Rope bridge, finally. Now what knot?

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.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I guess we must have met each other in person?
Wow... I'm not sure I can equal that level of insult?
How far do the moderators allow this kind of language to progress before taking action?

Presumably you have something of a positive and constructive nature to say about harness rope bridges?

Oh dear...
 
He's finally showing a sign of humility. How refreshing. Don't underestimate your dickheadedness.
Click to expand...
Happy for the insults to keep rolling on...
Its interesting how social graces can deteriorate - I guess thats the internet - its all done from behind a keyboard with impunity.

You are confusing the correction of inaccurate information with insults.
I see that you are doing it again with a recent comment:
Safeguard is twice the weight/size of the RNL
Click to expand...
Although manifestly wrong... I give up. Even photographic proof was inadequate?
You must be correct - the Safeguard is twice the size of a Roll N Lock :)
 
agent_smith said:
Thank you. I guess we must have met each other in person?
Wow... I'm not sure I can equal that level of insult?

Presumably you have something of a positive and constructive nature to say about harness rope bridges?

Oh dear...
Click to expand...
Yea, maybe I was a bit rough and harsh on myself in my last post. My apologies...
Maybe I should report myself to the mods for some sort of punishment or banishment?

In the spirit of keeping it positive and constructive, my answer to the OP is a double overhand, but I believe that was covered about 5 fucking pages ago?
 
Maybe I should report myself to the mods for some sort of punishment or banishment?
Click to expand...
Perhaps...but it does suggest that this forum is the wild west and anyone can just take pot shots for no actual meaningful reason? The insults are coming from people who have never met each other in person?

In the spirit of keeping it positive and constructive, my answer to the OP is a double overhand, but I believe that was covered about 5 fucking pages ago?
Click to expand...
I think you're right - and any meaning in this topic thread has derailed.
But thank you for at least offering up something interesting!
 
John@TreeXP said:
Dude, the Safeguard is twice the weight/size 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.
Click to expand...
How is the cam on a grigri among the smallest in its class? The grigri literally has one of the largest cams of its class, which is a assisted braking belay device. The only cam I can think of that is much bigger is the wild country revo, but that's much different anyway.
I'm not including industrial descenders, because they are a different class.
 
weight equals mass
Click to expand...
No - it doesn't.
And again, this isn't an insult - its just being technically accurate.
You wrote the word size.

You also wrote that the size of the Safeguard is twice that of the Roll N Lock.
I give up on this...

Also, weight is a force due to gravity.
Mass is not weight.
Mass is the amount of atomic matter in an object - and it doesn't change from place to place.
Your weight can change - but your mass cannot.
For example, if you stood on a set of scales on the moon, you would weigh less than you do on Earth (but your mass remains the same).
 
How is the cam on a grigri among the smallest in its class? The grigri literally has one of the largest cams of its class, which is a assisted braking belay device.
Click to expand...
You are correct in questioning him on this matter.
I have pointed this out to him several pages ago - but its lost in translation.
The cam on a Safeguard is significantly smaller than a GriGri.
Also, the cam on a GriGri is not the smallest in its class.
In fairness to him, might need to determine what he means by 'in its class'?

If he means the class of 'self-locking devices'... then no, The GriGri does not have the smallest cam.
 
agent_smith said:
You are correct in questioning him on this matter.
I have pointed this out to him several pages ago - but its lost in translation.
The cam on a Safeguard is significantly smaller than a GriGri.
Also, the cam on a GriGri is not the smallest in its class.
In fairness to him, might need to determine what he means by 'in its class'?

If he means the class of 'self-locking devices'... then no, The GriGri does not have the smallest cam.
Click to expand...
I can't even think of a very narrowly defined class of devices where the grigri has a small cam. And according to it's certification, it is only in the class of assisted braking belay devices.
 
I can't even think of a very narrowly defined class of devices where the grigri has a small cam.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Despite showing 'John@TreeXP' photos to provide otherwise, it just get lost in translation.
I'm seeing a generic repeat of false statements - eg the latest is with regard to the difference between weight and mass (they are different).

And according to it's certification, it is only in the class of assisted braking belay devices.
Click to expand...
I have a copy of EN15151-1 (2012).
The definition of 'braking devices' is defined in clauses 3.1 and 3.2.
Panic locking element is given in clause 3.3.

There will be a revision to this standard in the not too distant future...the waters are a little bit 'murky' with how a manufacturer chooses to apply the definitions.
 
Interesting. Will those changes affect us in any meaningful way?
Click to expand...
Couple of points to make if i may?

1. These types of documents (in general) only affect manufacturers.
2. The end user just wants a product that works 'out-of-the-box' and is fit for its intended purpose.
3. All standards are 'living documents' - meaning that they are never frozen.
4. No standard is perfect - since it relies on how the language is constructed. Language is complex - and try as we may, there will always be people who will try to exploit gray areas or manipulate standards to suit their business model.
5. Standards are written by committees of people who represent various interests - so there will always be some biases - but we are getting better at leveling the playing field.
6. Manufacturers hate having to re-tool or completely re-design jigs and presses because of a change in the wording of a clause in the standard. So they complain loudly.
7. Defining how a particular test ought to be carried out on a 'braking device' is crucial - so it is done consistently and represents as close to real-world conditions as possible. Defining a persons hand grip pressure, the notion of up/down including how gravity affects the orientation and spacial positioning of the braking rope all come into play. Subtle changes in parameters affect the way in which the braking device works.
8. Rope diameters play a crucial role in product certification. How far is a manufacturer required to go in testing different rope diameters and different brands of rope? This addressed in clause 5.2 (EN15151-1), but it is unclear how far they should go with different brands of rope. Clause 5.2 assumes all ropes perform the same (for any given diameter). Manufacturers are only required to test the minimum diameter and the maximum diameter as indicated in their user instructions. There are no requirements to test anything in-between these values.
9. Rope slippage resulting from a dynamic drop test is averaged - this average value shall not exceed 1500mm with no individual drop causing slippage exceeding 1800mm. This could be open to great variance in the way the device arrests a load and how much rope slips through. At least they draw the line at 1800mm slippage. I think this clause could be tightened.
 
Oh dear.....

Hey Samsquatch, in case you have actually forgotten what your original question was.....

A double overhand for a stopper knot and your G2G. Now quit thinking about it and go get some work done dammit!
 
I'm referring to tree climbing cam enabled descenders with levers, when I say that the Safeguard and Grigri are subjectively on the low end of the cam size spectrum, compared to similar devices like the Rig and ID, all in the same class of handled descenders used for tree climbing. Rope grabs are another class in the same family of tree climbing, progress capturing, rope stopping tools, of which the RNL is a part. The RNL is also a pulley, so it qualifies as a dual purpose device.

I redacted my size equals mass comment. I stand corrected on that point, in that two similar sized items may have vastly disproportionate weights, like the RNL and the Safeguard do, as a prime example. When used on a rope bridge the RNL can be attached with a zip tie, where as the Safeguard's mounted on a rope bridge typically using a locking carabiner, so the size/weight and mass of the combined rope bridge augmentations being compared are also relevant.
 
Last edited:
rico said:
Oh dear.....

Hey Samsquatch, in case you have actually forgotten what your original question was.....

A double overhand for a stopper knot and your G2G. Now quit thinking about it and go get some work done dammit!
Click to expand...
What about using the Stevedore knot as a effective stopper knot? How do you think it compares to the double overhand, aside from needing a tad more rope to tie a Stevedore?
 
Burrapeg said:
Quite the entertaining derail. I couldn't wait to boot up each morning to see the next salvos!
Click to expand...
At least Samsquatch was smart enough to loose interest 115 posts ago. He got his answer and got out while the getting was still good.. I digress so please carry on with comparing of cam sizes, clause 5.2's, dynamic drop tests, EN15151-1 (2012), and panic locking mechanisms.
 
John@TreeXP said:
I'm referring to tree climbing cam enabled descenders with levers, when I say that the Safeguard and Grigri are subjectively on the low end of the cam size spectrum, compared to similar devices like the Rig and ID, all in the same class of handled descenders used for tree climbing. Rope grabs are another class in the same family of tree climbing, progress capturing, rope stopping tools, of which the RNL is a part. The RNL is also a pulley, so it qualifies as a dual purpose device.

I redacted my size equals mass comment. I stand corrected on that point, in that two similar sized items may have vastly disproportionate weights, like the RNL and the Safeguard do, as a prime example. When used on a rope bridge the RNL can be attached with a zip tie, where as the Safeguard's mounted on a rope bridge typically using a locking carabiner, so the size/weight and mass of the combined rope bridge augmentations being compared are also relevant.
Click to expand...
Okay, I see where you're coming from with the cams, however, I don't think it's an appropriate comparison because of the different standards the larger devices fulfill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom