Cocoon Pulley

funny part there is a "rock" climber would take the whip on a 22kn non locking biner all day. ANSI will re think this 50lb short fall at some point. splitting hairs is splitting hairs.
 
I agree. I didn't write the rules, don't sit on the committee either. I used to guide rock climbing in my youth, didn't really get into ratings that much then. I focused on inspection then as now. I think the rule about quick release buttons and other quick release gear is overkill. I would love to use the rock exocita pulley. Maybe Norm will make some headway.
 
[ QUOTE ]
fall that will generate 1000 lbs

[/ QUOTE ] I think you would be surprised at how short a distance it takes for a 180 lbs climber to generate many more times their weight. We're also not on dynamic lines like rock climbers, the elongation reduces the load. The energy slows to a stop- not shock loading the line. I think most climbers try to avoid uncontrolled swings aka falls and position themselves to have short slips. Accidents happen. We are splitting hairs, but it is a valid point for arguing to lower the standard.
 
I think those 50lbs are getting placed where they don't belong. What I mean is that the difference between 22kn and 5000lbs (50lbs) is the "max" breaking strength. No matter how big the fall that number will never change as it is integral to the hardware not the fall. In the example you used that 50lbs would have to be carried by the climber to then be magnified by a fall. I'm sure all of us would like to carry as little weight as possible! What your example does show is that in the case of such a fall where 180lbs then becomes thousands of pounds, that 50lbs in the uppper threshold of the equipment becomes a miniscule margin of safety. I looked it up on Petzls fall factor calculator. If you take a 10' factor two fall on static line (arborist line essentially is) to reduce that 50lb max load all a 180lb climber needs to do is lose 5lbs! So there you go going on a diet would be safer than 23kn
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would love to use the rock exocita pulley. Maybe Norm will make some headway.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the Rock exotica pulley was DQ'd because it has a quick release mechanism. Norm is addressing the 22 kN vs 5000 pounds issue. If Norm succeeds (which I hope he does) the pulley would still be DQ'd.
 
I understand that Mahk, I would still like to see or hear of a case of one opening up during tree work. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the US standards should really be looked at. Are the European standards that unsafe? Why not make them the same.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that Mahk, I would still like to see or hear of a case of one opening up during tree work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of any instance in which an Omni Block has opened unintentionally during treework.



[ QUOTE ]
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the US standards should really be looked at. Are the European standards that unsafe?

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably understand this too, but, just to clarify for all readers, it is the ITCC Rules that don't allow quick-release mechanisms, so Europeans could not use the Omni block at a TCC either.

Also, I don't know if the Omni Block has been approved for use in Europe. There are no indications of CE or EN approval of the Omni on CMI's website:

http://www.rockexotica.com/pr_py_pl_ob15_1.html



[ QUOTE ]
...US standards should really be looked at. Are the European standards that unsafe? Why not make them the same.

[/ QUOTE ]


Standard standards (!) would certainly make things easier for the end user. And I agree that a piece of gear that is safe for tree work in Europe is probably safe for tree work in the US. But, a piece of gear that is safe for a rock climber (or caver etc.) may not be safe for a tree climber. And a technique that is safe for one aspect of tree climbing may not be safe for another aspect of tree climbing. Its not simply a matter of coordinating ratings with tree climbers in other countries and continents, but making sure that gear and techniques that are used in the tree industry are safe for the purpose and manner in which they are used. The European Standards have their own problems with ratings and with gear crossing from one industry or application to another.

I do think it would be helpful to move towards more universal ratings systems, but it will take time and a lot of work.

The attachment is from an article in a past issue of AN. More pleading.
 

Attachments

I give up!
hitaxeonthehead.gif


"Speak not to offend and listen without being offended." C.B.

I need to educate myself better on the subject to argue it more. I'm just giving you the business Mahk about the rock exocita- I fully understand the why's, but don't fully agree with them. I would be backing ROYCE 110% had I spent the $125 for the cocoon pulley instead of the $80 for the rock exocita pulley pre-comp only to have my creative bubble burst during gear inspection. Your all beautiful people.
 
Keith, sorry, I didn't mean to seem like I was beating you over the head with this. I was just trying to keep all the details straight. This is probably a pretty typical--maybe a pretty simple--line of discussion that might occur in any of the ANSI committees. It can be confusing and frustrating. But don't give up, and do keep learning and contributing.

beerchug.gif
 
So Mahk, will the above mentioned gear (Cocoon) be allowed in a fall protection scenario at ITCC in St Louis? Would it be fair to allow competitors to use this or any other "borderline by ANSI {approved industry standards} gear" at a regional comp if it will not be accepted at ITCC? Could the cocoon be backed up on a static line setup and be kosher?

beer.gif


Keith
 
[ QUOTE ]
will the above mentioned gear (Cocoon) be allowed in a fall protection scenario at ITCC in St Louis? ... Could the cocoon be backed up on a static line setup and be kosher?

[/ QUOTE ]


The Cocoon was designed for tree climbing and meets Euro standards so, in my mind, the issue for American climbers is whether or not there is a similar product that meets ANSI standards. That question needs to be addressed to and answered by the Technical Advisor for each competition.



[ QUOTE ]
Would it be fair to allow competitors to use this or any other "borderline by ANSI {approved industry standards} gear" at a regional comp if it will not be accepted at ITCC?

[/ QUOTE ]


If a Technical Advisor had decided to allow the use of the Cocoon at a regional comp then I think it would be incumbent upon that person (the Technical Advisor) to make sure that the competitor understood that the Cocoon was rated lower than what ANSI requires and that the Cocoon might not be approved at other competitions, regional, chapter, or International. The competitor should understand that it is the decision of each Technical Advisor and should be willing to accept each decision without arguement or ill-will.

Nice avatar--somewhere in NE?
 
Right on. I feel comfortable with my decision now. Ed Carpenter is the head technical right? The Quercus alba in in Hohenwald TN at my parents farm, Corkahh isn't it? There was a twin at one time, lightning struck it. The fire was so large it burned the adjacent home.
 
The final decision lies with the Technical Advisor for the comp, not the head tech for any of the events (AR, Footlock, Throwline, etc.).

For the ITCC Ed was head tech in the AR last year (and may or may not be this year), but Tim Bushnell was and is the Technical Advisor for the ITCC.

It may seem like I'm being overly pedantic, but I want to be clear about what you can expect at the comp. I don't want anyone to be surprised and/or upset because they misread or misunderstood something here and didn't realize it until a piece of equipment was questioned at gear inspection. As a TA I might allow the Cocoon at one comp for the reason mentioned above, but another TA at another comp might DQ the Cocoon and you would have to respect his or her decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom