treeMotion ANSI compliant?????

TLHamel

TLHamel

Location
St. Paul, MN
I hate to start another treeMotion thread and let my preface by saying that the tM is the new standard by which all harnesses will be measured. I will climb on my tM no matter what any regulatory/advisory body has to say...

Do the 15kN breaking strength of the GREEN attachment points and the 9kN/18kN buckle markings meet ANSI (or for that matter ISA TCC) standards?
 
A piece of equipment must pass the safety standards in the chapter that the contestant represents. There have been some practices and equipment that didn't meet US OSHA/ANSI standards that are accepted at the ITCC.

There is a Petzl helmet with a flipdown, clear, eyeshield. This doesn't meet US standards but it was cleared by the ITCC tech people because it met the relevant European chapter standard.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Do the 15kN breaking strength of the GREEN attachment points and the 9kN/18kN buckle markings meet ANSI (or for that matter ISA TCC) standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

23kN is the magic number for us in the states isn't it? Seems like with all of the hoopla and waiting for the TreeMotion, the manufacturers could have gotten it up to US standards as well.
 
23 kN (actually, ANSI says 22.24 kN) is for carabiners and snaps.

For saddles, ANSI Z133.1-2006 says:



[ QUOTE ]
8.1.7 Hardware used in the manufacture of arborist saddles shall meet the hardware material,
strength, and testing requirements outlined in ANSI 359.1.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have tried looking up ANSI 359.1 but haven't been able to find it.
 
The story of Z359 is complicated and confusing. I'm going to see if I can get the story clear this week at the Z133 meeting.

Basically, the Z359 was allowed to lapse so there is no current standard for harness ratings. All of the manufacturers are going along as if it was still in place. There is a group that is working with the ANSI harness committee, think of it as the next Z359 but the number will probably be different, and the tree folks are trying to incorporate a work positioning harness standard. I could have some of this wrong. In short, the Z359 is in limbo.

Even when Z359 was in place there was some confusion about how to interpret the standard. Was every piece of the harness required to meet a 5k# pull or was the harness itself when it was setup for use required to meet the breaking strength. Think of this as how the split tail cord strength has been interpreted.
 
While standards are under development would be a good time to find out what everyone else is doing for testing and certifying harnesses and components of harnesses.

Paolo? Chris C.? Mr. Bridge? Nathan? Ekka? Any one not on the continent who has info, I know I would enjoy an update.
 
Positive on the attachment........now
grin.gif


2nd edit, great stuff P. I would speculate that very few arborists have ever found out what exactly 'passes' a harness. Now we have a moderate idea.
 
Hey fellows,

I recently purchased the TreeMotion and I am happy with the saddle. I am a little concerned like you guys about the ratings and durability of the saddle. The owners booklet has a few statements/disclaimers in it that do not suit me well, such as:

"Life Span":" At infrequent use(1 week per year)life span can be up to 5 years. Under intensiveuse the life span can be reduced to 3 months, normal use to one year." "It is not possible to make a generic statement about the life span of the item of equipment, as it is influenced by various factors, such as (list incomplete)UV-radiation, type and frequency of use, treatment, influence of weather such as snow, enviroments such as salt, sand and battery acid." " This product may become obsolete through changes in work practices or relevant standards or through incompatibility with other components in a working system."

My concern is maybe this saddle was made for recreational tree climbing and will not hold up or withstand the abuse of NORMAl tree working practices. Will the TCC comittee let us use them in the competition? Are the rings rated at 15kn because you are using both of them thus splitting the load between two points? Normal saddles by Buckingham have the d-rings rated way higher.....

Just some food for thought, maybe one of the designers can ease our minds a little. It is a bitchin harness and I will continue to use it, however with caution until I find the right answers.

Stay tied in everyone, and Pura Vida!

X-man
 
This is interesting:

http://www.sw-asse.org/ANSI%20A10.doc

But even this review appears ambiguous to what it covers???

http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=ANSI%2FASSE+A10.32-2004

And this one appears to be covering fall arrest?

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=738363

Does anyone have a test certificate or copy of these standards to find out which one is relevant or equivalent to EN 813? I don't want to spend $70 to find out the standard I've bought isn't really relevant.

tongue.gif
 
It would make sense to me that every component that is used in the harness should meet the 5,000 pound minimum AND the harness when assembled should meet that same requirement.

What is the point of having all these other STRONG components in the system, then skimp out on the one piece that probably get's replaced least often out of all of them?

love
nick
 
While we're at it...

Is anyone concerned that if you are using the lower D for your lanyard, then the failure of one component (the D) would cause both your lifeline and lanyard to fail?

I haven't been at this too long, but that saddle scares me for that reason alone. Not that I could afford it.

TS
 
[ QUOTE ]
What is the point of having all these other STRONG components in the system, then skimp out on the one piece that probably get's replaced least often out of all of them?

love
nick

[/ QUOTE ]

Individual components act differently when used together as a system. Just think of your rigging systems; are all components rated the same? If they are, you are either over compensating or under achieving somewhere in terms of strength.

Then there is the durabilty issue - cycles to failure of different items, depending upon where they are and what they are made of.

The weak link in any EN813 harness is the body. The EN standards take into account a personal protective system for forces upto 6kN. 12kN and you will probably die.

15kN components that don't even distort after 3 mins in a pull test and a factor 2 drop test aren't an issue. At all.
Focus your attention on durabilty of software. Even this isn't related to strength. There are many different weaves for abrasion resistance.

I've seen recent photos during an accident investigation involving a climber being ripped from a tree. The harness distorted but didn't fail. The forces applied to the body in such circumstances will kill you or worse.

Its interesting that climbers seem more concerned about harness strength, than techniques that will lead their strength to be tested i.e. kill them.

These comments aren't directed at you personally Nick.
 
Lazarus’s post prompted me to reply.

As an arborist with 23 years experience I’ve had the unfortunate task of investigating several tree work incidents ( fatalities) in the UK. In the course of this I have had to scrutinise most of the harness , equipment and rope standards.

My overall opinion for what it is worth, is that if the rings generally meet a minimum of 15kN (EN 358, EN 813 – 23kN on D ring & 15kN laterally on harness waist band) this is more than adequate for best practice arborist work positioning techniques. My concerns are more around the transitions or arguably misapplication of the system. I regularly observe climbers exposing themselves to fall factor 1- with out an awareness of the potential forces involved and no thought-out means of dissipating the same in the event of a fall. I regularly see 13 mm rope shoved through 11mm devices and an expectation of manufacturers and EN stated performance. Last week I was watching a 120kg climber lifting himself 1m on a tape attached to twin handles ascenders- don’t worry he told me the tape is rated at 22kN! I don’t even want to get into the issue of type A and B ropes.

For some reason we tend to habitually question the robustness of the harness – but regardless of if it will withstand 15,20 30 Kns – this is academic,because if these forces are transferred to the climber – you will be in big trouble – particularly if it loads across the side rings.

In short we must use our skill, knowledge and expertise to ensure we use systems within their intended parameters and that these forces never end up transferred to us

Frank 1
 
As an extension to my previous post, I also was faced with the prospect of new harness purchase. Having tried several eventually purchasing TreeFlex. I can report that it accommodates my aged larger frame and transports me efficiently and comfortably around the tree- by the time I get to my work position I,m usually knackered and it gives me no complaint whilst waiting around catching my breath and shouting at grounds men. I’ve yet to try it in SRT mode.

I obviously lack the ability to give the detailed critic that others seem to have with harness review- but on a negative side I can report that unfortunately it did not endow me with magical powers to emulate the skill and expertise of the top guys in the same way that in my other life – I purchased an expensive sail for my windsurfing exploits (as used by a legendry sailor) – first time out, I hit a wave ramp and with the expectation of 3m jump- recall clearly the ripping sound as I fell head first through my investment.

Frank 1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom