New ANSI revision on the slate

Mark Chisholm

Mark Chisholm

Administrator
Administrator
Location
Home of the New Jersey Devils
Here's something I'd like to discuss:

In a well-meaning effort to further safety among climbers using carabiners, the Committee voted to approve the change to requiring split-tails and climbing line ends to have eye splices large enough to permit girth-hitching for an improved "hold" on the carabiner. In the back of my mind I'm wondering if we jumped too soon by adavancing a manufacturing standard without adequate input from the cordage suppliers we will be impacting. I won't be able to get an answer from several manufacturers in time for 5-31, but we may have to deal with concerns in the public comment phase.



This came to me from Don Blair. I for one would be against this revision. I have many reasons, but a good place to start would be the article written by Todd K and Norm H from this site. What do you all think of this?
 
Im against it personally. I like tight eyes. I would rather see the change to allow for either or. That is a tight eye OR an eye large enough for girth hitching.
Having recently talked with Jamie Goddard of Yale ropes, we talked about this very subject. His words were that a girth hitch is technically a knot, and when you girth hitch a splice the inefficiency of the knot makes the idea of a splice ineffective.
So a spliced rope is 90-95% efficient, whereas, a knot in the eye of a splice reduces the rope strength by what? 30-40%.

Im against it, and will not comply to "knotting" MY splices.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In a well-meaning effort to further safety among climbers using carabiners, the Committee voted to approve the change to requiring split-tails and climbing line ends to have eye splices large enough to permit girth-hitching for an improved "hold" on the carabiner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still use a knot. I can't even say I've climbed using a rope with an eye-splice.
This does mean the climber still has the option to use either a knot or an eye-splice on their climbing lines and split tails, am I correct?

[ QUOTE ]
In the back of my mind I'm wondering if we jumped too soon by advancing a manufacturing standard without adequate input from the cordage suppliers we will be impacting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
This came to me from Don Blair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Now we know who is important around here.

[ QUOTE ]
I for one would be against this revision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to learn the arguments behind the longer eye-splice and how it came to the safety committee's attention it would be better.

[ QUOTE ]
I have many reasons, but a good place to start would be the article written by Todd K and Norm H...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean Mark A. and Norm H.? Todd's article was about a removal he did. Mark, please share your thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you all think of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Steve's argument. I still use a knot and prefer to alternate the use of the ends of my rope. I also like the rope snap to terminate the end of my climbing line.

Joe
 
I am against it, for the reasons stated above by tophopper.

I understand the provision that large eyes should be girth hitched if they are to be safe, but closing the book on tight eyes, which are equally safe and stronger to boot, makes no sense.

I'm assuming that knots would still be approved terminations, right?
 
I think Norm did some testing with splices girth hitched to caribiners ended up being stronger because of there is two parts of rope on the bends? Norm?
 
I haven't done any testing on this particular splice. The reasoning behind the girth hitch, is so the eye splice doesn't "float" on the carabiner potentially cross loading it.
I personally don't see the danger with a carabiner eye. I make an eye splice large enough to insert a Petzl plastic pulley, so the eye splice doesn't a'float" on the biner. It also helps in retrieving the friction saver. It goes through the large ring and doesn't the small ring.

Is there data on why ANSI is making this change? If they are worried about cross loading, why not say "a spliced eye shall be anchored to the climbing link so as to prevent cross loading."
I am NOT in favor of the new proposed standard.
 
I am not in favor of the new proposed standard either I like my special tight eye that Nick made for me. It barely fits on a caribiner and has extra whipping so that I can retreive my custom rope guide without attaching anything to my climb line.
 
I also disapprove of the proposed change. I like Norm Hall's wording above since it identifies a potential problem and just says to deal with it. Knots, whipped eyes,tight eye splices, carabiner traps or big eyes that are girth hitched are all effective ways of doing so.
 
I was under the impression that the revision included tight eye splices as well as the long eye for girth hitching.

I believe the idea is to minimize cross loading as Norm mentioned.

I like the biner girthed on my lanyard but I dislike it for my climbing line. I've been trying it for a week or two since Tom D tipped my off about it.
 
I dissaprove.
If crossloading is the main concern then that should be addressed. My Girth hitched termination has rotated in the dee, and has croassloaded.
 
Before you lock your heals down, wait until the Z is posted in the next couple of weeks. The we can all read the wording, as proposed, and slice and dice.

Norm stated the reasons for the change. The changes will be worked out in time. Who knows, this proposal might not make it into the final standard.

In simple terms, what is proposed is some way to reduce the possibility of a loop rope termination allowing cross loading. One pundit at the Z meeting said that the bowline is being eliminated as a rope termination. :)
 
Two points about a tight eye make it superior.

One, retreival is more assured, because a smaller eye has less liklihood of catching on anything in freefall.

Two, the girth hitch is bulky, blocking the view of my harness. I oftentimes use two climbing lines, and the large amount of hardware on the dee ring must be sorted out visually. A small splice allows the gear to be seen around.

A rubber band easily converts a long eye to something compact.
 
From the proposed revision (Unless there have been changes since May)

8.1 Ropes and Arborist Climbing Equipment

8.1.1 Climbing lines used in a split-tail system and split-tails shall be terminated with an eye splice or a
knot that interfaces appropriately with the connecting link that it is attached to. The termination knot
selected shall remain secure under normal loading and unloading. When using a carabiner without a
captive eye, the knot or eye splice shall cinch in place to prevent the accidental opening and/or sideloading
of the carabiner.
 
TMW:

Thanks fopr posting the most updated version. The wording addresses the topic pretty much as Norm had suggested.


Mike Oxman wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Two points about a tight eye make it superior.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree.

I use an adjustable false crotch when working a spar and need to put a screw link in the eye in order to retrieve the AFC after moving down the spar. With a larger eye I can put the link in with the carabiner and leave it there for the entire spar. With a small eye I have to take the 'biner out, put in the link, and then take the link out in order to put the 'biner back in the eye because they will not fit in the eye at the same time.

If I had to use a small eye I could attach the link to the eye with a piece of string so that I could attach it and leave it there, but then the link flops around too much.

For this reason I prefer the larger eye.

Mahk
 
i maid this page/ link at MTL to show how a bowline (or other 'loose' eye) on life support krab can be bad. Thanx Tom for this awareness; and Happy Birthday! i read the Z to mean that a bowline to snap is okay; but others say that it is to be outlawed too. But to me, the looser eye allows the snap to self orientate correctly; whereas it allows a krab to incorrectly align (differance being round hole versus krab shape giving 'captive eye'{?} of snap); but jury is still out on that part of this link...
 
spydey wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Thanx Tom for this awareness; and Happy Birthday!



[/ QUOTE ]

If that's today Tom, you've got four big virtual hugs from this house. All the best to ya! /forum/images/graemlins/grouphug.gif
 
I wonder what the status of all this is. I,like many here, will boycott any rule telling me what knot I have to use to connect a carabiner to my climbing line. I consider myself to be VERY ANSI compliant. But I am more of a proponent of the tight eye.

Maybe the rule just needs to say something like, "steps shall be taken to prevent cross loading of the carabiner". I don't think I've ever noticed cross loading with my tight eye.

Girth hitch is cool....if that's what you like. But it's not for me.

treeman- how's the new rope working out?

love
nick
 
Personally, I dont like splices in my climbing line or split tail.

I have to do a lot of close up work on palms, the taper on the rope from splicing makes the hitch slide down. With a knot I can have the split tail right up against the terminal knot of the lifeline.

Also for trees where there are a lot of change-overs of course you want a knot that you can just take out of the biner. The terminal end of my lifeline I usually tie a figure 8 knot. I take this knot off and on the same biner that has the split tail secured with a double fishermans.

So according to those regs I can still tie my figure 8 but now need to girth hitch the loop or eye of it, or tie a different knot that will cinch onto the biner, perhaps a hangmans as it can be uncinched and slid off!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom