- Location
- Springfield MO
I think I meant I'm
Ring Failure
- Thread starter 1bigtree
- Start date
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Do I need to be concerned about my 2 Al rings that have "Made in Italy" etched on one side? There is no other etching than that. I got the them from Shelter Tree at ISA 2008.
R
rich_h
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Do I need to be concerned about my 2 Al rings that have "Made in Italy" etched on one side? There is no other etching than that. I got the them from Shelter Tree at ISA 2008.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stacy, that product was made using rings from Climbing Technology and are not involved with any of the recent recalls of Kong rings. If you like I can send you the full spec sheet as well as the break test information from the exact batch that your rings came from.
I have been assured that all rings, both steel and aluminum, coming from CT in the future will be fully labelled with strength ratings, company information, and country of manufacture. I will have an order in for those rings the second they are available.
Do I need to be concerned about my 2 Al rings that have "Made in Italy" etched on one side? There is no other etching than that. I got the them from Shelter Tree at ISA 2008.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stacy, that product was made using rings from Climbing Technology and are not involved with any of the recent recalls of Kong rings. If you like I can send you the full spec sheet as well as the break test information from the exact batch that your rings came from.
I have been assured that all rings, both steel and aluminum, coming from CT in the future will be fully labelled with strength ratings, company information, and country of manufacture. I will have an order in for those rings the second they are available.
- Location
- Lexington, KY
Thanks Rich
I thought they were ok but it doesn't hurt to be certain.
I thought they were ok but it doesn't hurt to be certain.
I was asked to post the following information from Kathy O'Connell of Bartlett, concerning the Michigan gear failure (Nancy Carpenter, Executive Director of the ASM made the request of me): "Aluminum ring failure resulting in accident during Work Climb event on Saturday, Aug. 29 - for those who need to know:
The aluminum ring that failed is NOT standard equipment on the Petzl SRT saddle, as shown in their 2009 catalog. The only ring they offer for use on the bridge of Petzl Sequoia saddles is gold in color and is clearly marked with the Petzl name and breaking strength (23KN). This ring is made by Petzl and is sold separately. The ring that failed on Saturday did not have those specifications - it had no markings and is silver in color."
Nancy also asked that I post from the ISA Homepage: "Voluntary Recall on Aluminum Rings not individually tested
KONG Bonaiti of Italy has confirmed the issuance of polished aluminum rings that were sourced elsewhere and distributed without individual testing. A quantity of these rings were mixed into KONG boxes without having been individually tested and laser marked. Furthermore, two users have experienced failure of these rings that could have led to injury. If you have such a ring (below left), stand-alone or spliced into a product, it is vitally important that you dispose of or submit for replacement immediately.
Delaying or avoiding immediate disposal or replacement could prove fatal to user !!
Upon receipt of recalled ring(s), the sender will be furnished free of charge an individually tested and laser etched replacement. If a similar ring WAS PURCHASED ELSEWHERE, we will gladly replace it. If the ring supports a Sherrill-spliced rope product, that too will be replaced and shipped (within the US) at no additional charge. SherrillTree will compensate customers having bought direct from SherrillTree (with invoice on record) with $5 credit for their shipping expenses. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may present and will work quickly to return replacements."
The aluminum ring that failed is NOT standard equipment on the Petzl SRT saddle, as shown in their 2009 catalog. The only ring they offer for use on the bridge of Petzl Sequoia saddles is gold in color and is clearly marked with the Petzl name and breaking strength (23KN). This ring is made by Petzl and is sold separately. The ring that failed on Saturday did not have those specifications - it had no markings and is silver in color."
Nancy also asked that I post from the ISA Homepage: "Voluntary Recall on Aluminum Rings not individually tested
KONG Bonaiti of Italy has confirmed the issuance of polished aluminum rings that were sourced elsewhere and distributed without individual testing. A quantity of these rings were mixed into KONG boxes without having been individually tested and laser marked. Furthermore, two users have experienced failure of these rings that could have led to injury. If you have such a ring (below left), stand-alone or spliced into a product, it is vitally important that you dispose of or submit for replacement immediately.
Delaying or avoiding immediate disposal or replacement could prove fatal to user !!
Upon receipt of recalled ring(s), the sender will be furnished free of charge an individually tested and laser etched replacement. If a similar ring WAS PURCHASED ELSEWHERE, we will gladly replace it. If the ring supports a Sherrill-spliced rope product, that too will be replaced and shipped (within the US) at no additional charge. SherrillTree will compensate customers having bought direct from SherrillTree (with invoice on record) with $5 credit for their shipping expenses. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may present and will work quickly to return replacements."
Tobe_Sherrill
New member
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
Post with imagery;
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
That's definitely the ring I rode for over a year on my BFII. I wasn't stock, I put it on there.
I am really pissed to think I could've been killed over something like this. Money is soooo petty compared to life and safety.
It raises a question. I replaced the stock BFII ring with with a smaller one because I use two rings and clip into them separately.
The stock ring was large diameter but still polished with no markings. Are large rings suspect also? Or more to the point, are the stock BFII rings suspect?
I am really pissed to think I could've been killed over something like this. Money is soooo petty compared to life and safety.
It raises a question. I replaced the stock BFII ring with with a smaller one because I use two rings and clip into them separately.
The stock ring was large diameter but still polished with no markings. Are large rings suspect also? Or more to the point, are the stock BFII rings suspect?
- Location
- sunny Madison, WI
I was wondering the same thing, where are the treeflex rings made?
- Location
- Louisville, KY
[ QUOTE ]
How about my shiny unmarked aluminum rings holding the bridge on my Weaver Cougar?
[/ QUOTE ]
Please retire any unmarked aluminum rings! Purchase new rings that are stamped, such as Climbing Technology (CT) or DMM.
How about my shiny unmarked aluminum rings holding the bridge on my Weaver Cougar?
[/ QUOTE ]
Please retire any unmarked aluminum rings! Purchase new rings that are stamped, such as Climbing Technology (CT) or DMM.
- Location
- Fayetteville AR
I'm sending my rings in. I just assumed because buying from an arborist supplier they were ok. I'm not going to use ANYTHING that is not rated. There is too much "on the line" literally.
- Location
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The ring on the bridge of Buckinghams Ergovation, which appears to be the same as on their Friction Savers has no markings or ratings either...
Tobe_Sherrill
New member
- Location
- North Carolina, USA
Chip,
The owner of Kong Bonaiti, Marco Bonaiti says that the larger of these rings have always been individually tested. The failures were with the smaller of the two rings.
Don't know about the Treeflex, but Komet Butterfly (green ring) and Buckingham (grey ring) are good.
We will soon present the best possible options in both aluminum and steel after I am fully convinced the source is tops.
The owner of Kong Bonaiti, Marco Bonaiti says that the larger of these rings have always been individually tested. The failures were with the smaller of the two rings.
Don't know about the Treeflex, but Komet Butterfly (green ring) and Buckingham (grey ring) are good.
We will soon present the best possible options in both aluminum and steel after I am fully convinced the source is tops.
- Location
- Louisville, KY
I suspect that all aluminum and steel rings should be etched with a load rating. I hope suppliers such as Sherrill, Wespur, Tree Stuff, etc will insist on this practice.
classictruckman
Participating member
- Location
- Ottawa Valley, Ontario, Canada
You would hope so, but they don't.
- Location
- Louisville, KY
We discussed this problem at length. From now on, Limbwalker does not purchase any ring without a load rating etched on it. Even those companies that perform extensive testing should acquiesce to this firm request in the name of consumer education.
- Location
- Colorado
anybody have the details of the previous failure someone mentioned? Thanks
- Location
- Bluff country, Wisconsin
IF IT IS NOT LOAD RATED, DO NOT BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have been rock climbing and vertical caving for 20 years and would never buy ANYTHING without a rating on it!!! Have read way too many accident reports of failed sub-standard gear.
NickfromWI
Participating member
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
I just noticed that my treeflex saddle has these rings on the leg strap risers.
I emailed the folks at treemettlenexus (paolo). We'll see how this pans out.
love
nick
I emailed the folks at treemettlenexus (paolo). We'll see how this pans out.
love
nick
TreeFlex Rings Response
All of the components of TreeFlex are tested as part of the EN813 harness standard. I have presented this on TB before. This also involves salt spray testing (salt is a serious corrosive of alloys). It can be found here http://www.treemettlenexus.com/pdfs/test_report.pdf
The notion that all components of a harness carry a load rating is impracticable, and sometimes impossible (i.e the thread!). Proof testing is a similar issue.
The purpose of the EN testing is to test how all components work together in a likely fall that the product was designed for. The product is then made to the same specification of each component part used. The harness has also been subjected to the fall arrest forces of EN361, but this is by the blue webbing, which bypasses the rings; this is for using the harness in full body mode. If anyone witnesses such a test they will immediately realize, it is so extreme that survival of such a fall without serious permanent injury is doubtful.
Requiring 2 ton strength of components in a harness does not protect a climber any better in a fall; the body will rupture at half that force, regardless of whether the safety system does. If fall arrest forces are possible, some form of energy absorption is essential.
My personal opinions
It is certainly alarming that the ring in question failed. But we need to think about how we routinely operate at work and in competition that can pre-dispose us to these risks:
1. It is something of an accepted culture that climbers routinely swap component parts in their safety system, without accepting the risks. In this case, it appears a ring was installed to a harness that (I don’t think???) had been tested as part of the EN standard for that harness.
As stated, the EN standards test how the component parts work in a worse case scenario, for which the product was designed.
The harness itself is a component part of a wider safety system, for which Europe has stringent standards to ensure the correct equipment is used as intended and tested.
Arboriculture can be something of an anomaly in this respect (see point 2), as many operators routinely use equipment beyond its design parameters.
2. The situation that led to the failure has been entirely overlooked (in this thread at least). I have stated before that certain competition maneuvers appear to me to expose the equipment and climber to fall arrest forces for which work positioning equipment is not designed.
3. The competitions appear to routinely allow or even encourage modified equipment, with no actual knowledge of how the modifications affect the safety system.
This is further compounded by encouraging systems and procedures for which no data is available with regard to the forces involved NB Has anyone ever placed a dynomometer at the anchor point and simulated a leap from a limb for a target and then a sudden arrest (such as if the hitch jams)?
4. The difference in international standards is not reflected in the competition.i.e. equipment may need to be used beyond its design parameters to successfully compete (points 1 & 2). After all, it is an extreme recreational event.
5. Industry is unduly affected by events at competitions, hence this thread; what may be acceptable in competition as an extreme event, is not necessarily acceptable in daily work, but that is never conveyed.
Industry has never shown intention to resolve these issues successfully, and I doubt it ever will. Hence, due to lack of clear industry leadership on these issues, it is down to employers, operators and competitors, to adequately determine the risks of their undertaking and apply suitable controls. As is becoming more commonly evident, failure to do so has serious consequences.
I’m glad the competitor in question appears well and unscathed, and sympathise – I have run the same risks and gotten away with them; I undertake work differently now.
Please direct comments and opinions on this post to paolo@treemettlenexus.com.
Best regards
P.
All of the components of TreeFlex are tested as part of the EN813 harness standard. I have presented this on TB before. This also involves salt spray testing (salt is a serious corrosive of alloys). It can be found here http://www.treemettlenexus.com/pdfs/test_report.pdf
The notion that all components of a harness carry a load rating is impracticable, and sometimes impossible (i.e the thread!). Proof testing is a similar issue.
The purpose of the EN testing is to test how all components work together in a likely fall that the product was designed for. The product is then made to the same specification of each component part used. The harness has also been subjected to the fall arrest forces of EN361, but this is by the blue webbing, which bypasses the rings; this is for using the harness in full body mode. If anyone witnesses such a test they will immediately realize, it is so extreme that survival of such a fall without serious permanent injury is doubtful.
Requiring 2 ton strength of components in a harness does not protect a climber any better in a fall; the body will rupture at half that force, regardless of whether the safety system does. If fall arrest forces are possible, some form of energy absorption is essential.
My personal opinions
It is certainly alarming that the ring in question failed. But we need to think about how we routinely operate at work and in competition that can pre-dispose us to these risks:
1. It is something of an accepted culture that climbers routinely swap component parts in their safety system, without accepting the risks. In this case, it appears a ring was installed to a harness that (I don’t think???) had been tested as part of the EN standard for that harness.
As stated, the EN standards test how the component parts work in a worse case scenario, for which the product was designed.
The harness itself is a component part of a wider safety system, for which Europe has stringent standards to ensure the correct equipment is used as intended and tested.
Arboriculture can be something of an anomaly in this respect (see point 2), as many operators routinely use equipment beyond its design parameters.
2. The situation that led to the failure has been entirely overlooked (in this thread at least). I have stated before that certain competition maneuvers appear to me to expose the equipment and climber to fall arrest forces for which work positioning equipment is not designed.
3. The competitions appear to routinely allow or even encourage modified equipment, with no actual knowledge of how the modifications affect the safety system.
This is further compounded by encouraging systems and procedures for which no data is available with regard to the forces involved NB Has anyone ever placed a dynomometer at the anchor point and simulated a leap from a limb for a target and then a sudden arrest (such as if the hitch jams)?
4. The difference in international standards is not reflected in the competition.i.e. equipment may need to be used beyond its design parameters to successfully compete (points 1 & 2). After all, it is an extreme recreational event.
5. Industry is unduly affected by events at competitions, hence this thread; what may be acceptable in competition as an extreme event, is not necessarily acceptable in daily work, but that is never conveyed.
Industry has never shown intention to resolve these issues successfully, and I doubt it ever will. Hence, due to lack of clear industry leadership on these issues, it is down to employers, operators and competitors, to adequately determine the risks of their undertaking and apply suitable controls. As is becoming more commonly evident, failure to do so has serious consequences.
I’m glad the competitor in question appears well and unscathed, and sympathise – I have run the same risks and gotten away with them; I undertake work differently now.
Please direct comments and opinions on this post to paolo@treemettlenexus.com.
Best regards
P.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
