Ring Failure

Paolo, it's perfectly appropriate at this point to question ANY polished aluminum ring without markings... we're talking life support. Going on an on about modded gear is just sidestepping the issue.

You never answered the question so I'll be more specific...

Have any Treeflex harness rings come from Kong or King Snap? Yes or no?

Are your rings individually and certifiably strength tested according to generally accepted standards? Yes or no?

I don't care if rings have a scribed rating. It's easy to laser scribe an untested ring.

I agree that you can't have load ratings on every component in a system, but discrete components should test at or above rated strength consistently. You know how strong your thread is, right? We trust that you do. But if you don't, you have no business making life support equipment.

Several resellers were duped by Kong, that isn't their fault, it's Kong's. Kong put its name on those rings so to speak and they are responsible for testing and quality assurance. If you were duped as well, we want to know because someone could be seriously hurt or killed. Nobody will hold you responsible if you got a box of bad rings and you cop to it... but if you don't and one of your rings break? You'll never sell another harness to any of us and Tree Mettle Nexus will forever be classed as a lame, third rate manufacturer unworthy of our trust. I don't think you want or deserve that.

It doesn't matter that the Sequoya harness in the second incident was modded. The harness didn't break, the ring did. It's a discrete component that should be rated for life support with a 10:1 safety factor. No swing or jump is going to generate enough force to break a good ring without breaking the climber first.

This is about a breech of trust by a manufacturer. We have to be able to trust that manufacturers of life support gear make no mistakes, take no shortcuts. This gear is very expensive BECAUSE it must satisfy the highest possible quality standard, life support.
 
Blinky has hit on a key issue - untested rings can be stamped/etched with the expected ratings. So marked rings may not be any better than unmarked as far as indicating they have been tested. Expected ratings could perhaps come from statistical sampling of rings, which means all are not tested. The ratings could come from simply testing ten or twenty units and presuming that all produced from that point forward will have the same properties.

This raises the question, does every ring need to be tested to insure it is up to expectations? Well, in reality, every ring may not need to be tested IF the production process is stable, i.e. not changing from one batch to another, AND there is sufficient quality control monitoring to ensure the manufacturing process is what it should be, AND there is enough 'statistical' sampling, to accurately predict the quality level of the product.

I'd lean toward the testing every one since it's our lives on the line, but I suspect we use lot's of gear that isn't specifically 'unit' tested. E.g. our climbing rope - each length of rope sold is not tested to see if it meets the MBS. It can't be; if it were tested, the integrity of the rope would be compromised by the test itself.

And it concerns me a bit that testing a ring to half it's rating could compromise the integrity of the ring. After all, it'll never see half it's breaking strength if the ring is used for it's intended purpose, still it's my life......
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Paolo, this is the info we need.
 
I see no way that competition exposes a ring to such abusive loading that it would fail in competition but not in the field. I'd agree that competition is an extreme sport, but that in no way means the gear is being exposed to extreme limits.

And, yeah, competition may encourage modifications, but where'd they get the gear they use to make modifications? From a supplier. This ring didn't break because it was a modification, it broke because of some yet to be identified problem, likely extremely poor manufacturing or raw material.

The point is, an aluminum ring failed, not because of some modification, but because of a very bad product or a ring that had previously been used in very abusive applications that weakened it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[...]

Thank you Paolo, this is the info we need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Norm, I don't think it is. I'm not trying to call out Paolo but he basically sidestepped the question.

The EN testing is just what Paolo said it is, a test of the system as designed and constructed. That's different from quality assurance of the manufactured product. It's one set of tests to get a certification, then it's done. It's very expensive and I don't doubt Paolo's design for a second. At this point I'd call the Treeflex design tried and true. It's a great product.

But... EN testing doesn't assure the rings are safe from manufacturing defects or a compromised supply chain. It only works if the components always meet the design spec that was tested. The Kong rings were out of spec and made their way into normally good products. I think Paolo's customers deserve to know whether he got some rings from the bad batch... and his product deserves to be vindicated beyond any shadow of doubt... which, I suspect, it will.

This is one of those absolute situations where one must be specific rather than general. Every bad KONG ring out there needs to be removed from climbing systems and destroyed. If TMN was ripped off like Sherrills and Wespur, I think arborists will understand.

Regarding testing, materials testing of something like a ring is pretty straight forward. You break a bunch of them to determine if they meet or exceed design specs. Then, in the case of critical components, you break a few from each manufacturing run and then load the ones for market to half the rated breaking strength... ALL of them. No ring goes to market without seeing a load of half it's ultimate strength. The point being, if the metal isn't properly heat treated or there are inclusions, it will be evident when it's subsequently inspected. Mark B seems to agree with this and he's in the harness business too.

Nothing wigs me out more than worrying about my gear at height. I want to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that it won't fail me. We need to be able to trust that life support manufacturers are beyond reproach... clearly Kong is not, but I'll wager TMN is. I'm betting on Paolo here, not against him.
 
This issue has been on my mind, a lot. Like Blinky, when at height, I wonder what the weakest component of my system is. Even the type of TIP is on my mind when I am deciding IF I can use DbRT OR SRT.

I hear the ring was taken, by WHO? In the past we have had people post issues like a Petzl swivel abrading their rope bridge. Ummm this makes sense to most of us, a triangular configuration with fairly sharp rounded edges, will probably not last as long as a larger and smoother bend radius of a ring.

Is is really surprising that an aluminum ring hooked into a climbing line, a rope bridge, a saddle with webbing, could break. There would be at least some dynamic stretch to all the fibre components to abate some of the shock loading. Wouldn't there?

Of course there could have been other factors involved that even the most conscientious gear inspector would NOT see. A properly stored saddle could have had something banged against the ring.......possibly when the ring was confiscated, they should have kept the other components (Climb line and saddle)for further investigation.

I know it didn't happen to me, BUT I am sure these questions are being thought of by the climber involved. I would be worried about my saddle and rope after an incident like happened in Michigan!

I guess what I am really saying is that the failure of a metal component is SHOCKING when all the other components are considered!
 
Sorry for the long response that many of you will not read due to it length. But I think this is critically important. I have serious questions with both responses:

[ QUOTE ]
TreeFlex Rings Response


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.




[/ QUOTE ]
How can this be? Surely at least all modular components such as rings, friction hitches, carabiners, etc. can carry or describe in attached literature a load rating. Also, it is paramount that those components that cannot be easily distinguished from one another should be etched or marked to help inform the consumer. I personally cannot tell one aluminum ring from another without some type of marking. Rope, yes. Carabiners, yes. Rings, no.

[ QUOTE ]


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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the saddles are not designed to be modular, than why are they seemingly designed to appear modular?

[ QUOTE ]



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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, so you agree that the body should fail before the saddle. And I assume that you mean the textile portions of the saddle should provide some impact relief to the body and the metal components.

How does this point support your opinion that it is impractical to load rate metal rings?

[ QUOTE ]


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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely different aluminum rings should not affect the testing parameters of a saddle within an acceptable range. Remember, the ring failed, not the saddle. Your main point is that climbers routinely swap parts: It is a bit hypocritical and dangerous to say that manufacturers can make modular saddles, but that swapping reasonable parts creates a dangerous potential for failure. All the more reason for load etching modular rings.

[ QUOTE ]




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.



[/ QUOTE ]

What? Are you saying that climbers in a competition overload their equipment? Surely life support equipment should stand the rigors of a work climb or an aerial rescue! If not, than invent a saddle that can!

[ QUOTE ]




3. The competitions appear to routinely allow or even encourage modified equipment, with no actual knowledge of how the modifications affect the safety system.



[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Do you believe that swapping the main ring in a climbing system is over modification? Maybe sewing your own lanyard....but not swapping a metal ring.

[ QUOTE ]


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)?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure they have. It should be the same force at the anchor point at the other end of the climbing line.

In any case, every individual component on that saddle should be able to individually withstand many times that force.

[ QUOTE ]



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.



[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to use a system in competition that I would consider unsafe in some working situation. Besides, the climbing part of a working environment is one of the safer aspects. (with respect to struck bys, chainsaws, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]


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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Some aspects of industry are well served by a centralized bureaucracy. Take the seatbelt, for example.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Blinky has hit on a key issue - untested rings can be stamped/etched with the expected ratings. So marked rings may not be any better than unmarked as far as indicating they have been tested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I would assert that etching or marking the rings is a critical step: it does not replace testing, but it creates accountability and brand identification.

Think about the guy who doesn't care to investigate this issue as we are...his or her access to information will begin with the brand.
 
Just a response to clarify my previous statement, with no particular reference to any product including TFX:

Of course components in a harness are rated - but they cannot physically carry the load rating, and even if they can, there is no need to (In an EN tested harness).

Some harnesses are designed to swap out a different sized bridge for a correct fit.

I expect some manufacturers build a capability into a product for modification, because that is what the market wants - I don't expect they recommend it, but they need to sell their product too. Thats the modifying market's fault, not theirs.

When I state fall arrest forces require energy absorption, it is incorrect to assume I mean anything other than a recognised energy absorber. Under Euro standards for work at height, if fall arrest forces (anything above 6kN) are possible during work, then a full body harness with sternum or dorsal anchor point and energy absorber must be used.

I don't necessarily agree that the body should fail before the saddle. I recognise that I shouldn't expose myself to situations that will put either into the unacceptable risk zone.

I disagree that work climbing is one of the safer aspects of Arboricultural operations.

Some competition manouvres appear to definetly expose climbers to forces higher than 6kN if the dynamic element of the manouvre is suddenly arrested. Any assumption that a stong harness should withstand many times that force is incorrect. One of the anomalys I allude to in Arboriculture is the use of low stretch doubled ropes and exposure to fall arrest forces. That is outside the design and testing parameters of work positioning equipment.

A few years ago I spent time with a manufacturing engineer with test facilities. He would sometimes pull test old harnesses. Some failed at less than 10kN. Not surprising considering the wear and tear over the years. Nothing to worry about with work positioning forces, very worrying if you expose yourself to fall arrest forces and doubled low stretch ropes.

My comments regarding industry leadership are specific to the Arboriculture industry. My point is that the issues and anomalys highlighted are swept under the carpet and ignored.

My comments are general to how climbers routinely expose themselves to risk without recognising it. They aren't specific to the event that started the thread. But they are very relevant.

I agree that a ring should not fail. But it did and nothing in this thread provides evidence of why - seems some don't want the truth to get in the way of a good hanging.
 
Paolo, you have twice now CAREFULLY avoided the questions at hand. That makes you and your product seem very suspicious to me. All you seemed concerned about is absolving yourself of any liability and putting it back on the climber.

We don't need a lesson on thought processes of harness designers. We want to know if your harnesses were sold with potentially dangerous Kong or King Snap sourced rings.

You'd better hope they weren't because after this little spin game you're playng, if a TFX ring breaks, your name is ruined. Right now, I won't touch one of your products because this behavior is highly suspicious. You're not helping yourself here. Answer the original questions which you have purposefully avoided. We can take this discussion to all the other tree fora if you like.

Chris, You're right, a ring scribed with rating and manufacturer is appropriate for traceability.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blinky has hit on a key issue - untested rings can be stamped/etched with the expected ratings. So marked rings may not be any better than unmarked as far as indicating they have been tested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I would assert that etching or marking the rings is a critical step: it does not replace testing, but it creates accountability and brand identification.

Think about the guy who doesn't care to investigate this issue as we are...his or her access to information will begin with the brand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed my point. Markings don't mean that the each individual part has been tested. Plus, the ring(s) in question were not marked and yet we know exactly where they came from.

But that wasn't my point. What I was saying, and still maintain, that marking does not insure expected ratings, nor does it mean that the part was tested in any way.

The ring(s) that failed could have been marked and completely untested. The material itself could have been inferior and yet still be marked. The ring would have still failed.

In fact, a marked ring just might give a false sense of security, leading one to believe the part is up to expectations simply because it is marked, when in fact it may not be.
 
I agree with you, Blinky- and I think I agree with Ron. It seems you are demanding individual testing and I am demanding clear labeling . Lets demand both!

Paolo- The ring in question was very likely not exposed to forces above those which arborists routinely encounter. By virtue that the ring was on a saddle used in arboricultural activities we must assume that the ring can withstand all of those activities! Listen, he was descending towards a target! Surely any and all rings even after years of use should be able to withstand those forces. I am disappointed in your response.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, Blinky- and I think I agree with Ron. It seems you are demanding individual testing and I am demanding clear labeling . Lets demand both!



[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we want both... and I don't mind paying for it.

And I too am disappointed in Paolo's non-answer, but not surprised. It appears from his website the ring on the TFX bridge is one of the large ones which haven't been implicated. In other words he could've allayed Nick's concern with a single, simple sentence.
But I've never seen Paolo give a satisfactory answer to a tough question ever.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, Blinky- and I think I agree with Ron. It seems you are demanding individual testing and I am demanding clear labeling . Lets demand both!



[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we want both... and I don't mind paying for it.

And I too am disappointed in Paolo's non-answer, but not surprised. It appears from his website the ring on the TFX bridge is one of the large ones which haven't been implicated. In other words he could've allayed Nick's concern with a single, simple sentence.
But I've never seen Paolo give a satisfactory answer to a tough question ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Paolo, but from this thread he sounds like nothing more but some factory rep. There are some very passionate folks here about safety and I like that ALOT! Helps keep you alive to retire. As for the sub-standard ring, did I read correctly it was out-sourced, HMMMM, to where I wonder?? Maybe the same place that all those lead contaminated toys and tainted food products came from???
With some companies it's ALL about the dollar, period. Those places sure are not getting my money!!!! Look, ask, and if you don't like what you see and hear go elsewhere, if nobody buys it will force change or extinction.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just to let folks know if it hasn't been said. Wesspur is now going to sell individually tested rings only, with clear labeling on them. Each ring will be tested to 60% of it's rated strength.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you Wespur for your appropriate and prompt reaction! I've always had great experiences with the company.
 
I must side with Blinky on this one. For the past year and a half or so I have only climbed on my TreeFlex harness. But 2 weeks ago I was looking at it and realized I could find no way to visibly discern the rings on the legstrap risers from the ones being recalled. They are simple polished aluminum non-anodized rings of identical dimension. With the information I have, there is no reason for me to believe these rings are not from the exact same source.

I LOVE my TreeFlex. It is by FAR the best harness I have ever worn in 10 years of tree climbing. Because of the lack of trust that I have in the components, I am now looking into MODIFICATIONS that I will have to make to replace the rings on my harness with ones that I can trust.

Paolo- we simply want to know where the rings came from. Who made them?

love
nick
 
[ QUOTE ]
. As for the sub-standard ring, did I read correctly it was out-sourced, HMMMM, to where I wonder?? Maybe the same place that all those lead contaminated toys and tainted food products came from???


[/ QUOTE ]

The semi-confirmed rumor is, the defective rings were sold by Kong who sourced them from a Taiwanese company named King Snap. They have a website if you want to check them out. Either they are a source for LOTS of climbing gear or they rip off manufacturers like ISC, Kong and DMM... probably more like a combination of source and rip off.


Nick,
I was wondering about the leg riser rings. I couldn't tell by the pictures. The bridge ring in the pictures is not currently suspect as it's the larger diameter. None of those have broken so far. Still, it's an unmarked and presumably unrated ring. I'd ditch it immediately.

If the leg riser rings are the bad ones, I can see why Paolo is dodging the issue because they look SEWN in. That would be a very expensive recall for a small manufacturer, possibly devastating without some understanding from the customers.

Thing is, I think most climbers would understand and work with him on it. But his behavior sounds more like he wants to shift blame to the climber... bad call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom