ALUMINUM RING FAILURE

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich_h
  • Start date Start date
[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tom it looks like you were wrong in your assumption that these guys don't have a clue as to how to break test gear.

Instead of trying to discredit the break testers you ought to focus more on the broken rings. If you remember the earlier 'hammer' break test was largely discredited because several claimed it was not a valid test. Hopefully now the 'hammer' looks more like a smoking gun instead of an invalid test.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tom it looks like you were wrong in your assumption that these guys don't have a clue as to how to break test gear.

Instead of trying to discredit the break testers you ought to focus more on the broken rings. If you remember the earlier 'hammer' break test was largely discredited because several claimed it was not a valid test. Hopefully now the 'hammer' looks more like a smoking gun instead of an invalid test.

[/ QUOTE ]


Feel better Dan? I guess I don't see the point of the rant. I don't believe that Tom is trying to discredit the testers. If I went to the manufacturer of the ring and said that the ring broke after I ran over it repeatedly with a steam roller so I think the rings should be recalled they more than likely would hang up on me and revoke our account. The rings need to be tested in a fashion that is congruent with the way they are used. I would suggest for arborist equipment that you expand the tests to include other methods of testing as we tend to modify our set ups and use plenty of gear in ways that it was never intended.

The point to all of this is to make us think. One of my favorite sayings in tree work is that "when you take things for granted, that is when you will get hurt." This applies not only to testing our gear but questioning the way we test the gear.
 
I do feel better. Thanks Rich.

The broken rings looked suspect from the first 'hammer test' photos but this test was largely dismissed as it does not meet testing standards.

Instead of poking holes in the testing it's good to see this second test being taken seriously even though it was not done in a lab.

It's been five weeks now that these rings were brought to our attention.
http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=72565&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1

TLHamel wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting a lot of flack for hitting this ring with a hammer. Knowing the results of my five rings "tested" with the two hammers; if we could turn back the clock, would any of you volunteer to hang your life on the ring in question?

I began this post out of a concern for safety.

A metalurgist is in possession of the ring and will conduct a "scientific analysis". I don't have anything to prove... I will be happy (yet puzzled) if the ring comes back with no defects detected.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Grover,

Where did you find those numbers? I have 12kn from research done by HSE in 2002.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02451.pdf

Thanks,

TMW
 
Re: Hammer testing

I am glad that this issue is being addressed. Sometimes, less than scientific field testing yields information that can save lives. It often, as in this case, leads to further analysis, which is good.

On a related note to all of those people who pull their false crotches out of the tree without lowering them with a throw line: Think that there is a potential to damage them? (kind of like hitting them with a hammer?)

TMW
 
Re: Hammer testing

Aluminun = lower it out
Steel = yank it out.

DAn, no one is discrediting anyone. Hammers aren't the issue. The rings may well have been a bad batch, lets see what US rigging has found. Shat' gets recalled, petzl, kong, black diamond, they have all had em'. They don't test gear with a hammer for a reason. Lets stay focused on good info instead of finger pointing. The manafacture will probably test and make a decision, soon I hope. Meanwhile climb however you feel safe, steel or whatever. I got another set I'm willing to destroy.
 
Re: Hammer testing

[ QUOTE ]
Aluminun = lower it out
Steel = yank it out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aluminium = lower it out
Steel = lower it out
 
Re: Hammer testing

Dan wrote:

Tom it looks like you were wrong in your assumption that these guys don't have a clue as to how to break test gear.

Once again you're reading things into my posts. Where did I assume anything about the tests or the skills of the testers?

When tests are done I like to know how they're done. The fellas posted that and I appreciate that. There have been 'tests' done by hanging gear on a bumper and attaching the other end to a tree and taking off with a foot in the fuel injectors. Not valid testing.

Having this information shared here is so important. The more info that's shared the safer we can be.

There have been biner breaking tests done with various manufacturers biners. Some companies biners break at a much higher load that they're rated. Others barely break at the rated load. I don't have the data to share but after talking with the people who did the tests I could make a better buying decision the next time I bought equipment.
 
Thanks a bunch! I'm changing my alum. gold ring that's currently my clip in on my butterfly 2 to the original! Thanks again at first i thought its a bunch on bs but know who knows. For the girlfriend and the fam, being cozy in the trees is not worth falling!
 
I have also come to relize that the gold alum. ring that i use on the bridge of my butterfly 2 has really chewed the crap out of my bridge. Three of the guys I climb with use the same set up and have all experienced the same problem. For the guys that climb on the same setup watch your bridge!
 
I have heard from the manufacturer of the rings and they have stated that upon further testing the rings they broke have all proven to be of suitable strength. (they all broke over 9,000 lbs)

They are going to send me the testing information which I will post as soon as I have it. Hopefully an explanation of the testing process will be included. In the mean time I have several other entities breaking some of the rings as well just to see what information we can get out of it. More information to come.
 
[ QUOTE ]
upon further testing the rings they broke have all proven to be of suitable strength. (they all broke over 9,000 lbs)


[/ QUOTE ]

zbanghead.gif
thinking.gif
trulies.gif


That company is blowing smoke up our bums.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have also come to relize that the gold alum. ring that i use on the bridge of my butterfly 2 has really chewed the crap out of my bridge. Three of the guys I climb with use the same set up and have all experienced the same problem. For the guys that climb on the same setup watch your bridge!

[/ QUOTE ]

my shiny INOX stainless steel rings do not do that. They are polished and smooth - they dont tear up webbing, and are stronger in every way. (11mm thick, TIG welded, 50 KN MBS)

nuff said.
 
[ QUOTE ]

my shiny INOX stainless steel rings do not do that. They are polished and smooth - they dont tear up webbing, and are stronger in every way. (11mm thick, TIG welded, 50 KN MBS)


[/ QUOTE ]


Whats a source for those INOX rings? A link maybe?
smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom