Rope bridge, finally. Now what knot?

[John@TreeXP]

I'm still a little bothered... Not because Joeybagodonuts spells "allot", rather than "a lot", but because when it comes to the Safeguard's ability to use other than prescribed rope diameters, it may not be OK, just because a different size rope can fit into the device and work with some degree of efficiency. The manufacturer could have a plethora of potential concerns impacting the device's performance on non-recommend rope diameter sizes, despite how safe a climber may think it is in their particular case, including self-proclaimed expert witnesses. My earlier comment about possible heat dissipation concerns was only one of the possible issues concerning non-manufacturer recommended rope diameters, but there may be other significant issues, stress limits, etc., we're not made aware of. I'm not the manufacturer and I don't write their product descriptions, which is all the more reason for justifiable concerns about the credibility of those who proclaim they know more about a product than the actual product's manufacturer.

I know we've moved on and have hopefully reached our own conclusions about the former Lifeguard, now known as a Safeguard, but without the cam spring, working well as a paper-weight or a short lanyard's rope-grab substitute and not as efficient a bridge adjuster when compared to other solutions, but I felt I needed to get this out there. The Safeguard obviously doesn't compare to the complexities of say the Akimbo, but that's a case where a manufacturer's published guidelines are vital to the device's safe and proper use with specifically approved ropes.

 

[agent_smith]

Safeguard's ability to use other than prescribed rope diameters, it may not be OK, just because a different size rope can fit into the device and work with some degree of efficiency.

I can see you are fixated on rope diameters.
Here's something to ponder:
Did you know that the actual rope diameter varies over time? As your rope wears, its characteristics change. Also, your rope s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s under load... causing its cross sectional profile to alter.

Lets say that a gadget is designed for 11.0mm rope. Do you think using 10.5mm or 11.5mm is really going to result in catastrophic failure? Or do you think manufacturers realize and understand that their gadgets must be 'fault tolerant' to a certain degree?
For example, let say you engaged an 11.2mm diameter rope into an 11.0mm designed gadget. Do you think the manufacturer would have considered this possibility and designed their product accordingly? Or do you think the 11.2mm rope will instantly result in total gadget destruction followed by your death?

The manufacturer could have a plethora of potential concerns impacting the device's performance on non-recommend rope diameter sizes, despite how safe a climber may think it is in their particular case, including self-proclaimed expert witnesses

The manufacturer cant control what ropes the end user employs. All gadgets are fault tolerant to a certain degree. Rope diameter variance by +/- 0.2mm is not going to be instantly fatal - because you would expect that kind of variation in real world use.
I would comment that all end users should perform their own safety checks and verify that their rope will work properly in their chosen gadget.

Your reference to self-proclaimed experts is miss-placed..
One thing I have noticed is that you don't appear to thoroughly check your facts before posting. Your posts are emotional responses rather than well thought out and accurate responses.

My earlier comment about possible heat dissipation concerns was only one of the possible issues concerning non-manufacturer recommended rope diameters, but there may be other significant issues, stress limits, etc., we're not made aware of.

Within the context of a harness rope bridge - heat build up is completely irrelevant!

If you really want to push the heat argument, I suggest that you take a look at the webpage from a Black Diamond sponsored test. Check out the video on that page..
Link: http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en/qc-lab-can-a-hot-belay-device-melt-my-rappel-slings.html

These guys did their best to try to induce heat build up in the abseil device. They failed to reach a temperature that could destroy ropes or slings.
Now, in the context of a harness rope bridge - are you seriously suggesting that heat build up is an issue?

As for stress limits - this is irrelevant in the context of harness rope bridges.
The stress limit you allude to has more to do with loading profile. For example, if there is zero load on a gadget, then there is no net stress. Given the nominal weight on a gadget is 1 person, it is difficult to see how such a weight will push the gadget to beyond its design limitations. i would point out that the tooling for a 'Safeguard' is the same as its sister product the 'Lifeguard'. The difference is that the spring has been removed from the Safeguard. Holding this thought in mind, are you aware that a 'Lifeguard' is intended to arrest a free-fall? Given the same metal stamping/moulding and virtually the same mass, it is hard to see how a Safeguard can be stressed to its yield point inside a harness rope bridge.

the credibility of those who proclaim they know more about a product than the actual product's manufacturer.

In my view, your have fallen on your sword - and any credibility that you may have had - has long since vanished into the tree tops

I know we've moved on and have hopefully reached our own conclusions about the former Lifeguard, now known as a Safeguard,

No - you haven't moved on. You are endlessly spinning your wheels.
Your conclusions are (in general) manifestly wrong.
Also, you still appear to be confusing the 'Lifeguard' with the 'Safeguard'.
The Lifeguard is intended as a belay device for lead climbing applications. It can also be used for abseiling.
The Safeguard is not intended to be used for belaying a lead climber. This is because of its instantaneous catch. Also, it would be very difficult for a belay person to feed out slack rope quick enough to a needy lead climber (who often need slack rope in a hurry).

The 'Lifeguard' is easier to feed out slack rope to a lead climber - and it doesn't have the same instantaneous catch.

manufacturer's published guidelines are vital to the device's safe and proper use with specifically approved ropes.

I understand your concerns re 'user instructions'.
Did you know that all such 'guidelines' are first and foremost, intended as a legal first line of defence against frivolous lawsuits from end users? In the USA, suing people is a national sport
No manufacturer wants to get sued, so they try to protect themselves with carefully drafted user instructions.

I see the same thing with automobiles (cars)..some manufacturers try to 'force' you to only use genuine parts for repairs. They hate it when customers use alternative brands.
Same goes for vehicle servicing. Some try to trick you into believing that you must take your vehicle back to the dealer for servicing (which is false).

By the way, I posed a question to you earlier - you must have missed it. I'll repeat it again...
Do you have written approval from your tree harness manufacturer to add a Roll N Lock gadget into your rope bridge? Or, would such end user modification void the warranty?

 

[John@TreeXP]

Do you have written approval from your tree harness manufacturer to add a Roll N Lock gadget into your rope bridge? Or, would such end user modification void the warranty?

I don't and I believe it might, but I'm not sure. So what's your point and how is this relevant to the points I've raised about sidelining a manufacturer's product description with your own set of proclamations, even if it's arguably defensible? Moreover, why don't you involve Madrock in this discussion to address your points concerning the rope size variances? Are you afraid they might oppose or challenge the safe rope size limit you seem more than willing to impose of all of us? Perhaps they will agree and modify the product description to include a broader range of rope diameter sizes, or not, but at least they'd be on the record one way or another.

I do respect and understand what you are saying about acceptable variances, stress tolerances, rope's varied characteristics, etc., but the fact that you've jumped from a 11 mm limit to a self proclaimed 12.5 mm limit seems a bit excessive and unduly risky, especially considering the sensitivity of using what appears to be the smallest cam'd assisted breaking device in it's class. If you're OK with that, good for you, but professing that to the world that it's safe for everyone without the manufacturer's blessing, disclaimer, or some sort of fully sanctioned board of experts approval, it seems foolish and irresponsible, at least from the perspective of one non-authoritative recreational climber with zero credibility.

I also appreciate the use of less inflammatory remarks, by the way, despite the assortment of false assumptions about me which you throw out like toilet paper. Still, having a nice civil discourse is my preferred way to have constructive discussions like this. If you don't want to respond, I understand and I'm more than willing to move on, at this point.

 

[agent_smith]

don't and I believe it might, but I'm not sure. So what's your point and how is this relevant to the points I've raised about sidelining a manufacturer's product description with your own set of proclamations, even if it's arguably defensible?

The point i am making is that you are fixated on rope diameters with the Safeguard... and yet, you seem to overlook that many of your concerns regarding product liability also apply to adding a Roll N Lock to your harness rope bridge!

I can confirm that all manufacturers do not like end user modifications to their PPE.
That's free legal advice - no charge for that service

In other words, if you modify the manufacturers PPE in any way - as a general rule - it voids their warranty. When manufacturers make and sell PPE - it carries compliance certification markings in reference to the way that it was originally built and supplied.

Does that make sense to you or do you require further explanation?

Moreover, why don't you involve Madrock in this discussion to address your points concerning the rope size variances?

I already have I am one of the people who recommended removing the spring from the 'Lifeguard' to transform it into the 'Safeguard'. In fact, Richard Delaney was a major driving force in this regard.

professing that to the world that it's safe for everyone without the manufacturer's blessing, disclaimer, or some sort of fully sanctioned board of experts approval, it seems foolish and irresponsible,

And you don't think there is any thing inflammatory with your posts?
I would be pleased for anyone to file a lawsuit against me for suggesting that you can use a 12.5mm diameter rope in a 'Safeguard' device within the context of a tree climbing harness rope bridge.
Please PM me for contact details so our legal teams can commence 'discovery' of evidence in preparation for Court hearings.

I also appreciate the use of less inflammatory remarks, by the way, despite the assortment of false assumptions about me which you throw out like toilet paper. Still, having a nice civil discourse is my preferred way to have constructive discussions like this. If you don't want to respond, I understand and I'm more than willing to move on, at this point.

I have been civil as much as reasonably possible with you.
However, whenever you introduce false statements - it is important to correct those assertions so that the facts are made known.
The number of false claims made by you is reaching a level where even I can no longer keep track.

I would re-assert to you (again) that any modification to your PPE immediately voids any product warranties. So if you install a Roll N Lock, by default, you void the warranty.

But, the people who make such modifications are generally pushing the envelope to extract more functionality and efficiency from their PPE. They are people who are innovators - they aren't (by nature) 'followers'. They don't care about product warranties - they just care whether their PPE is as efficient as possible.

I might add that it is exactly these type of people who actually drive progress! And manufacturers try to keep up - by responding to the demands and needs of their clients. Some manufacturers are already trying to make adjustable rope bridges as a standard feature (or as an option).

I am one of the people who like to to find new and innovative ways to get the most out of my PPE - which is why I came up with the idea of installing a 'Safeguard' into a harness rope bridge.
I knew about people using and recommending the Roll N Lock... but, it has its limitations (and I am not a huge fan of the sharp edge within the cam).

I use the Safeguard in a variety of applications (not just harness rope bridges). They also work great in tension guy lines for proprietary frames such as the Vortex. I also use them as a height adjuster for medic attendants attached to a stretcher/litter in vertical rescue.
They also are very effectve as a 'PAL' (personal adjustable lanyard) for personal fall protection around exposed edges (eg a cliff top).

 

[John@TreeXP]

The point i am making is that you are fixated on rope diameters with the Safeguard... and yet, you seem to overlook that many of your concerns regarding product liability also apply to adding a Roll N Lock to your harness rope bridge!

I can confirm that all manufacturers do not like end user modifications to their PPE.
That's free legal advice - no charge for that service

In other words, if you modify the manufacturers PPE in any way - as a general rule - it voids their warranty. When manufacturers make and sell PPE - it carries compliance certification markings in reference to the way that it was originally built and supplied.

Does that make sense to you or do you require further explanation?


I already have I am one of the people who recommended removing the spring from the 'Lifeguard' to transform it into the 'Safeguard'. In fact, Richard Delaney was a major driving force in this regard.


And you don't think there is any thing inflammatory with your posts?
I would be pleased for anyone to file a lawsuit against me for suggesting that you can use a 12.5mm diameter rope in a 'Safeguard' device within the context of a tree climbing harness rope bridge.
Please PM me for contact details so our legal teams can commence 'discovery' of evidence in preparation for Court hearings.



I have been civil as much as reasonably possible with you.
However, whenever you introduce false statements - it is important to correct those assertions so that the facts are made known.
The number of false claims made by you is reaching a level where even I can no longer keep track.

I would re-assert to you (again) that any modification to your PPE immediately voids any product warranties. So if you install a Roll N Lock, by default, you void the warranty.

But, the people who make such modifications are generally pushing the envelope to extract more functionality and efficiency from their PPE. They are people who are innovators - they aren't (by nature) 'followers'. They don't care about product warranties - they just care whether their PPE is as efficient as possible.

I might add that it is exactly these type of people who actually drive progress! And manufacturers try to keep up - by responding to the demands and needs of their clients. Some manufacturers are already trying to make adjustable rope bridges as a standard feature (or as an option).

I am one of the people who like to to find new and innovative ways to get the most out of my PPE - which is why I came up with the idea of installing a 'Safeguard' into a harness rope bridge.
I knew about people using and recommending the Roll N Lock... but, it has its limitations (and I am not a huge fan of the sharp edge within the cam).

I use the Safeguard in a variety of applications (not just harness rope bridges). They also work great in tension guy lines for proprietary frames such as the Vortex. I also use them as a height adjuster for medic attendants attached to a stretcher/litter in vertical rescue.
They also are very effectve as a 'PAL' (personal adjustable lanyard) for personal fall protection around exposed edges (eg a cliff top).

Where did you pass the bar? Giving legal advice is slippery slope too, especially for non-lawyers or lawyers who practice law in states where they're not admitted to the bar. In any case, I'll still wait for an official response from Madrock, nonetheless, before I buy into your claims. Thanks for all that extraneous info, but I'm sill not satisfied with your unsubstantiated clams about safe rope size uses going far in excess of the product's published guidelines. I find your approach reckless, cavalier, irresponsible and unprofessional. Also, condescending, disrespectful and extremely rude.

I too suspect we'll be seeing a lot more adjustable rope and dual rope bridge options coming down the pipe. To date, I think the 2019 Sequoia is the premiere pick for saddles, with the EVO running close behind.

 

[agent_smith]

I find your approach reckless, cavalier, irresponsible and unprofessional. Also, condescending, disrespectful and extremely rude.

You confuse 'disrespect' with correcting your numerous errors and misconceptions. I am calling you out on your knowledge - and you don't like it. So you retaliate...

With respect to Madrock, I can save you a lot of time and energy - since i already know how they (and any other manufacturer) will respond.

Here is their response for you (ahead of time):

Dear Sir,

We are responding to your enquiry about using the Safeguard device with rope diameters not specifically identified in the product user instructions.

Madrock does not recommend that you use rope diameters that fall outside of the nominal identified range. Doing so will void any implied warranties and could result in product failure.

Our products should only be used in a way that complies with our instructions and by persons who are trained and competent.

Thank you for contacting us.

Warm regards,

Madrock.


......................

And here is a sample reply from any harness manufacturer (with regard to end user modification).

Dear Sir,

We are responding to your enquiry in relation to modification of our tree climbing harness.

All of our product are designed, built and tested in conformance to international standards. The CE certification mark and EN / ANSI compliance applies to our product as supplied and sold in its original configuration.

Any end user modifications alter the specifications under which our products were certified and will void any implied warranties.

Furthermore only competent and experienced persons should use our products - and in the manner which is clearly depicted in our user instructions.

Failure to do could result in serious injury and/or death.
For these reasons, we do not recommend any end user modifications of our products.

Thank you for contacting us.

Warm regards,

[product manufacturer].

 

[climbstihl]

That's the device i actually had in mind when i posted that comment about the Safeguard's lever length & two hands.

You must really like that Eddy.. I can see you've put allot of use on it.. Definitely worth the purchase?

I do really like it, however, this is one of the Lory's at work, so most of the wear is not from me.
I don't currently own one, if I would get ond I'd get the pro, I have no use for it as a belay device, so I'd rather not have the spring. If it's worth the purchase depends on what you do. For our application at work it's great, I wouldn't want to carry two I'D's with me, especially not one dangling in front of my crotch. Keep in mind I haven't tried a Rig yet, but that's still pretty bulky. Also, the lory family is rated for a rescue load of 225 kg, without a braking biner.

 

[Brocky]

Agent smith, are you so smart that you are clueless to how big of a dickhead you are appearing, or is it intentional?

 

[agent_smith]

per Brocky:

Agent smith, are you so smart that you are clueless to how big of a dickhead you are appearing, or is it intentional?

Brocky - I can say this with conviction...I have never stooped so low as to resort to intentional name calling in this thread.

You appear to have crossed the line in this regard.

I am merely involved in a scenario of cause and effect. The cause is inaccurate/false statements - and the effect is me correcting those inaccuracies.

Normally, such intentional insulting comments would earn you a ban.
I would say that an apology would be in order.

 

[Brocky]

So you’re clueless, so sorry for you.

 

[John@TreeXP]

Agent smith, are you so smart that you are clueless to how big of a dickhead you are appearing, or is it intentional?

It's beyond that. His ego can't keep up with any rational sort of discussion, so he's forced to concede his arguments by evading specific questions and resorting to humiliating, insulting and false accusations that have no bearing on the issues being raised, as if this in some way gains credibility or some way earns him brownie points. What he fails to understand is when this happens, it only serves to further empower the opposition.

 

[agent_smith]

John@TreeXp - it appears that you have an ally with Brocky
More power to you.

This thread has deteriorated to the point where you are now resorting to intentional insults.
I would say you guys are one step away from a warning or ban - or, this thread will be locked.

I don't think either of you actually know what the point of all this discussion is anymore?
I try to promote the facts... and within the context of a harness rope bridge, I personally like to use a Safeguard.

You don't have to like it...its not an enforceable undertaking. Its entirely optional.

 

[agent_smith]

he's forced to concede his arguments by evading specific questions and resorting to humiliating, insulting and false accusations that have no bearing on the issues being raised,

Insults again...

The word 'oxymoron' comes to mind (look it up in the dictionary).
At the 11th hour, you are trying to escape by redirecting the focus to me - suggesting that I am evasive and false.
Its actually the other way around.
Most of what you have stated is plainly wrong - and I have given you detailed info at every opportunity.
The reality is, you don't like it.

Did you read the Black Diamond report re heat issues with belay devices?
Have you compared the Lifeguard against the Safeguard to ascertain which device has the instantaneous catch?
Have you personally conducting tests of different rope diameters inside the Safeguard to determine performance outcomes?
Have you checked the consequences of installing a Roll N Lock to your harness - which is an end-user modification - and the implications of this with regard to product warranties?
There is more but I'll let you consider this lot first...

 

[Brocky]

Back on track, two drawbacks of using the Safeguard is you lose some bridge length and the ring or pulley would be slamming into it when leaning that way.
You’re mistaken if you think you weren’t insulting.

 

[John@TreeXP]

John@TreeXp - it appears that you have an ally with Brocky
More power to you.

This thread has deteriorated to the point where you are now resorting to intentional insults.
I would say you guys are one step away from a warning or ban - or, this thread will be locked.

I don't think either of you actually know what the point of all this discussion is anymore?
I try to promote the facts... and within the context of a harness rope bridge, I personally like to use a Safeguard.

You don't have to like it...its not an enforceable undertaking. Its entirely optional.

Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned by all of this. Using defamatory or derogatory language diminishes ones credibility. Debating issues solely on the basis of the merit of the position being discussed is how civilized parties reach logical conclusions. In our case, you defy logic and defend your position with insulting remarks, invalid and unsubstantiated assumptions. You've shown your true colors and if anyone deserves an apology, it's you apologizing to our entire group.

 

[agent_smith]

per Brocky:

You’re mistaken if you think you weren’t insulting.

You are confusing insulting with technical accuracy.

clueless to how big of a dickhead you are appearing

and this...

So you’re clueless, so sorry for you.

I guess you're mistaken if you think these comments aren't intended to be insulting?

Aside from your insults...
I can give you a modicum of a considered reply:
With regard to the Safeguard - nobody is suggesting that you (or anyone else) should use it.
Its merely my preference.
There is no magic bullet - and yes, there are advantages and disadvantages to its use.
It a case of trading something away and gaining something in return.
Depending on harness and and how the Safeguard is installed - will dictate remaining usable bridge length. I don't find it to be a show-stopper.

 

[agent_smith]

Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned by all of this. Using defamatory or derogatory language diminishes ones credibility.

Yes - indeed - and I genuinely hope that you learned this lesson?

Debating issues solely on the basis of the merit of the position being discussed is how civilized parties reach logical conclusions.

Yes - agreed.
And if your raised points are in actuality false or incorrect - correcting them should not be interpreted as 'insulting'.

you defy logic and defend your position with insulting remarks, invalid and unsubstantiated assumptions

I assume that you feel that your remarks are entirely free of being construed as insulting?
I would invite you to cite which of my remarks are invalid and unsubstantiated?
I don't recall raising heat as an issue.
I don't believe that I am confused about the difference in how a Safeguard works in relation to the Lifeguard.
I believe that I didn't state that a Safeguard is significantly larger than a Roll N Lock.
I believe that I didn't state that a Safeguard is about the same size as a GriGri.
I also don't think I stated that the cam of a Safeguard is the about the same size of a cam in a GriGri.
I believe that I understand the context of this thread - which is harness rope bridges - and that my comments are constrained within that reference frame.
I am not sure if you have been tendering comments within that reference frame?

 

[Jonny]

All right y’all, I’m gonna take one for the team and straighten this shit out once and for all.
@Brocky mail me a Lifeguard.
@John@TreeXP mail me your RollNLock.
@agent_smith mail me a Safeguard.
@rico mail me your best MCRS, a 395xp, and that Hobbs H2, no time to explain now, just do it!

 

[rico]

Normally, such intentional insulting comments would earn you a ban.
I would say that an apology would be in order.

Being the combative dickhead that I am I can spot another dickhead from a mile away, and you my friend are being a dickhead. Fuck yo apologies and fuck anyone getting banned, own and embrace your dickheadedness, and move the fuck on.

 

[John@TreeXP]

Dude, the Safeguard is twice the weight of the RNL and the cams on the Grigri and Safeguard are among the smallest in their class, comparatively speaking. What else you got? Subjectivity isn't an exact science.