Lockstitch your Brummels

Brocky

Well-Known Member
I think it was more of the rope parting because a brummel was used in the middle of the rope piece. There was no bury so no lockstitches on the section that broke. I’ve always thought a regular brummel was three passes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evo

Pelorus

Well-Known Member
I'm not a brummel guy, Brocky, but I think you are correct.

"Because there was not enough space for a long bury on each tail, the rigger apparently relied on the Brummel lock alone to carry the load".
 

evo

Well-Known Member
Lock stitching a brummel isn't really needed from breaking strength stand point in my opinion. The only purpose is to hold loose floppy splices together until they are loaded while in use. A brummel is takes the brunt of the force applied, and the bury is primarily just a clean way to finish the splice and keep the weave.
I'd be interested in seeing what the application this sling was made up for with a brummel in the middle.
 

TallTreeClimber

Active Member
I was unaware of the 40-60% strength figure.

Either I don't understand what I read in the article or the title of this thread is misleading. I don't believe lack of a lockstitch was a factor in this fatality.
 
Last edited:

evo

Well-Known Member
I was unaware of the 40-60% strength figure.

Either I don't understand what I read in the article or the title of this thread is misleading. I don't believe lack of a lockstitch was a factor in this fatality.
I'm not too sure about this... a straight bury without a brummel is nearly 100% locking brummels then a short bury is about 80%. This is for a standard eye splice... So the 40-60% could be due to a mid line deal? I guess if you want take a peek at the reduction in strength for a ultra sling, compare it a endless loop configuration.
 

Jimmycrackcorn

Well-Known Member
I'm not too sure about this... a straight bury without a brummel is nearly 100% locking brummels then a short bury is about 80%. This is for a standard eye splice... So the 40-60% could be due to a mid line deal? I guess if you want take a peek at the reduction in strength for a ultra sling, compare it a endless loop configuration.
So what was this anyways? What was the point of the brummel in the middle of the Eye to Eye? I read the article when this thread first started but must have glazed over the reason.. Was this two dead eyes connected end to end? Or was it an eye to eye with something funky in the middle for an attachment point.. I remember reading the article & scratching my head wondering whether the arthor of the article was confused about something or if it was me that was confused as the design of tool didn't make sense to me..

If you go to animatedknots & look at the Grog Ring (endless loop), they actually use a legit locking brummel in the center of it as opposed to just tucking & burying the tails into each other. This is the only time I've seen a real locking brummel used in a end to end.. Hence why I'm scratching my head as to what that tool above used to be. Watch it will be something super obvious to me once it's said outloud..
 

Pacafist

Member
My understanding from this article is that the failure occurred due to lack of the bury, but that doesn’t make sense if he had a midline Brummel that he was using as an attachment point, (also my understanding is that the true Brummel is passed through three times as well). The article mentioned something about the acute angle as to which it was being used at, I’m sure that put excess force on it, but let’s face it, lockstiching isn’t going to stop a splice from breaking if it wasn’t done to manufacturers specs in the first place.
It’s really hard to tell from the picture where it broke but also why a bury would’ve helped with this midline Brummel unless he was attempting to splice two ropes together at the Brummel. I’m sure I’m misunderstanding this article but it’s all very confusing and seems like they did some research but not enough to write the article properly haha
 

DaveyJones

Member
Based on what I read in the article, I’ve narrowed it down to two possibilities both of which have to do with proper taper. It seems like there was no room to do a proper bury. The first possibility is that after doing the two or three brommels, he did a very short bury with either a very short taper or no taper at all. Rope going from a large diameter to small diameter in a short distant can drastically reduce over all strength. The second possibility is that no bury was attempted which would again result in large diameter to small diameter over a very short distant.

I agree that this wasn’t do to lockstiching. I believe it was do to not following proper splicing procedures.
 

Brocky

Well-Known Member
It sounds like it was one rope that had the anchor point in the middle, secured there with only a locked brummel, and having two separate loads. The loads working on only the small surface areas of only the locked brummel, caused enough friction on the dyneema, with it’s low melting point, to heat up and break. A bury would take some of the load and movement from the brummel. A clove or cow hitch, seized, might have been a better option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evo

evo

Well-Known Member
It sounds like it was one rope that had the anchor point in the middle, secured there with only a locked brummel, and having two separate loads. The loads working on only the small surface areas of only the locked brummel, caused enough friction on the dyneema, with it’s low melting point, to heat up and break. A bury would take some of the load and movement from the brummel. A clove or cow hitch, seized, might have been a better option.
This is my understanding as well.
 
Top