CE-EN1891 Type-B!?

Type-B ropes: — {will be updated when possible — 'type' data is not always listed}

Yale Blaze
Marlow Vega
Sampson Velocity
Teufelberger KMIII {KMIII MAX = type A}
Yale Bandit
 
Last edited:
So, ropes classified as CE-EN1891 Type-B are NOT approved for work positioning?
Click to expand...
You have to be careful when making remarks such as these.
As someone else pointed out, 'not approved' by whom exactly?

In another post, you cite from 'Abacus' - which is a supplier of PPE - not a legislative entity.
In other words, Abacus is simply a shop that sells stuff. Abacus has precisely zero powers to enact laws or legislation. And, Abacus is not a 'standards' body. Abacus has no authority whatsoever.

Another way to look at this matter is to point out that EN1891 'type B' ropes are in fact a legitimate form of rope with specifications that are published in the EN1891 standard. Yes, they have a lower MBS - but, they are still manufactured and used for life critical applications.

You also wrote CE-EN1891 which is technically incorrect.
CE is different to EN.
EN is the prefix for all technical standards published within the Euro economic zone. For example, EN892 is the European standard for dynamic ropes and EN1891 is the European standard for low stretch ropes. EN564 is the European standard for accessory cord.
Many nations derive their own standards from EN standards. The world standards body is the ISO. USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany (etc) are all members of the ISO.
ISO link: https://www.iso.org/home.html

For info on CE visit this link: http://www.ce-marking.org/what-is-ce-marking.html
There is also the CEN. Go to this link for info about the CEN: https://www.cen.eu/Pages/default.aspx

Like it or not, EN standards tend to be the 'default' world standard for fall protection PPE. Mountaineering ropes and associated equipment originated from Europe, not the USA.

All member nations of the ISO have signed agreements that they are not allowed to use technical standards as a barrier to trade (ie Marrakesh agreement).
Link: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm
 
agent_smith said:
You have to be careful when making remarks such as these.
…
Click to expand...

The OP is a question! — neither remark or statement. It and the subsequent posts are for general discussion. I trust you're not suggesting that one has to be careful about questioning published statements and seeking open forum clarification about issues the need to be questioned.
 
Obviously, social forums such as this are intended for open discussion.
However, if we are now discussing the English language and correct grammatical form - I would comment that your opening remark appears to be framed as a statement enclosed within a question!
Regardless of syntax, further discussion reinforced the proposition of 'type B' ropes somehow being 'not' approved, using Abacus as the authoritative source (with strong emphasis placed on 'NOT').

Anyhow, I am simply pointing out through further discussion that EN1891 type B ropes are a legitimate product and Abacus are simply a 'shop' with no legislative making powers whatsoever.

Probably the real question ought to be framed as:
Why do rope manufacturers produce type B ropes under the EN1891 standard?
And;
What are the principal applications for type B ropes?
 
per Steve Connally:
manufacturers of certain gear who state only XYZ approved rope should be used with their products
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Although drifting off topic...you have raised an interesting question.

There is a lot of this going on - and its driven by perceived legal risk (and product liability insurance). In the USA, suing someone appears to be a national sport. So USA product manufacturers are cautious - and I can understand their position on this matter.
One only has to think back to what happened to Chouinard which later became the phoenix rising from the ashes as Black Diamond.

When manufacturers of belay/abseil/rope access devices test their products against a published standard, they test with a specific rope type and diameter. Certification of their product is tied to the rope that was used for the test.
They are simply being cautious about which types of rope they will 'warrant' for use in their products... and its reflected in their user instructions.
I liken this to getting your car serviced by a mechanic. Some manufacturers try to 'convince' you to only bring your car back to the dealership for servicing...and its'implied' that you will void your vehicle warranty if you fail to do so. The legal reality is somewhat different.

With rope diameters, its really hard to pin down with precision exactly what a given rope diameter really is. A manufacturer could try to create an impression that the rope diameter must be to within a nano-meter...which would be patently silly and likely backfire. All ropes somewhat flatten and change their diameter under load - and the exact degree of change is impossible to predict over all possible rope brands. If a manufacturer declares that only brand 'xyz' at 11.0mm diameter can be used with their product - this is actually borderline anti-competitive (anti-trust in the USA).
Also, some manufacturers of belay devices try to suggest that you should only use carabiners of brand 'abc' with their product - which again is silly.

A lot of this hasn't been tested in a court of law, and I would be very interested to study any 'test cases' where someone tried to sue a product manufacturer for injuries resulting from a brand of rope or a particular brand of carabiner that wasn't specifically recommended for their device (ie same rope diameter, just different brand).

Another related but interesting issue is users who weigh more than 100kg. In the case of EN892 dynamic ropes, manufacturers only test with 80kg. And yet, there are hundreds of climbers who weigh more than 80kg. Does this mean that it is unsafe to rock climb if you weigh more than 80kg? Will such a person 'void' the rope 'warranty'?
Same goes for EN1891 low stretch ropes - which are tested at 100kg (type A). What happens if you weigh more than 100kg?

I would suggest that a significant number of tree climbers would exceed 100kg - particularly if you factor in all the equipment worn and carried while working at height.
...
Some manufacturers are starting to produce energy absorbers (ie tear-web shock absorbers) for certain weight classes - this is a good sign of things to come...
 
I went to a climbing comp in Connecticut last year and only en1891 type A ropes were approved for use in comp. I lent my Km 111 max to someone because they would not allow her to use Sampson Vellocity for ascent event. It’s not always made clear in weather ropes are classified as en1891 A or B. Sampson Mercury is a rope I’ve considered buying but can’t figure out if it’s en1891 type a? I don’t want to buy a rope and get used to it if I can’t climb on it at ISA events.
 
DSMc said:
You need to remember what the"I" in ISA stands for.
Click to expand...
I’m ok with their rule, the issue for me is that it seems in recent years suppliers stopped making the en1891 designation known, it’s just harder to find the info. Are you saying to look for info on websites from abroad ?
 
Not really, but if it is important that you know that the rope you use is EN1891 A or B, like for a climbing comp that uses international guidelines, it would be worth a look on the manufacturer's website. Whereas the retailer you purchased the rope from may not list it, the rope manufacturer will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom