Butterfly/Komet contact
- Thread starter Mark Chisholm
- Start date
- Location
- The West Country
I was at the ETCC too - I think Wellaboy's leg pumping was more a medical affliction than anything else. Can't say much about the new mod people were using (not 'til after Montreal), but can at least reveal to those in the know that the Swarfega / Graphite mix is working a treat!
If in doubt, Swear and shout.
If in doubt, Swear and shout.
- Location
- Buckinghamshire. UK
Hi Tom
What seemed to be happening was that as the guy was walking out on a branch, (the trailing end of the climbing line increases in friction/weight the further out you go) instead of pulling more line through with his hands he employs this leg movement to gather more line. On pondering this I figure that the lower position of the fairlead allows for a certain degree of side movement, this would in turn draw through a short length of slack.
I think I'll test it for myself this week.
Cheers
nod
What seemed to be happening was that as the guy was walking out on a branch, (the trailing end of the climbing line increases in friction/weight the further out you go) instead of pulling more line through with his hands he employs this leg movement to gather more line. On pondering this I figure that the lower position of the fairlead allows for a certain degree of side movement, this would in turn draw through a short length of slack.
I think I'll test it for myself this week.
Cheers
nod
- Location
- Buckinghamshire. UK
Hello SS
Is it possible that you could expand on the swarfega/graphite solution. I can't begin to imagine what use you might have for such a mix.
Nod
Is it possible that you could expand on the swarfega/graphite solution. I can't begin to imagine what use you might have for such a mix.
Nod
- Location
- The West Country
The swarfega / graphite mix I was referring to was a bit misleading, as it was pertaining to a subject discussed at the ETCC, but not connected to the slack tender type arrangement that makes people look a bit like Morris Dancers that you'd been discussing. Sorry for that, I'll go sit back in the corner of the room. What was the thing about kite surfing attachments all about?
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
Well, it seems to me that the people at Komet have little interest in our little issue. I have written to them through four different email addresses and no response. I was told by a vendor that the only response they have ever received came only after placing an order!
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
Maybe they're a subsidiary of Buckingham.
- Location
- Home of the New Jersey Devils
It seems that it would be appropriate for me to retract my last post, since I received an email from Komet today! I will keep you all posted to my findings.
- Location
- sheffield.uk
hi can someone post some pics of BF mods thanks matt
- Location
- Tha Dirty Bean
x2
I put a length of climbing line between the two shackles and tied them off with double fishermans knots.
I put a length of climbing line between the two shackles and tied them off with double fishermans knots.
[ QUOTE ]
x2
I put a length of climbing line between the two shackles and tied them off with double fishermans knots.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would discourage that on a TreeFlex - the shackles make for a tight bend and may sever the rope in a fall.
All equipment is made and tested to be used in a specific way. Once you swap out components and interact with different types of equipment, variables come into play that void the testing. This is evident in some of the accident investigations I have been involved with.
Pragmatically, there would appear to be little difference in the way one bridge functions with regard to another. However, they are unknown variables non the less.
I wouldn't expect a manufacturer to test all the possible variables to give them the confidence to condone. Even if they did, it would put the cost of the product beyond the target price. Arb is not a big enough market, with specialised needs, to justify that kind of business decision. And how do they account for third party knotting/splicing suitability/strength?
As an employer, I must look to my own expertise and confidence and back it up with testing; it is up to me to test configurations that go beyond typical standards and stand the cost, before risking my employee's lives.
I see the comps as an extreme sport, so anything goes if the risks are shown to have been considered (even if not understood). But if they pertain to operate to industry standards, equipment must be at least 'approved' by the manufacturer as fit for purpose.
For the reasons just mentioned, good luck with that. If anyone wants to customise a TreeFlex, please get in touch.
x2
I put a length of climbing line between the two shackles and tied them off with double fishermans knots.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would discourage that on a TreeFlex - the shackles make for a tight bend and may sever the rope in a fall.
All equipment is made and tested to be used in a specific way. Once you swap out components and interact with different types of equipment, variables come into play that void the testing. This is evident in some of the accident investigations I have been involved with.
Pragmatically, there would appear to be little difference in the way one bridge functions with regard to another. However, they are unknown variables non the less.
I wouldn't expect a manufacturer to test all the possible variables to give them the confidence to condone. Even if they did, it would put the cost of the product beyond the target price. Arb is not a big enough market, with specialised needs, to justify that kind of business decision. And how do they account for third party knotting/splicing suitability/strength?
As an employer, I must look to my own expertise and confidence and back it up with testing; it is up to me to test configurations that go beyond typical standards and stand the cost, before risking my employee's lives.
I see the comps as an extreme sport, so anything goes if the risks are shown to have been considered (even if not understood). But if they pertain to operate to industry standards, equipment must be at least 'approved' by the manufacturer as fit for purpose.
For the reasons just mentioned, good luck with that. If anyone wants to customise a TreeFlex, please get in touch.
- Location
- AZ
Ive thought about replacing the bridge on my b2 with a lengh of line on the shackles, but didnt because of the tight angles on the shackles. worked great on the old butterfly. anyway, maybe thimbles would be good for this.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
I don't understand your concern about tight angles on the BFII. If a double overhand stopper is tied on the outside of the shackle there are no tight rope bends.
Thats true Tom, but the harness wasn't tested that way. The principle remains the same - unless the equipment is used as it was tested, there remains an unknown. From an employers perspective, that may be unacceptable.
The way the knot pulls against the shackle isn't how the shackle was tested either, and the variations of rope types, diameters and knotability (diameters reduced by half in an overload and knots slipping) are difficult to caveat against.
We've discussed this before, and I know you know the following point of view, but I'll repeat it for others.
Like I say, if the comps are an extreme sport, this is down to individual risk acceptance leading to a disclaimer. If its work, its down to the employer. The comps being relied on as update training can allow controversial unknowns into the work place, without employer approval/knowledge. The transfer of liability from the individual to a company has to be considered. I'm not sure about a company encouraging its staff to compete and introduce what they learn at work without knowledge/discussion of techniques/equipment limitations, especially if resulting in an accident.
I have no issue with the comps being an extreme sport, that can introduce innovative techniques/equipment to the world of tree climbing. But the world of arboriculture must not accept techniques and equipment blind without discussion on limitations and testing before approval in the work place. This is a further concern when considering the differing requirements of each participating country's legislation for arboriculture; the ITCC stands for 'International' Tree Climbing Competition. What happens in the USA work place may well be similar to the comps, but it isn't so everywhere else i.e. comp good practice is not necessarily industry best practice.
The way the knot pulls against the shackle isn't how the shackle was tested either, and the variations of rope types, diameters and knotability (diameters reduced by half in an overload and knots slipping) are difficult to caveat against.
We've discussed this before, and I know you know the following point of view, but I'll repeat it for others.
Like I say, if the comps are an extreme sport, this is down to individual risk acceptance leading to a disclaimer. If its work, its down to the employer. The comps being relied on as update training can allow controversial unknowns into the work place, without employer approval/knowledge. The transfer of liability from the individual to a company has to be considered. I'm not sure about a company encouraging its staff to compete and introduce what they learn at work without knowledge/discussion of techniques/equipment limitations, especially if resulting in an accident.
I have no issue with the comps being an extreme sport, that can introduce innovative techniques/equipment to the world of tree climbing. But the world of arboriculture must not accept techniques and equipment blind without discussion on limitations and testing before approval in the work place. This is a further concern when considering the differing requirements of each participating country's legislation for arboriculture; the ITCC stands for 'International' Tree Climbing Competition. What happens in the USA work place may well be similar to the comps, but it isn't so everywhere else i.e. comp good practice is not necessarily industry best practice.
NickfromWI
Participating member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Has anyone broke tested a 1/2 rope on a bow shackle? If it breaks at a strength that is agreed to be adequate, then would it not be acceptable to use different, but adequate components on your (or ANY) harness?
I refuse to believe that harnesses should be used only as the mfr originally made it. You yourself speak often of ergonomics. You know that bodies are all very different. And though your harness might be the BEST harness out there...it's still only the best for the people for whom the harness was designed for.
What if your hips are wider than average, or if you are more top heavy that the mfr intended? Some changes might need to be made.
Does your harness have a replaceable bridge?
love
nick
I refuse to believe that harnesses should be used only as the mfr originally made it. You yourself speak often of ergonomics. You know that bodies are all very different. And though your harness might be the BEST harness out there...it's still only the best for the people for whom the harness was designed for.
What if your hips are wider than average, or if you are more top heavy that the mfr intended? Some changes might need to be made.
Does your harness have a replaceable bridge?
love
nick
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone broke tested a 1/2 rope on a bow shackle? If it breaks at a strength that is agreed to be adequate, then would it not be acceptable to use different, but adequate components on your (or ANY) harness?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I as a designer had that information and it was dependable, I might have the confidence to consider acceptance with those that hold the licence to manufacture. But how do I condone knots that I never see tied? As an employer, if I tested what you suggest and know my staff are capable of using it safely, then I might accept it - but I wouldn't expect the mfr to; specific application expertise lies with the employer. The testing standards would still be void though, unless re-testing was done in that configuration. And what would OSHA, HSE et al make of it?
[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to believe that harnesses should be used only as the mfr originally made it. You yourself speak often of ergonomics. You know that bodies are all very different. And though your harness might be the BEST harness out there...it's still only the best for the people for whom the harness was designed for.
[/ QUOTE ]
TFX was sized on three typical sizes of human frame; there are three different sizes for the hips, two different sizes for the thighs, and three different sizes for the bridge. All are interchangeable, so there is a custom facility for a small additional fee (e.g. small hips, large thighs and long bridge). There is further adjustment possible in the waist and leg risers. Plus extra testing (read thousands of pounds £) to prove them. I pushed for these inclusions and adjustments because of the points you make - it makes for an expensive investment in a small market. The first and second manufacturers we approached weren't interested because of this.
[ QUOTE ]
What if your hips are wider than average, or if you are more top heavy that the mfr intended? Some changes might need to be made.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I covered that above, but if a climber still feels thay can customise further, the points in the first para. apply.
[ QUOTE ]
Does your harness have a replaceable bridge?
love
nick
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, three different sizes, with replaceable abrasion covers. This allows additional/different sized rings to be applied (because we know the rings have passed the tests). But any changes still need to be confirmed by the mfr.
The bottom line is, the blame culture may lead customisers to seek compensation in the event of and accident - you can't expect a mfr to accept that risk when they cannot possibly account for the variations that occur during the process of customisation. Stitches could have been accidentally cut, knots tied incorrectly etc.
As the industry is made up of very small companies with limited budgets, perhaps the industry ought to get together for testing of typical customisations, and then accepting them as good practice?
I think with TreeFlex we have reduced the need for customisation, but obviously not the want. Tree climbing involves assuming safety with a lot of unknown variables as it is. We may be using work positioning equipment, but consider how easy it is to put it under fall arrest - you have to know the system won't fail and has sufficient energy absorption.
Too many assumptions in one system is a fast road to a failure.
TreeFlex test report attached.
Has anyone broke tested a 1/2 rope on a bow shackle? If it breaks at a strength that is agreed to be adequate, then would it not be acceptable to use different, but adequate components on your (or ANY) harness?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I as a designer had that information and it was dependable, I might have the confidence to consider acceptance with those that hold the licence to manufacture. But how do I condone knots that I never see tied? As an employer, if I tested what you suggest and know my staff are capable of using it safely, then I might accept it - but I wouldn't expect the mfr to; specific application expertise lies with the employer. The testing standards would still be void though, unless re-testing was done in that configuration. And what would OSHA, HSE et al make of it?
[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to believe that harnesses should be used only as the mfr originally made it. You yourself speak often of ergonomics. You know that bodies are all very different. And though your harness might be the BEST harness out there...it's still only the best for the people for whom the harness was designed for.
[/ QUOTE ]
TFX was sized on three typical sizes of human frame; there are three different sizes for the hips, two different sizes for the thighs, and three different sizes for the bridge. All are interchangeable, so there is a custom facility for a small additional fee (e.g. small hips, large thighs and long bridge). There is further adjustment possible in the waist and leg risers. Plus extra testing (read thousands of pounds £) to prove them. I pushed for these inclusions and adjustments because of the points you make - it makes for an expensive investment in a small market. The first and second manufacturers we approached weren't interested because of this.
[ QUOTE ]
What if your hips are wider than average, or if you are more top heavy that the mfr intended? Some changes might need to be made.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I covered that above, but if a climber still feels thay can customise further, the points in the first para. apply.
[ QUOTE ]
Does your harness have a replaceable bridge?
love
nick
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, three different sizes, with replaceable abrasion covers. This allows additional/different sized rings to be applied (because we know the rings have passed the tests). But any changes still need to be confirmed by the mfr.
The bottom line is, the blame culture may lead customisers to seek compensation in the event of and accident - you can't expect a mfr to accept that risk when they cannot possibly account for the variations that occur during the process of customisation. Stitches could have been accidentally cut, knots tied incorrectly etc.
As the industry is made up of very small companies with limited budgets, perhaps the industry ought to get together for testing of typical customisations, and then accepting them as good practice?
I think with TreeFlex we have reduced the need for customisation, but obviously not the want. Tree climbing involves assuming safety with a lot of unknown variables as it is. We may be using work positioning equipment, but consider how easy it is to put it under fall arrest - you have to know the system won't fail and has sufficient energy absorption.
Too many assumptions in one system is a fast road to a failure.
TreeFlex test report attached.
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
Using a rope that meets climbing specs tied with double overhand knots on the outside of the shackles is the factory sanctioned replacement for Butterfly harnesses.
If TFx does not approve the use of rope bridges that is a different issue that i do understand.
If TFx does not approve the use of rope bridges that is a different issue that i do understand.
If Komet have cleared that up for the Butterfly, then that solves the issue that started the thread.
Please don't use TreeFlex with any bridge other than those designed for it.
Just because one manufacturer condones something for their product, does not mean it goes for any other similar product. The two harnesses may seem very similar, but they are designed totally differently.
That doesn't mean that we cart blanche disallow customisation; if you have a technique in mind, let us know. We can then condsider it. (General statement not specifically aimed at you Tom
)
Please don't use TreeFlex with any bridge other than those designed for it.
Just because one manufacturer condones something for their product, does not mean it goes for any other similar product. The two harnesses may seem very similar, but they are designed totally differently.
That doesn't mean that we cart blanche disallow customisation; if you have a technique in mind, let us know. We can then condsider it. (General statement not specifically aimed at you Tom
Been thinking about the rope bridge and shackles approved option for the butterfly; thats still a very tight bend the way it pulls against the shackle - I would never run a bend like that in any climbing or rigging system (cycles to failure), so by that reasoning, why on a harness that gets constant wear? Its this kind of CTF effect that can't be determined by one off testing.
If climbers like the rope effect, why not try stuffing the webbing down a section of rope sheath after the core has been removed (kernmantle will probably work best). I'm going to try this now by swapping out the abrasion cover of my TFX bridge. Not sure if the butterfly bridge would be too bulky.
If climbers like the rope effect, why not try stuffing the webbing down a section of rope sheath after the core has been removed (kernmantle will probably work best). I'm going to try this now by swapping out the abrasion cover of my TFX bridge. Not sure if the butterfly bridge would be too bulky.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
