Break Away Lanyard Question

MikePowers321 said:
This is one of the reasons I went with a loop of throwline on my D ring. I figured it was certainly strong enough to maneuver freely when cutting without too much anxiety. If the tree (or lead) fails, and your tie in point/lanyard combo keeps it from completely failing, you can nick it with the handsaw and be free to swing (hopefully not too violently) over to your tie in. Now if the tree fails completely and breaks the throwline, chances are it will be a bit violent but in my opinion, a decent option. Its better than being sandwiched in between two 5,500lb ropes on a failing tree (or lead).

I assume that the double fisherman's (or whatever you tie) in the throwline will decrease strength a bit as well? Probably smart to lower your tie in point a bit for some extra security as well.
Click to expand...
solid option in my book
 
You could just attach yourself to 2 prusik loops, either end of your lanyard or flip line ref. the pictures of the break one, and a quick snap would break one, or both, good thing about that is if one end gets snagged, you have a double option.
 
tuttle said:
These are the tests.

4mm and 5mm tech cord, rated at 1240lb and 1930lb.

4mm stitched 5 times, lockstitched, and small heatshink, held fast at 300lb. Did not want to break it, as its used daily.

The dillon is 50lb divisions.

View attachment 30405 View attachment 30406

5mm tech cord, no stitches, 2" of shrinkwrap, gave at 200lb

View attachment 30407 View attachment 30408 View attachment 30409
View attachment 30410
Click to expand...
Tuttle, just a question about the quality of a shrink wrap union: is it (like stitching) capable of being made to predictable failing tolerances (say +/- 25lbs)? My concern is that not only is it hard to guarantee where that point will be, but that the material will swell or shrink with weather conditions, making for a very unstable connection.
 
BuckmasterTreeService said:
With a loop of throw line you have 660 lbs break strength. 660 lbs on both d's for a total of 1320 lbs of force before breaking. I would definitely get rid of the doubling effect from the loop in your throw line.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I wonder what the strength loss would be on a 330lb loop of throwline due to

1. Double fisherman's knot that joins the lines
2. The girth hitch on the D ring

Maybe someone could enlighten me. When I set mine up (without a ton of forethought I admit), I girth hitched the throwline to only one D ring.
 
Exactly, Mark. ANSI is in the business of securing all connections to a certain breaking strength , say #5,400. What this thread is bringing up is the conceptual limits of that system. I find it to be interesting that there could be a need for the idea of a failsafe, but that such a need could in no way receive the blessing of the ANSI imprimatur. What is the responsible thing to do: turn our backs on this question and declare it a black art or do we bring out the question and consider it in the light of day?
 
If you are using two separate systems from the same tip wouldnt that be ansi compliant as far as using two points of attachment for saw use aloft? At that point would you even need ansi approval for a third postioning system that is unrated?
 
I thought that was exactly Eric's suggestion with DSRT...or at least from similar tie in points. In any case, thats 2 points. The flipline could easily be a redundant third point of attachment, subject to a failure rating well short of the ANSI standard. This is why the new DRT system holds such promise.
 
Ward; you could do anything with well glued quality wrap, and stitches, using cotton, polyester or dyneema, a clever thing would be to pull the rope through the wrap, and put a thread through to check its performance and movement.
There is hundreds of ways this concept could work.
 
ward said:
Exactly, Mark. ANSI is in the business of securing all connections to a certain breaking strength , say #5,400. What this thread is bringing up is the conceptual limits of that system. I find it to be interesting that there could be a need for the idea of a failsafe, but that such a need could in no way receive the blessing of the ANSI imprimatur. What is the responsible thing to do: turn our backs on this question and declare it a black art or do we bring out the question and consider it in the light of day?
Click to expand...
There's no doubt in my mind that there is a need in certain circumstances for this technique, but understanding when is the right time to employ it and the right way to use it is really the key and the risk.
 
MARK_CHISHOLM said:
There's no doubt in my mind that there is a need in certain circumstances for this technique, but understanding when is the right time to employ it and the right way to use it is really the key and the risk.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'll ever see this in the ANSI A300:

"Positioning lanyard attachments meant to fail under load must be backed by 2 separate rope systems (e.g., DRT, DSRT). Lanyard systems meant only as positioning lanyards on hazardous trees must break in at least two locations (at the Dee Rings) and each attachment is not to exceed in breaking strength 1/2 the weight of the climber."

I don't think so....do you?
 
I had the same thought as ropesheild. It seems like a great option, perhaps girth a prussik cord on your lanyard and measure what it takes to slip off the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom