At least that's how I've interpeted the majority of wll stuff. To be honest, it's way way deeper than what i just mumbled & a much deeper understanding is required in order to be safe. If you find yourself questioning the very basics of this equipment... or have never done this stuff, it's probably not a good idea to go as big as your thinking of going.. Shit goes sideways so fucking fast my friend...
It is far far deeper than what you've mentioned, for sure, not just in terms of specifics (varying trees & unique situations) but even in terms of your overall conceptualization of SWL/WLL, I can't recommend the link in my sig for rr668 enough it is an outstanding paper (the length isn't "accurate" as the last 1/3rd of the thing is sources and a product-catalog/listing appendix, the actual text is under 300p)
(as to your concerns, however much
genuine concern can be mustered towards a total stranger on a message board, thanks for the heads-up. To eliminate any doubt, I should be clear that my intention isn't to get this rope in-hand and start trying to use it to its maximum, as with all things I practice at home and work my way up
safely, love the "no fuck-it cuts" mantra and it applies to anything ie "no fuck-it rigging setups" and it's a concept I live by when doing this stuff, I'd never ever rig up a section or cut something that I wasn't extremely confident that I knew what was going to happen, what
could happen at worst, and how to handle it in all cases...am not trying to leave this area so soon!!)
Either way, the working load limit is the working load limit I'm my opinion.. idc if it's static or dynamic, I'm not trying to push past it.
This is very dangerous thinking IMO, I've yet to see if someone's quoted the formula for actual
peak-force generated on the rigging-line when snubbing a log, I've gotta imagine though that you are personally aware that a 100lbs log can quickly throw 500lbs of force after some free-fall, right?
My initial(¤t) contention is that the entire concept of SWL/WLL can ONLY be applied to static(&relatively-static, to be precise here) loads, which means that if you want to do any dynamic loading (ie if you actually want to efficiently dismantle trees) then SWL & WLL are utterly irrelevant, what matters is:
- weight of your load (at peak-force when snubbing/catching logs...I imagine I'm not an outlier in that I always have my logs-weights chart and a calculator in my truck!)
- ABS of your line, and
- elasticity of your line (there are formulas that take line stretch into consideration, I really need to find them....and find-out why rigging lines are made stiffer than climbing lines, would've guessed it'd be the other way around!)
I'm not following on this..
Why have you started to lose faith in Notch's strength ratings? In your experience, what has failed to meet the expected strength rating on your equipment???
Notch isn't a separate entity from Sherrill, yet sherrill sources products, stamps a Notch logo on them and masquerades them in the catalog alongside companies like DMM, Petzl etc....I was new to this recently enough that I can remember when I totally thought Notch was a company like any other- but they're not.
You ask why I started to lose faith in their statements, to be honest I don't go into these types of considerations defaulting to having-faith I approach them as a skeptic (as any practical person should in this day&age) and, while I can tolerate some "hype marketing",
any&all deception will automatically put me off of a brand, so when I found that Notch wasn't some separate entity but, in fact, was better-suited to be called "Sherrill-Gear" or something, that was more than enough for me to lose any good-will I could muster towards a generic retailer. Hype-marketing, even over-pricing glitttery gadgets (looking at you, DMM), it's still 'legit', but when there's outright attempts at deception - like sherrill presenting Notch as an entity that's independent from them - then it's fair to set your bullshit-detector to the highest rating possible....do
You know how MBS&ABS are actually measured? Do you know how consistent the tests are, whether they're 3rd-party verified? This is critical to know before placing much faith in the manufacturer's own #'s
for ropes in-general, however in the case of Sherrill/Notch selling cordage, that bugs me out because it's either a no-profit item for them and they're re-branding legit lines by yale/samson/etc, or they're over-posturing inferior product - it's one or the other, and in-context of a company that's doing deceptive re-brands, I'm gonna guess that the motivation for action is more about profit than altruism, would be interested in your logic if you had a case for the opposite, in my eyes it's an even more abhorrent action by Sherrill/Notch because of the characteristic of the gear, I've always maintained that it's one thing to rip someone off by overcharging $50 on a dinner at a restaurant or something but their loss is done at the end of the transaction, on things like this where you could literally have your life in their (products')hands, or things like the diet-pills I used to hawk where, sure they just threw-away their $50 by buying a bottle of caffeine pills from me but their losses
don't stop at that point, they're then home with that bottle of Hydroxycut and basing things around it, or holding a hank of Sasquatch rope while running calculations on peak-load that the ~350lbs piece is going to generate when free-falling for 4.5' before hitting your Sasquatch rope----this type of calculation is useless if your elasticity & break-strength #'s aren't accurate, so for rope I was going to climb - or rig from - I would only do so with ropes I trusted, right now that is Yale & Samson, I've no experience with others or opinions on others excepting my dislike of sherrill or "notch-Co." gear.
I'd be eager to hear (from you or anyone) any info pertaining to ABS/MBS measurements, both how consistent the testing-procedure is as well as whether it's ever 3rd-party verified or only an in-house thing (if in-house only, I couldn't fathom trusting my life, or rigging a dangerously-heavy load, to rope from any company that wasn't a very long-standing producer who had to rely on proven-performance, for instance if I'd initially gotten whatever sherrill/notch's climb-line is, right now I'd be furious at them and at myself for falling for it - thankfully I'd gotten a catalogue from 4 of the biggest companies and it became obvious very fast that only Sherrill found Notch worthy of such coverage, then when I noticed "Notch's" rook pulley being identical to another I began looking into them a bit and was pissed to find Notch was an "undisclosed in-house" branding-stamp, not a unique company
as-presented!)[/QUOTE]
) as precisely as possible lets me do the math then put my safety margins in (this is why I disliked the actual mechanism you're using for gauging ropes, IE by ignoring elasticity/pretending they're virtually static when doing calculations on loads, because while it IS safer than just going by your gut - you are doing the #'s - you'd be able to be far more accurate by simply acknowledging elasticity then adding your safety-margin) Stretch/elasticity is a topic I've had trouble finding good discussion on despite how pivotal it is when you're talking dynamic-loading (also can't figure out why it's preferred to have bull lines super static IE <3%, more static than our climb lines even!)
