Possible zigzag accident

Assuming there was no design or construction flaws how could a climber twist the device like that? I'd suspect there had to be a snag with some second line hardwear or a lanyard.

That ZZ had an epic fail.
 
Well yu see, I have this theory that too many folks think that somehow speed equates to quality. So they buy all these complicated fragile gizmos so they can be the fastest coolest kid on the block.

When in reality Murph's law is opening his drooling mouth wide to bite them in the azz, see?

jomoco
 
Don't get me wrong Pelorus, you of all people should know that I respect, and will defend your right to hang your life off a flimsy aluminum gizmo!

Why can't you do the same and respect my right to hang my life off of old school tried and true drop forged steel? Something with a half century track record of safe use?

You guys can make fun of me and my old school dinosaur ways till the cows come home mate!

Doesn't bother me at all.

It's the newbies that buy into this new fangled flimsy crap getting themselves killed at such an early age that bothers me.

You push your stuff, and I'll push mine mate....okay?

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming there was no design or construction flaws how could a climber twist the device like that? I'd suspect there had to be a snag with some second line hardwear or a lanyard.

That ZZ had an epic fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big outstanding question! How was the leverage created to put the sideload and/or twist to the ZZ eye.
-AJ
 
Respectively, I think it is neat to see veterans in this industry like Treevet embracing products such as the ZigZag that may help extend a climber's career working aloft, and I haven't seen any evidence linking "fragile complicated gizmos" to increased accident and fatality rates amongst newbie climbers.

If such evidence exists (Dr. John Ball?) it would be helpful to provide a link showing that correlation.

Okay?

Appreciatively,
Dave
 
I doubt the flaw originated in the tree while climbing at all.

Could've happened during the ride out to the job while stored in the truck when something heavy and hard shifted its position going around a corner and wedged it against something hard and immovable.

Short of storing it in its own protected environment when not in use?

Murphy's law applies to fragile mechanisms getting smacked around in this biz.

You can bet on it.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming there was no design or construction flaws how could a climber twist the device like that? I'd suspect there had to be a snag with some second line hardwear or a lanyard.

That ZZ had an epic fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is there no accompanying information with this? If it happened in the truck like Jomoco said would the guy climb on it? The only plausible thing I can think of is the torque involved with a crane could cause such a break easily if the mech hitch hooked on something and the crane op kept tugging.

But if it was done intentionally and then put on the web and even talk of 2 additional falls but no info with these either, then it seems to me that nefarious intentions could be involved. What would cause someone to try to ruin the rep of a company or a device that is the hottest thing on the market now? Jealousy? Destroy the competition? Anger over treatment by the company...or a vendetta...whether smarty pants Dunlap agrees or not it is possible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There is a rumour going round that there has been 3 fails, 2 at 5m and 1 at 20m.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my favorite of the 2 ZigZag Conspiratory Threads. Question...why did Petzl show a pict of a ZZ with just a bent ring and not the torn obliterated one.?

Maybe an investigation going on. I am keeping an eye on the fella that made the above post.

http://youtu.be/DR-gQBkQP-c
 
Hi treevet!
The bent zigzag image provided by Petzl is just an example of one that should be retired, to fit their descriptions of misuse.

As for the image of the one with the torn eye that has been getting around, i am not positive it has been said anywhere that that is the actual one from the incident, it may or may not.

We have to wait...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hi treevet!
The bent zigzag image provided by Petzl is just an example of one that should be retired, to fit their descriptions of misuse.

As for the image of the one with the torn eye that has been getting around, i am not positive it has been said anywhere that that is the actual one from the incident, it may or may not.

We have to wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi back Trev McRev ole TW buddy, I knew that, but I am most curious as to whether that picture (shrapnelled one) is the result of the failure we speak of and...if not...why does that picture exist? If it is, why haven't they put that on their, Petzl's, site instead of the bent one?

I just don't see that kind of damage occurring with side loading or shockloading while climbing or a comb. of both and I and many others have a lot of hours on the unit...along with all the other Petzl stuff I have. I adore my Ascentree. Think it is a work of art to boot.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming there was no design or construction flaws how could a climber twist the device like that? I'd suspect there had to be a snag with some second line hardwear or a lanyard.

That ZZ had an epic fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

New ZZ safety alert on the Petzl web site, clearly tells the story.

Latest Petzl/Zig Zag safety alert notice with diagrams

Screen capture from the alert notice:
8672670388_db922e6e4f_b.jpg


-AJ
 
Hence the wisdom of old school dinosaurs who only trust their lives to drop forged locking steel rope snaps that meet their rated capacities regardless of which axis they're loaded on.

jomoco
 
It looks like a fairly simple fix is to make the "gold" top attachment opening a little larger so that the cantilever effect shown in diagram 3 is way less likely to happen or not happen at all. Easy to say from an armchair designer point of view.

Then again if the eye is larger it may contact the stainless steel rack part of the ZZ.
-AJ
 
I have thought about a short soft link to the gold eye, so theres no cross loading error then. and back to the full kn rating.

unlike the soft link from carabiner to carabiner with a presenting the same problem at 2kn, only with a safety.

I don't trust rubber bits stopping the carabiner cross loading.
 
Not unlike the SJ 2.1 a Dyneema short sling captured at the ZZ replacing the top eye terminating at the bridge connection biner allowing rotation and flexibility of the top biner capture in the rubber keeper (that way like the SJ the lower connection is backed up as well). This would also add a small amount of dynamics to the system in the event of a off axis loading as the system corrected to the appropriate orientation. To achieve this I think the body would be required to be hot forged and machined rather than stamped with fastener upgrades etc. Essentially a whole new device.

What ever happens I'm sticking to cord, I may one day look at a RR when they come into production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom