treeMOTION

It does not meet the ANSI standards so to speak.... but if you use it in the proper manner, it will comply... The issue i believe that ANSI has with it is the "Lanyard Attachment points" are only rated at 15kn.... if you only hook into one side that could be a problem(in more ways than one... if you take a small fall your body will not bend that direction)............. But... if you use your lanyard correctly (one 15kn ring attachment to the other 15kn attachment) then it is rated at 30kn....

the reason that they are allowed in comps. is, the rules state that your lanyard can not be attached to only one side... a practice that we should always use anyway.

hope that helps
 
Little point in writing a strength rating into a standard when:

1. That rating cannot be achieved in proper use

and

2. Even if it is achieved, it is still way higher than the body can withstand.

As Tom D says "We're just bags of salt water and calcium".

And we are very easy to bust.
 
The US army did a study to find out what the human body can actully take..... your organs will most likely displace with #1200 of falling shock... That is 5.36kn

you don't live very long without organs


I think that the reason the standards are so high is, there is a wear factor and cycles to failure on our gear... if everything starts at 22.5 to 24kn than there is less chance of failure later(you know how some guys are on gear - when was the last time you helped with a gear inspection?)
 
I hope you dont regret doing that KentuckySawyer...I was surprised to find a small number here in the UK still on the shelf. Perhaps the problems with wear are unpredictable for reasons that are not immediately obvious. Adjustment for the individual and even climbing style not to mention the way some muppets treat their gear!!! I was advised to wait til the next batch...I am hoping that the hardware gets a redesign.That lifespan issues are only on paper and that I too will enjoy a decent saddle for the duration. I understand that you may be under pressure to get back to work and need a saddle. I cant even establish whether the hardware and/or the webbing is getting a review but I want to be one of those who rates not berates the gear. Good luck any hoo bra'.
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The US army did a study to find out what the human body can actully take..... your organs will most likely displace with #1200 of falling shock... That is 5.36kn

you don't live very long without organs


I think that the reason the standards are so high is, there is a wear factor and cycles to failure on our gear... if everything starts at 22.5 to 24kn than there is less chance of failure later(you know how some guys are on gear - when was the last time you helped with a gear inspection?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure where you got those figures from Rob.

The info I had stated serious injury/death @ 12kN = 2,640#

This figure was halved to 6kn as the limit of force for work positioning (factor 1 falls) in Euro standards, to ensure suitable safety factor from serious injury. Some regions feel 8kN is acceptable. Anyone want to donate themselves to science to settle the query?
smirk.gif


The issue of durable safety due to the effects of CTF can easily be factored from CTF tests on webbing etc.

For metal work such as the side Ds, 15kN / safety factor of 5 = WLL of 3kN, which implies at least 30,000 CTF. 3kN could be equated to 3 persons plus equipment (i.e. plenty of room for rescue loads).

Looking at it another way, 150kg (BIG climber plus gear) WLL x Safety Factor of 5 = required BS of 750kg to ensure durable safety. 15kN is still double that strength. Webbing and stitching will go first.

Even if one D is used, it is still strong enough. The body in that position certainly isn't.

I'm very familiar with gear inspections of climbers, including those that unfortunately didn't survive the incident and some that did; the side Dees distorted on one fatality, but still held.

One way to break yourself and your gear, is to use work positioning equipment in fall arrest mode, or tangle with the rigging or split a tree. Training is key here, but I don't see all the fundamental risks explained or controlled in any training programme, competition or discusion.
 
[ QUOTE ]
a high performance harness

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful Tom, you might give harness manufacturers a new selling gimmick/angle.

Its not the harness that makes good climber. I mean, if you find one that really suits then lucky you.....but as for the folks, especially rookies, who run out and buy every new harness that hits the shelves, then I sincerely hope that its simply for the love of climbing etc, and not because you believe that you'll put on the next 'in' saddle and suddenly become and awesome climber.

As for the 3 month wear-tag, then perhaps the manufacturers are only suggesting (and rightly so) that it is possible but not probable.
 
hey laz. I was wondering. What are the treeflexs shackles rated at? As stated above, the tm lanyard d rings are not rated high enough alone for fall arrest but together they do and I was wondering if the shackles on the tf bridge are the same way.

I'm actually using those shackles to hold my lanyard on my belt with a small sling and was wondering if this was a safe practice. I just switched it and have yet to climb on this setup
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the reason that they are allowed in comps. is, the rules state that your lanyard can not be attached to only one side...

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think that that is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]


do you know why?
 
[ QUOTE ]
for fall arrest

[/ QUOTE ]

Not fall arrest... work positioning. Big difference!

Anyway, (this rant not directed at you familytree)

I cannot believe how frightened some are of the Treemotion! (or Treeflex for that matter) Last year I asked if TM was ANSI approved out of curiosity, not fear or malice. Look who we are arguing with... Chris Cowell, Mark Bridge, Paolo Bavaresco, etc. These guys know what they're talking about! Drive your new car off the lot and smash into a fire hydrant... should've been good for 200,000 miles, but only gave you 3. Hello? Are the cogs turning now? Can we give up focusing on the single use = retirement thing?! Nobody gives rope manufacturers a hard time...
 
[ QUOTE ]
It does not meet the ANSI standards so to speak.... but if you use it in the proper manner, it will comply...

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a semantic detail we're looking at now. Its the "...so to speak..." part that I'm hanging up on. Can a harness really comply with the ANSI standards if it isn't approved? This is an honest question with no sarcasm intended.

Isn't the whole reason that there is a Butterfly 2 harness due to the fact that Komet either couldn't or wouldn't get the original Butterfly passed? My BF2 has an ANSI label on it as a consequence.

On top of this, I spoke to someone at Sherrill yesterday, asking if the TM is ANSI approved. All I got was, "I'm pretty sure it is." BS

Never the less, my very own unapproved TreeMotion will be here next week thanks to Rob at M&I/Fresco and Russ at Vermeer. You guys rock!

pbj.gif
 
enjoy your motion Kentucky. I know you've been wanting one for a while.

I own both treemotion and treeflex and have no concerns about their strength and longevity. My treemotion sent up a couple of flags when I looked at my leg strap webbing because I felt that it looked a bit worn for only being used about a year but I'm pretty sure it was just a break in kinda thing because it looks the same now as it did when I noticed it about 4 months ago. Although I have been switching back and forth between the tf and
tm.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the reason that they are allowed in comps. is, the rules state that your lanyard can not be attached to only one side...

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think that that is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]


do you know why?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is paraphrased from the thread Cocoon pulley:

...interpretations at TCCs have been varied. Some view a TCC as a 'recreational event' and so allow some slack in applying the Z. Others have allowed gear that meets the European standards if the item in question has been manufactured specifically for tree work and there is no equivalent type of product that has been manufactured in the US.

If there were no allowances made for items that are not strictly ANSI compliant then US climbers would have to relenquish use of many items that are employed in day-to-day tree work. The Cocoon, the early Rope Guide, most ascenders, and a variety of mechanical devices would have to be removed from service because they do not strictly comply with the Z.


[ QUOTE ]
Can a harness really comply with the ANSI standards if it isn't approved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without word-smithing this statement to death (like I did with Pancake--sorry Keith) if the item doen't have an ANSI label then it is not ANSI approved.


[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole reason that there is a Butterfly 2 harness due to the fact that Komet either couldn't or wouldn't get the original Butterfly passed? My BF2 has an ANSI label on it as a consequence.


[/ QUOTE ]


Correct.
 
I heard you can't fart in Pfanner chaps because it alters the chemical bonds in the stitching and thus voids the warranty. Is this true? 'Cause if it is, I am only going to use Stihl chaps for the extra flatulence factor.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I heard you can't fart in Pfanner chaps because it alters the chemical bonds in the stitching and thus voids the warranty. Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a SHOULD not a SHALL.
 
[ QUOTE ]
so.... let me get this straight... Sherrilltree is selling the TM in the "work" section of their web page, and yet technically in the US we cannot use it for "work" position? Or can we?

[/ QUOTE ]


It isn't an ANSI approved saddle.
 
[ QUOTE ]

If there were no allowances made for items that are not strictly ANSI compliant then US climbers would have to relenquish use of many items that are employed in day-to-day tree work. The Cocoon, the early Rope Guide, most ascenders, and a variety of mechanical devices would have to be removed from service because they do not strictly comply with the Z.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the competitions make allowances for US climbers to diverge from the Z? Is that where the TreeMotion slips through the cracks? Sounds like the rules are too loosely applied. If thats all it takes, I could argue that there is no ANSI compliant equivalent to my 22kN biner that got thrown out at gear inspection.

Why did Komet have to rework the Butterfly to make it ANSI compliant if the Treeflex, TreeMotion, or Hummingbird can slip through without getting rejected? Politics of who designed and profits from the harness?
 
[ QUOTE ]
hey laz. I was wondering. What are the treeflexs shackles rated at? As stated above, the tm lanyard d rings are not rated high enough alone for fall arrest but together they do and I was wondering if the shackles on the tf bridge are the same way.

I'm actually using those shackles to hold my lanyard on my belt with a small sling and was wondering if this was a safe practice. I just switched it and have yet to climb on this setup

[/ QUOTE ]

The TFX shackles are rated at 15kN each. In tests pulling the ring on the bridge in basket fashion (as in use) The bridge and shackles passed 30kN. The shakles distorted first before the bridge showed any weakness. As explained earlier, they are plenty strong enough individually in that application, including durable safety.

As TL Hamel stated - not fall arrest, but work positioning. As a general warning, if anyone thinks they can get away with fall arrest on work positioning gear and low stretch doubled ropes, they will be lucky to suffer serious injury -more likely an unpleasant death (sooner or later). No matter how strong the gear is.

Out of interest, the Blue attachment point passed the fall arrest test of a 12ft fall without any energy absorption. This is for when the harness is used in fall arrest with the appropriate chest harness and energy absorber rated for that application. That doesn't make the standard version suitable for fall arrest on its own.

To answer your question about using the shackles on the hip Ds with a lanyard.....I wouldn't. Because it is an unknown factor; the shackles are narrow gauge and would be point loaded on the D ring. A karabiner is designed for this type of interface with other hardware. We tested them in their webbing configuration as part of a harness system.

Besides, I like to know I can whip off the lanyard when I have to. Could be critical one day.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there were no allowances made for items that are not strictly ANSI compliant then US climbers would have to relenquish use of many items that are employed in day-to-day tree work. The Cocoon, the early Rope Guide, most ascenders, and a variety of mechanical devices would have to be removed from service because they do not strictly comply with the Z.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the competitions make allowances for US climbers to diverge from the Z? Is that where the TreeMotion slips through the cracks? Sounds like the rules are too loosely applied. If thats all it takes, I could argue that there is no ANSI compliant equivalent to my 22kN biner that got thrown out at gear inspection.

Why did Komet have to rework the Butterfly to make it ANSI compliant if the Treeflex, TreeMotion, or Hummingbird can slip through without getting rejected? Politics of who designed and profits from the harness?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, this does seem a strange ruling
confused.gif


Either a harness meets the rules for the comp or it doesn't.
There are a few issues I see out of this discussion:

WORKING STRENGTH: 22kN or 5000# (22.5kN) is petty semantics in terms of required strength and durable safety for hardware or textiles.

FITNESS FOR PURPOSE: The item should be used as tested and recommended. Modifications are an unknown factor.

DURABLE SAFETY: The manufacturer, employer and user determine over which time frame a harness is deemed durably safe, out of general ethics and personal risk.

LIABILITY: The manufacturer, employer and user need to objetively think 'what if' and 'where is the blame' in the event of an incident. Guidance must be sought and follwed. If we don't, we are on our own - take the big risk, accept the big consequence.

POLITICS: Standards are as much about protecting markets as they are about safety. Look to the specifics of the tests to find the truth - has your item been tested in an appropriate manner? I firmly believe the Euro testing procedure EN813 is superior to the minimum strength rating of the Z - it includes drop tests, pull tests and even corrosion tests; fundamentally, a standardised, independent test like this tells us much more than an arbitrary strength rating. Strength ratings can't determine security issues that testing may find. If there was an ANSI test for work positioning equipment, we would use it.

I think the Butterfly 1 only had the EN358 tag, which doesn't include the drop test (important as a factor 1 fall is perfectly possible in work positioning. EN358 was really for work restraint only. EN813 covers it now. Look for EN813 on your harnesses for reassurance.

COMP POLITICS: Without a doubt, the systematic and logical Euro standard process is driving standards in health and safety. In turn, this is driving innovation. This innovation seems to be coming mostly from Europe partly because of this. It is perceived that not being able to use these products in the ITCC puts the USA competitors at a disadvantage. Especially as points seem to be awarded for use of some of the techniques they lend themselves to. Undoubtedly. if a harness has to have each component to a 5000# rating, it cannot compete with a Euro standard harness on weight. And it isn't any safer because of it. A competitor will be weighed down significantly in the speed events if fitness standards are equal. If a competitor isn't quick in the pre-lims, right or wrong, s/he won't make it to the masters.

SINISTER MOTIVES: I only heard on one post on TB that TreeFlex and TreeMotion were allowed to be used by competitors in the 2007 ITCC. I can speculate why that is (above), but it has nothing to do with STL or myself, and I doubt it has anything to do with Treemagineers either.

COMPETITON FOCUS: The comps need a serious review of their intent and focus. Quite clearly, they have developed into an extreme sport (which is great), and need to be managed and regulated as such.

cool.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom