Blaze and ZigZag okay in comps?

Looking at some other products, I'm finding some similar results. The ART Spiderjack and Cocoon do not have breaking strengths stamped onto the frames. They share the same information in the instructions, and what I infer is this; 23kn breaking strength, and 2kn WLL. There is no description of how the strength relates to product orientation/configuration, although the pulley is somewhat obvious. The climber must use the product as intended, etc...but the question remains in regard to how the generic(?) rating applies to the two totally different devices.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I look at the 40Kn stamp on the side of my HH.......can anybody tell me what that means? (Besides almost 9000 pounds of force.)

[/ QUOTE ]

this makes sense. since the climber is pulling down on the carabiner, and the dog bone is being pulled up by the hitch. It would never get to that load with a sliding hitch but the test is configured pulling in the same configuration as it does while working, so why not? I see no equivalent test for the Zig zag.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, so as long as the other components, climbing line, carabiner and hitch cord hold up beyond 40k, you can count on the HH up to that rating.
It is just that even though all these components are rated and tested, it is attached to a friction hitch that you don't know when it will slip or how much "hold" will be provided by the dog bone and carabiner. Like you said, "it would never get to that load".
Guess what I am saying and I cannot make the assumption, even though it says 40k, when "in use" I don't know how much I can safely hang on it. Unlike a carabiner or pulley when "in use".
 
I should have pulled my Cocoon out before posting, unfortunately I just looked over images online, so I spoke too soon and take that back. I wonder if the C3 is stamped, too. It probably is.

However, the Spiderjack isn't stamped, which is more to the point of this thread. There's nothing about slipping, other than a section titled 'Component Design' on page 21.

http://new.climb-art.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/MANUAL_SPIDERJACK2_A5_INT.pdf
 
Many of these devices we are speaking about have a CE# and/or an EN#. I cannot say all as I do not have some in front of me.

Now as I understand it (take for granted I am going on some fact, some research, some things told to me and a bit of intuition) the CE # signifies the testing organization. The EN# signifies the standard tested to. This standard contains the criteria on how tests were completed, slippage ect if applicapable.

If I am incorrect in any of this please let me know as all this detail stuff has never been my strong point!

I have a few messageges out to those who know better, but have not received any answers as of yet.

Tony
 
Ha ha,Yeah I just ordered a couple new eye and eyes from Luke,just in case .Maybe I will compete this year but Its hard to wanna practice the events when you have a wraptor-I wonder if they would let someone use that in the comp.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I'm going to eat all my words defending the zigzag. It sounds as if it is straight up failing...

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite literally Kevin.

There has just been a fall in europe reported due to a zigzag failure.

Warning issued. More info when details known.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Many of these devices we are speaking about have a CE# and/or an EN#. I cannot say all as I do not have some in front of me.

Now as I understand it (take for granted I am going on some fact, some research, some things told to me and a bit of intuition) the CE # signifies the testing organization. The EN# signifies the standard tested to. This standard contains the criteria on how tests were completed, slippage ect if applicapable.

If I am incorrect in any of this please let me know as all this detail stuff has never been my strong point!

I have a few messageges out to those who know better, but have not received any answers as of yet.

Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Tony, you are right that CE# identifies the testing organisation that has provided the Documentation of Conformity to a particular EN# being the standard/testing method.

Where it gets tricky is many things may have been tested to meet a certain standard, but often that standard is of little or no relevance to how the item is used outside of that test lab.

Example: There is NO information included with a Hitchclimber Pulley that indicates it should be used in the configuration it is used in by Arborists.

Yes, it has been tested to EN 12278. So it meets use as a pulley. The test is in the configuration of how a pulley is normally loaded. i.e: anchored from above with 2 legs of rope over the wheel.

Yes it has been tested to EN 795(B). So it meets use as a Transportable Temporary Anchor. This is a pretty broad scoped test. Other things that meet that are everything from a sling to a rigging plate, to an anchor ring, to a tripod rescue frame! But it is mentioned within this standard that it is NOT appropriate for sports or recreation (competition tree climbing???)

So while it might be ok as a pulley or a connection point, none of it has anything to do with adding a friction hitch as a link in a running doubled rope climbing system, let alone in competitions.

The Hitchclimbers Guide To The Canopy, while offering great ideas is explicitly NOT part of the User Instructions. And the independent testing done in it again is not relevant to the typical arborist configurations in use.

The strength of the sling (prusik) when pulled end to end or in a basket configuration has nothing to do with it's function in the myriad of different configurations of friction hitches climbers use.

How well a 6 coil prusik holds when pulled on a static single line doesn't either.

I'm not knocking the HC. I personally think it is a great system that is well thought out, designed and executed, and is completely appropriate to use.

The trouble is, there seems to be an ever increasing focus by some on some brands/products to meet all sorts of "standards" that others are not being questioned on.

There is no applicable EN standard that the complete Hitchclimber System can meet.

There is no applicable EN standard that the ZigZag System can meet. (The EN on the ZigZag is only referring to the type of rope that should be used)

There is no applicable EN standard that the RopeWrench System can meet.
I would guess that the wrench could easy pass as an EN 12278 pulley and that either it or the tether could easy pass as either an EN 795(B) temporary anchor. But neither would be relevant to it's applied use.

After all that, i guess i'm just trying to say standards are great, and if you understand them and have read the complete documents even better, but the are pretty meaningless when taken out of context.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Example: There is NO information included with a Hitchclimber Pulley that indicates it should be used in the configuration it is used in by Arborists...So while it might be ok as a pulley or a connection point, none of it has anything to do with adding a friction hitch as a link in a running doubled rope climbing system, let alone in competitions...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Hitch Climber might fall into a void within the EN and CE system but it does meet the ANSI standards. Any combination of connecting the three points/holes of the HC is rated at 30kN. This exceeds the hardware connecting link ratings for life support of 5,000 lbs. For the way it is used by most of the tree industry, this is the only rating that is relevant. It has no part in controlling friction, just the safe connection of the components.

It is my opinion that attachment strength of life support connecting points can and should be tested independently, regardless of the tools function. Adhering to this simple rule will at least guarantee a uniformity within the life support components.

Hardware connecting points experience wear and abuse over time that is hard to analyze. They need to be stronger than the expected loads they will experience.
 
Trevmcrev,

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate the explanation and time it took for you to post it. It falls in line with what I know and was guessing at.

Dave,

I agree on all you points above.

If anything both your posts point to a good argument for the arboricultural industry to develop its own standards/criteria. If not us, who? Obviously some if the systems we use work reliably and are safe. There must be definable characteristics, to base safe use, development and the like on.

Tony
 
I am curious in light of how the zig zag attachment broke if it would be possible to break a hitchclimber pulley in the Same way, or a stein sky walker. It appears it did not have much to do with the device strength as it did the configuration of a sloppy carabiner.
 
Tony,

If you're interested in being involved in making regulations you must be involved in the Z133. There are lots of places to be involved even if you aren't a voting member.

Make plans to be at the fall meeting. Or, if you want to get involved now, let me know via PM, I'll put you in touch with the right people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom