesn't surprise me all that much.
The forces on our slackline were way higher than you could ever generate in a rappeling event. Even with a factor 2 fall on a spectra runner, your spine and giblets would compress before reaching those forces.
Excluding UV and chemical damage, it's hard for me to imagine a belay loop breaking that looks even remotely ok. I guess we'll never know exactly why it broke.
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
CraZY StufF.
Does anyone have an example of another belay loop breaking in the field? The reason we talk about this accident is because it was unique, or practically so.
As a person who knew Todd, I was greatly saddened, but not greatly surprised. I've known quite a few dirt-bag climbers who "got the most" out of their gear. But Todd took that way way way past "reasonable".
I thought it was also clear that the way he rigged his jugs locked the belay loop into a specific location. And then he did a bunch of jugging, which saws across that point. All these factors combined = not a huge surprise.
Tom
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
In the early 70's I tested overlaps sewed with a speedy stitcher. The sewing causes the sling material to be compressed and hard as iron. I would think sewing through three webbing thicknesses would result in the needle doing more damage to the sling material and might actually result in lower strength. It is a tradeoff. The sling material is not the weak point in an overlap after all.
I used a stitch in a box pattern. When I pulled simple overlaps, failure occurred slowly and the ends of the overlap raised up. Leading me to believe the elastic stretch in the overlap length added to the elongation of the sewn thread and progressive failure of the thread starting at the overlap ends. I got considerably stronger overlaps when I inserted one tubular sling inside of the other before sewing. It was quite striking.
What I observed led me to believe bar tacks would be better.
The waist loop of a harness is mechanically simple. The rest of the harness is not simple. If you want to be sure there will be no failure you rely on simple components. Based on simplicity, I never made something like a belay loop essential to my safety or the safety of anyone else.
Lester Germer refused to retire his thirty year old rope because it had never failed him. A new rope is untested and may fail. Todd's harness had never failed him, after all the punishment he gave it.
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
Coz:
"Hope ur well, good to see you chiming in here. Maybe you can put Labrat at ease.
A. I feel a 5000 lb test belay loop break down far quicker than 10000 lb test belay loop. Seeing as Todd broke the strongest belay loop on the market Arteryx, my argument seems to hold some water. Can't even remember the hard soft issue, LOL...
B. Perhaps you would like to address why you split the overlay at the tie in point?"
Thanks Coz. You can see why I rarely chime in here. I got enough haters to deal with over on the canyoneering forums...
A. The expected normal load on a belay loop is gonna be mostly 200 lbs, with occasional forays into the 600 lb arena. This is well below what I would consider the "fatigue limit" of the 5000 lb belay loop, thus I don't think doubling the strength really effects the durability. I think they are independent properties.
The ONLY belay loop that we know of that has broken in the field is one that had an original rating of 10k lbs - so the ONLY data point we have tends to make your argument suspicious. It is not a good idea to draw conclusions from exactly ONE data point.
B. I'm unclear on what design detail you are talking about here, so if you'd like to clarify what it is you're talking about, I'd be glad to respond. (Heading out the door for a week, 4 hours ago!)
Tom
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
Coz: "Also, Todd like many Wyoming boys was no dirt bag, he had money and sponsors it is beyond the pale, that he was using that harness when he had a wife and kids."
A sad deal. He had a HABIT of being a dirtbag climber. Habits are hard to break. I remember when he would come into the shop in the old Jrat Boulder days, I'd ask to see his harness, and immediately give him a new one and take the old one away. If you didn't take the old one away, he would continue to climb on it.
Tom
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ratagonia
Everything you say is so true .....
|
|
AE
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
Interesting capsule history of harnesses, seasoned with light flaming. Forrest used bartacks, likely as that machine was available; seems there was a famous incident which revealed an inherent weakness in bar tacks, when a biner clipped into a leg loop for a belay (maybe the CMC belay tower?) ripped the thing apart. Turned out the bar tack was fine in-line, but awful when pulled to separate two layers. Of course, making micro-light harnesses has the advantage that no one would trust a leg loop for an anchor point, now?
I used 2" tubular web, wrapped twice, tied with water knot, for a swami - would have likely broken most test machines of that era. Point missed by many here is safe equipment outside the climbing bubble specifies "safe working load" which typically is no more than 10 - 20% of the maximum test. Climbing gear generally leaves much narrower margins, especially when worst-case scenarios add multiple factors all conspiring to weaken the critical link further. Wet/frozen ropes are weaker than clean dry ones, then run it across a sharp edge, then drag it sideways, under factor 1 fall load, on the one occasion in your life when you have one second to think gee, maybe this rope should have been replaced 5 years ago. . .
In regard to harness design, one gripe I have is, why is the actual final waist webbing a single flat piece usually only 1", weakened further by a tight buckle pass? Where's the redundancy there? Suppose one is belaying off the discussed belay loop directly, the leader climbs ten feet above your belay without clipping anything first, then falls, that is a factor 2 fall directly onto same belay loop and lonely 1" waist web. Amazing more incidents like this don't occur with disastrous results.
Most climbers don't think like scientists, and the few who do behave as everyone else, i.e. familiarity breeds contempt - this marginal jury-rigged system worked last week, or last year, so it most likely will work one more time. Until it doesn't.
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
|
Werner - I am honored to be spoken of well by you.
AE: Forrest used bartacks, likely as that machine was available;
Tom: Forrest used Box-Xs, as that was the cam on his 'bartacking machine'. That machine then went to the Boulder Mountaineer and got a bartack cam, then came to Jrat under the watchful eye of person-extraodinaire Kyle Copeland.
AE: seems there was a famous incident which revealed an inherent weakness in bar tacks, when a biner clipped into a leg loop for a belay (maybe the CMC belay tower?) ripped the thing apart. Turned out the bar tack was fine in-line, but awful when pulled to separate two layers.
TOM: speaking as a scientist, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. The problem is not with the bartack, per se, but with pulling on ANY assemblage with big forces in an unanticipated way. Are you talking the REI-harness blowout under a bridge in Oregon? Tied off to one ear of a two-ear type harness? Sad case but...
AE: Of course, making micro-light harnesses has the advantage that no one would trust a leg loop for an anchor point, now?
TOM: Good. On any harness, you should not trust the leg loop as an anchor point, period.
AE: I used 2" tubular web, wrapped twice, tied with water knot, for a swami - would have likely broken most test machines of that era.
TOM: do you have the disc and back problems that many experienced as a result of taking falls on a swami? A very dangerous way of attaching a human body to a rope!
TOM: (snarky) - Tensile Test machines come in many different flavors, from ones designed to test thread (max = 20 lbsf) to ones designed to test crane parts (max = 100,000 lbsf). Since the human body is capable of taking about 10kN max (2250 lbs), that your swami can take 15,000 lbsf is rather a non-sequitor. Thinking like a scientist includes identifying what is important and what is irrelevant. (/snark)
AE: Point missed by many here is safety equipment outside the climbing bubble specifies "safe working load" which typically is no more than 10 - 20% of the maximum test.
TOM: SWL / Safe Working Load is a different system for stating the same thing - how strong something is. It is a system used in construction based on protocols for how cranes n sh#t are used. The SWL is calculated by taking the minimum breaking strength and dividing by 5 (though the factor might vary for different pieces of equipment). In climbing we use a different system where we just report the minimum breaking strength. Your point shows a misunderstanding of what SWL means.
AE: Climbing gear generally leaves much narrower margins, especially when worst-case scenarios add multiple factors all conspiring to weaken the critical link further. Wet/frozen ropes are weaker than clean dry ones, then run it across a sharp edge, then drag it sideways, under factor 1 fall load, on the one occasion in your life when you have one second to think gee, maybe this rope should have been replaced 5 years ago. . .
TOM: not really. For evidence I provide ANAM which shows many people dying from many factors, but equipment failure is extremely rare. My climbing system is good for 2500 lbs, yet, even if I have that fourth doublebock and balloon up to 250 lbs, I still have a 10:1 safety margin. The safety margin in climbing and in the SWL system ACCOUNTS for all those crazy normal things that happen - that why both systems HAVE a safety margin built in.
But at least we agree that that rope should have been tossed out 5 years ago!
AE: In regard to harness design, one gripe I have is, why is the actual final waist webbing a single flat piece usually only 1", weakened further by a tight buckle pass? Where's the redundancy there? Suppose one is belaying off the discussed belay loop directly, the leader climbs ten feet above your belay without clipping anything first, then falls, that is a factor 2 fall directly onto same belay loop and lonely 1" waist web.
TOM: Because it works?
AE: Amazing more incidents like this don't occur with disastrous results.
TOM: Can you pull out ANAM and point to a single incident??? This is the data that shows that it works.
AE: Most climbers don't think like scientists,
TOM: perhaps I think more like an engineer. We have a huge supply of data that shows that this system works quite well; therefore we have proved scientifically that your hypothesis is not true. Publish, go find another grant...
AE: and the few who do behave as everyone else, i.e. familiarity breeds contempt - this marginal jury-rigged system worked last week, or last year, so it most likely will work one more time. Until it doesn't.
TOM: "jury-rigged" - You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
Yes, it is good for people to think and understand about the systems that protect their lives when we go climbing. But, quite frankly, the UIAA and climbing manufacturers recognized, quite some time ago, that having everyone jury-rig their own systems, everyone be their own engineer, was not a good idea. The ultimate end of this is Sport Climbing, of course, but that is not my point. The point is that the system of engineering and standards (with the help of Zeus and Ba'al looking after fools and drunks) has been successful at creating a gear system that is pretty darn safe!
Despite the tendency of the climbing community to cling to 'it worked before' thinking, and to latch onto erroneous rumors about how to use gear, such as the one about not trusting your belay loop. So please, stop promoting rumors. Please, promote understanding and knowledge based in actual testing and engineering.
Thanks for the soapbox. Back to you, Coz...
|
|
MassiveD
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2014 - 09:44pm PT
|
"Despite the tendency of the climbing community to cling to 'it worked before' thinking, and to latch onto erroneous rumors about how to use gear, such as the one about not trusting your belay loop. So please, stop promoting rumors. Please, promote understanding and knowledge based in actual testing and engineering."
Too true, though 90% of the environment is improvised even if the main gear is well described in some literature. One wants to rely on the science, but not to the point that one looses the ability to rig for oneself.
There is something a little odder at play in these situations than cheapness. The loop could have been backed up with a knotted loop, in under a minute at any time. So whatever the motivation really is, thrills, styling etc... It can't really be put down to performance or cheapness. Some people may not be comfortable knotting their own gear, but that can hardly be the case for a pro.
Anyway, just tracking various Juki threads, back to work.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!