ALUMINUM RING FAILURE

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich_h
  • Start date Start date
Chill out, no one is "hammering" the testers. A consistent test is the way things are checked out. If there is a bad batch this is how we find out about it. Hyd. break machine is a certified test. The big problem before was that folks were hitting stuff with hammers. Rich has contacted the manafacturer and they are on it. We will see, they will probably issue a recall. Most carabiner manf. test every piece, apparently the ring guys don't, they batch test. Lets not break down into he said she said crap. It's all good info. Im happy to take more rings to test if folks want to send them. This machine is calibrated to be exact.
 
Dan,

Part of testing something is to be able to control variables so that the tests can be repeated. My questions aren't meant as a 'drilling' at all. I don't doubt that the rings broke. If a test is setup that doesn't follow with the way that something is used then the test my be invalid.

Having pieces break at such low loads is very concerning no matter how the test was done. Rather than a few percentage points difference we're seeing HUGe differences. Attention getting differences.

We're so happy to have TB as a medium to connect people and get the word out to the 'boots in the field' quickly.
 
Bye the way, I tested a large gold ring, large silver ring, two small silver rings, no small gold one. If anyone wants to break more, I am happy to go and do it. It is the same machine that all overhead equipment is tested on. Please, lets avoid blanket statements on aluminum.It aint about who is testing them or who is selling them. In the 18 years I have been climbing many recalls have happened on biners, but no one has decided to stop making them. Defects happen and so does R&D(research and destruction). Please send me your rings I like the destruction part.
 
[/ QUOTE ]

Part of testing something is to be able to control variables so that the tests can be repeated. My questions aren't meant as a 'drilling' at all. I don't doubt that the rings broke. If a test is setup that doesn't follow with the way that something is used then the test my be invalid.



[/ QUOTE ]

Controlling variables is what makes a test like mine(and John's) sceintific. We were using a slow stedy hydraulic pull to test, and we attached in several different ways ie: steel biner-ring-steel biner..... shackle-ring-shackle ..... tenex-ring-tenex

the problem with these rings is that there is no consistency with the results.... That is why Rich and myself have voiced concern. If i tested 20 and only 1 was to break, we would still be concerned. This is a personal support product and should be very consistant.

Rob

p.s. i did this test to break some splices not the rings and was very suprised at what i found(just look at my posts on the previous concerns in this matter)
 
This was my first experince with break testing anything. However, I have a considerable amount of labratory and field testing experience and have a grasp on how to legitimately (sp?) conduct a valuable test. Rob has had experience, is professional, and stood to gain nothing by intentionally and falsely slandering a product. We immediately contacted Rich, and brought the situation to his attention. Personally I have no idea why they broke, I would like more testing, evaulation, and to find out if it was random or a potential bad batch. We purchased the rings in good faith, and with no predisposition that they would fail. We wanted to conduct the break tests to discover how our prototypes which happen to contain the rings, would behave under duress. There was no presumption that the rings were faulty or expectations that they would fail. Needless to say I was surprised when the first one failed. I reviewed the video and did not see anything out of the ordinary. The question of a random event occourance had to be verified by a repeat test. When the second ring broke I personally moved more to manufacturer defect than random act. I feel the test is valid, used appropriate technique, and has simply raised a question about these products. I have no reason to believe the rings are inherently faulty. I would absolutely welcome anyone else, including you Tom, to perform independant tests on these rings if you feel we have a neglegent test. I understand you have testing and research experience. It is public knowledge where to buy them, and anyone has the freedom to utilize whichever method to test you prefer.

We are pleased to have the ability to test our prototypes, and other products on the market. FYI the first break test yesterday was on a Buckingham friction saver, properly used and stored for 18 mos. We wanted to test a known product's reaction to the test. It broke at the ring/stitch/webbing interface at 5300#

Please keep the discusson going and bring on your test results.

Stay safe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...a Buckingham friction saver, properly used and stored for 18 mos. We wanted to test a known product's reaction to the test. It broke at the ring/stitch/webbing interface at 5300#

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the ring, the stitching, or the webbing break? Did you pull the FS in a staight line or was it doubled and the line reeved through both rings?
 
Again Mahk, forgive me. I live in the sticks and have dial up, downloading and uploading is painfully slow. As Rob stated, in the test the stitches pop, then the webing goes. I expected the ring to go first.
 
Again, I don't think my 145lb. frame will ever generate enough force on a ring to break it.

I think ya'll are worrying too much.
smirk.gif
 
145lb x 50 footer = 3500? Yee HAwww, big air. I usually use a friction saver in basket style so even if you had two at 3500 it's still pretty good. I am curious why the small rings are breaking so low. I tested two small rings both five years old and they both tested out over 5k. Send me your rings, I need something to break.
 
No bivy....a 50' free fall with a sudden stop wouldn't break the ring. Your body would become a shock absorber as it got squished by the harness. You would die and your liver would get squirted out your esophagus, but the rings would be fine.

love
nick
 
If it was a static rope, yes, not if it was dynamic rope though. The point is that this would never happen in a tree climbing situation. Loads on a friction saver a generally body weight, slightly higher in a swing. Most cimbing gear would last far longer then the human body. I'm not trying to derail this thread though. It appears the issue with these rings might be in the small gold colored ones, batch defect. I guess we won't know until a recall is issued.


Pushing rope to the max.1200' freefall onto dynamic climbing rope. Dan died from a pulley hitting a knot tied in the rope. He was a fricken wild man.dead now. There is one shot of him taking at least a 60-70' lead fall, you can see his protection ripping out as he is falling, something finally catches him!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnZt2EOc5fE


Ok, Back to the rings, I need some to break.
 
Nick, That was a nice thing to read drinking coffee Sunday morning. But it is true, the human body isn't built to withstand those forces. I don't recall the number but it is lower than 3500. No Bivy- Dan, may he rest in peace, I call that Darwins theory. He was a madman, but a tremendous climber. Notahacker- it's not a bad thing for someone besides the manufacturer to worry in my opinion. I have no intention of throwing out the gear I have with aluminum rings. Not until I see more test results. The gold anodizing may be the culprit.
 
yes doubled over you might get 3600# but that was out of the bag.... if these rings ever hit concrete it might just fracture even more than it already was(yes i believe that these rings were already partly fractured, you could not tell from doing a visual inspection prior to the break but you can tell when you look at the break that very little of the aluminum was holding). so you pull it onto concrete a couple of times and then what do you have?


think about it..... that is why all of our hardware needs to be 5000# or over... we are generally very rough on it

Rob
 
The human skeleton starts to break up when it recieves a force of 6 Kn. That is equivalent of a static drop straight down on to your harness from about 6 to 8 ft.

As we never tire of saying you should not be climbing above your anchor point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom