- Location
- Rannoch, Scotland
I’m in the process of moving from Southern Germany to Northern Scotland at the moment. A few days ago I was in the cellar sorting through work gear, everything from new and unused to ‘older’. Amongst that collection were a number of harnesses that I had kept in that dark and well ventilated environment ‘just in case’ they were needed. To save space on the move, they were cut up and binned. Rather glad I did it now, they would probably have only come out of retirement for friends of my kids to do rec. climbs in. The thought of one of them hitting the floor though my negligence is haunting.
Saved the hardware though, you never know how it might come in useful……!
Can’t help thinking that the discussion about harnesses might be better continued on a different but related thread. Not wishing to be antagonistic, but personally, I feel uneasy about the product positioning in the wake of a fatality.
Paolo
I’m sure that durability is a characteristic that most harness manufacturers rank highly during product development and prototype evaluation.
Can I ask you to reference your comment about 45mm webbing? Is this an ANSI standard? The 2002 version of EN361 that I have in front of me calls for webbing in primary support to have a minimum width of 40mm (section 4.2). This should be read with the following paragraph which (to me) implies that the width of loading is a key parameter, not that the width of all primary webbing must be 40mm or more e.g. 2 x 22mm = 44mm.
For reference, prEN813:2005 uses slightly broader wording, stating that ‘…width of support where load bearing parts impact with the body shall be a minimum of 43mm…’ (section 4.2.3.2). Won’t quote any more for fear of copyright hassles!
Manufacturers are one source of reference. Their answers are however likely to reflect what appears in their product range. I have found manufacturers knowledge and understanding to be of very variable quality. To some, R+D means ‘rip-off and duplicate’, their interest in development is minimal. But I’m sure you have found this too?
Notified bodies (test houses) are another source of reference, although in my experience they would give the same wide spectrum of answers (much as if one were to ask a group of climbers a given question…..unless of course you were asking if they wanted a beer!).
I know also that even standards committee members can have different views on individual issues!
My point? There is no single definitive authority on these subjects. Some issues just aren’t that black and white. Standards (anywhere in the world) are often out of date before they are published, partly because committee members are not normally practitioners, or lack contact with them. Their objective (amongst many other things) is to ensure that prescribed minimum standards are achieved. If an advance is made in design, it may or may not conform to the (outdated) standard, depending on which Notified Body you then discuss this design concept with. The spirit of the standard is what is most important i.e. that the product is safe, ergonomic, practical, meets the needs of the user, easily inspected, clear user guidance etc, etc. Getting caught up in 45mm (or otherwise) may or may not be helpful for the end user.
All I'm saying is....there's more than one way to skin a cat (apologies to cat lovers.....of which I am not one).
And just so that we are clear, I am not talking about either of our products here.
Chris
Treemagineers – all for the trees and none for a fall!
Saved the hardware though, you never know how it might come in useful……!
Can’t help thinking that the discussion about harnesses might be better continued on a different but related thread. Not wishing to be antagonistic, but personally, I feel uneasy about the product positioning in the wake of a fatality.
Paolo
I’m sure that durability is a characteristic that most harness manufacturers rank highly during product development and prototype evaluation.
Can I ask you to reference your comment about 45mm webbing? Is this an ANSI standard? The 2002 version of EN361 that I have in front of me calls for webbing in primary support to have a minimum width of 40mm (section 4.2). This should be read with the following paragraph which (to me) implies that the width of loading is a key parameter, not that the width of all primary webbing must be 40mm or more e.g. 2 x 22mm = 44mm.
For reference, prEN813:2005 uses slightly broader wording, stating that ‘…width of support where load bearing parts impact with the body shall be a minimum of 43mm…’ (section 4.2.3.2). Won’t quote any more for fear of copyright hassles!
Manufacturers are one source of reference. Their answers are however likely to reflect what appears in their product range. I have found manufacturers knowledge and understanding to be of very variable quality. To some, R+D means ‘rip-off and duplicate’, their interest in development is minimal. But I’m sure you have found this too?
Notified bodies (test houses) are another source of reference, although in my experience they would give the same wide spectrum of answers (much as if one were to ask a group of climbers a given question…..unless of course you were asking if they wanted a beer!).
I know also that even standards committee members can have different views on individual issues!
My point? There is no single definitive authority on these subjects. Some issues just aren’t that black and white. Standards (anywhere in the world) are often out of date before they are published, partly because committee members are not normally practitioners, or lack contact with them. Their objective (amongst many other things) is to ensure that prescribed minimum standards are achieved. If an advance is made in design, it may or may not conform to the (outdated) standard, depending on which Notified Body you then discuss this design concept with. The spirit of the standard is what is most important i.e. that the product is safe, ergonomic, practical, meets the needs of the user, easily inspected, clear user guidance etc, etc. Getting caught up in 45mm (or otherwise) may or may not be helpful for the end user.
All I'm saying is....there's more than one way to skin a cat (apologies to cat lovers.....of which I am not one).
And just so that we are clear, I am not talking about either of our products here.
Chris
Treemagineers – all for the trees and none for a fall!
