Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
squishy
Mountain climber
sacramento
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 11:40am PT
|
So, what's the word?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Nov 25, 2009 - 08:31pm PT
|
Saw the title and thought that this might be about a jewish personal injury lawyer.
Glad everyone is OK.
Two lessons here;
1) back shlt up
2) Its good to have Clint Cummins on the taco.
|
|
Zoo
climber
Fremont, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2009 - 11:58am PT
|
I emailed Dave from Mammut again. He apologized for not following up andsaid he planned to be in Switzerland next week. He said he would look to see if any of the testing mentioned in my post from last July had been done. I'll try to follow up with him again in a couple of weeks.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
No cliffhanger, do not.
we already "litter" enough with hangers. we don't need extra pieces of shiney screw gates hanging there too.
use smooth radius hangers if you'd like. Start with replacing the old thin rusty hangers. may as well fix the bolt while at it.
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
|
|
I think that our gut instincts about a burlier carabiner being better than a light one are likely to be meaningless. There is so much design put into modern hardware you can't just eyeball it. It's better to trust the engineers and the testing labs and focus on the things you can manage best yourself, which is biner orientation, sling type and length and other factors.
In the OP, the biner which failed was the first one from the belay when the FF was the highest. One thing to consider in such situations is to use a locking carabiner on the bolt. I've climbed with guys who carry one or two draws with lockers and use them on their first one or two bolts, usually on slab climbs.
I doubt most people would consider doing this, but it is one solution.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
These ultra light biners can be great!
But I think there is a balance between mass and durability.
Take a look at this link:
http://www.omegapac.com/op_climbing_dash.html
it's built to take the punishment that might cripple other anorexic 'biners.
|
|
Zoo
climber
Fremont, CA
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 16, 2009 - 12:00pm PT
|
Here is the latest I received from Dave at Mammut.
If you look at the pictures you can see some patterns—the dynamic breaks with the gate open virtually always break in the same place, right where yours did. This is the most common type of break, as it takes far less of a load to break an open-gate biner, and if the load is somehow applied out onto the nose (i.e. not aligned directly along the spine) it can take a truly small load to break—it’s not common by any means but it is not unheard of. Closed-gate breaks are FAR less common and pretty much always show significant deformation of the overall carabiner shape, and on a pinned gate or a wiregate like this they pretty much always break on the nose of the carabiner, as you see in the photo.
Generally in a real climbing situation it isn’t realistic to generate that much load in a static manner until you get into wacky hauling situations, etc.
The scenario that your carabiner broke under is actually the most common one for a biner to fail—a swinging fall causes the gate to rub against the rock, as the biner swings the rough rock pushes open the gate, and the load ends up applied out nearer to the nose of the biner than the spine (either due to the way the biner hangs in a bolt hanger or because a sling is pushed out to the side, etc), and near a belay/tied in tight so there is less rope out and less dynamic element to the belay to absorb the force of a fall. Under these circumstances it’s unfortunately not too difficult to break a biner if all the stars are aligned just the wrong way—for this reason I would recommend always doubling up pro on critical pieces or using a lightweight locking biner or something like this, especially if there are terrain features that could come into play against a biner.
The batch testing we conducted showed that there was nothing abnormal in the metal itself, and the breaks we conducted again on our stock from that batch confirmed this. All the breaks were well within the parameters we expect and well above the stated loads printed on the biners.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 03:00am PT
|
Fascinating. Good follow up it would seem from mammut.
This explains the niceness of the helium nose guards. hrm
I wonder what the rating was on those dynamic tests as compared to other biners of slightly bigger stock or shape changed?
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
British Columbia
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 08:45pm PT
|
So in that case, is a wire gate is more likely to be sprung open when dragged across the rock as it would only take a little nubbin to hook the wire and pull it out of place ?
A non-wire gate biner may require a higher nubbin size threshold to open it as it dragged across the rock. Would the rounded surface area of a non-wire gate deflect more nubbins than the wire gate and therefore be less prone to opening.
I thought that the premise of wire gates was they are less prone to opening ? Perhaps the wire gates were only tested in free space and not in rock surface contact type situation ?
Not that I know much about it .... just speculation
|
|
Matt's
climber
|
|
May 17, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
|
bump
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
May 17, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
|
^^ seems to be a lot of mammuts breaking huh?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|