Absurdly good gear since 1983
Absurdly
good gear since 1983
From the maufacturers specs:
|
|
|
|
| 3/64" (friend repair) | not available | 270lbs |
| 1/16" (#1 heads) | 480 lbs | 480lbs |
| 3/32" (#2 heads, #2 rivet) | 920lbs | 920 lbs |
| 1/8" (#3 /#4 heads, #3 rivet) | 1700lbs | 1700lbs |
| 5/32" (#5 heads, cool jerk) | 2800lbs | 2600lbs |
Re: BD Stoppers--Bounce Test Data
From - Tue Feb 16 14:36:39 1999
From: Chris Harmston <chrish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
I have measured forces up to 1000 lbf while bounce testing.
I was using
BD Etriers and bounced with about a six inch free fall bounce.
It is easy
to break small Stoppers if vigorously bounce testing. I weigh
190 lb.
I have seen several small stoppers break in the field due to
bounce
testing and due to lead falls.
Rated strengths are stated as 3 sigma failure loads. There
is not a 20 to
30% buffer. They break close to what they are rated. 3 Sigma is
three
standard deviations below the average breaking strength. Average
batch
test results (n = 10) range from 600 to 700 lbf for #1 and #2
Stoppers.
Batch standard deviations range from 6 lb to 50 lb. When combined
into a
years worth of data our rating computes to 450 lbf. The weakest
sample I
have seen in the last year failed at 535 lbf. The strongest failed
at 808
lbf. 3 Sigma means that there is a 99.87% chance that the sample
will be
stronger than the rating. This also means that there is a 0.13%
chance
that a sample will fail below the rating. All this data is for
brand new
equipment that has never seen any fatigue due to placement, removal,
falling on, bouncing on, etc. These small units get worn fairly
quickly
and can break eventually. Inspect your gear often. If you have
to use
these for lead protection then follow the advice of most of this
group.
Back them up. Sometimes the only option you have is a small nut.
Better
than nothing in many situations. Beware of the limitations of
your gear
though. Chris
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 mdimeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>In article <36C8F69A.82BF48A1@boeing.com>,
> Mike Garrison <mike.garrison@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> ratagonia@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > Catalog say 2kN or 450 lbf for #1 & #2. Not
hard to generate this kind of
>> > load in a fall.
>> That's an understatement. My body weight is close to
1 KN.
>> Just jumping up and down I can generate about 2 KN.
>
>Ooh, a verifiable experiment. I like it. How about you try
it out?
>I've always wondered how much force a bounce test really generates.
>Clip a biner to a bolt low to the ground. Slide the head down
a #1 stopper.
>Clip one end to the bolt biner. Clip an aider or sling to
the other end.
>Don safety glasses. Bounce. See if you can break it. I'm really
curious.
>
>Off the top of my head, I'm betting biner flex, aider stretch,
etc. will
>prevent breakage. Time to find myself a low bolt, though my
weight is only
>around 0.73kN.
>-m@
Chris Harmston (chrish@xxxxxxxxxxxx).
Quality Assurance Manager. Materials Engineer BS, ME.
Black Diamond Equipment Ltd.
2084 East 3900 South, SLC, UT 84124 phone: 801-278-5552
Rivet Hanger question
Russ Walling writes to Chris Harmston @ BD:
>Not sure if you have seen these rivet hangers guys are
making now where
>it is a self tightening loop that goes around the rivet. Like
a cinch
>loop in the end of a cable strand, formed by backtracking
through a
>swage sleeve, that then goes to a clip in loop. Our tests
show them as
>being a bit suspect. I don't like the way the stop on the
cinching
>end butts up against the sleeve used to contain the two wires.
It seems
>that the strength of the unit is dependent on the cross or
tearing
>strength of the keeper sleeve instead of the cable strength.
There
>seems to be a lot going on including deformation of the sleeve
and the
>stop sleeve. Whaddya think?
Chris replies:
Sounds funky. I have never used anything except small Stoppers
for
rivets. I have not seen this device you are talking about. I think
I
understand and it sounds funky to me as well. What kind of testing
have
you done? If you want me to test some things I can help out (I
have no
idea what kinds of testing capabilities you have).
Later. Chris
Chris Harmston (chrish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx).
Quality Assurance Manager. Materials Engineer BS, ME.
Black Diamond Equipment Ltd.
2084 East 3900 South, SLC, UT 84124 phone: 801-278-5552
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise indicated, this correspondence
is personal
opinion and NOT an official statement of Black Diamond Equipment
Ltd.
Rivet Hanger question, the test.
Chris at BD writes:
I have completed the testing. Interesting.
Your standard rivet hangers are identical to loops. The cinch
hangers are
half as strong as your standards. I will send you a copy of the
test
report in the mail.
Quick summary.
Average data:
Loop #1 886 #2 1649 #3 2867 #5 2821
Std. #1 902 #2 1655 #3 2838
Cinch #1 577 #2 1034 #3 1453
Standard deviations range from 12 to 115 throughout all groups.
Overall these can all hold bodyweight and moderate bounce testing.
I
would be a bit worried about bounce testing the #1 cinch. I certainly
would not want to fall on any of the #1's or the #2 cinch. These
are
pretty strong overall though. Even the weakest are comparable
to the
bending strength of most specialty small hooks.
Why would you want the largest cable sizes for rivet hangers?
My guess is
that if you have a large enough rivet or bolt head you can get
a stronger
piece of pro. The very few rivets I have seen would not be able
to accept
the larger diameter cable???
It seems that there may be an advantage to the cinch type.
They will not
allow the moving swage to release too easily. It seems to me that
there
is an increased risk on the standard design for the swage to slip
down and
increase the chances that the hanger will fall off the piece.
I have
never used anything except small stoppers for this and have not
had any
fall off either. I would be interested in your comments on these.
Hope this helps.
Chris Harmston (chrish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
Quality Assurance Manager. Materials Engineer BS, ME.
Black Diamond Equipment Ltd.
2084 East 3900 South, SLC, UT 84124 phone: 801-278-5552
Rivet Hanger question, the test, pt. 3
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 FishProductsInfo@gmail.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/3/99 8:30:08 AM, chrish@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
FishProds writes:
>These are close to the numbers I got. We rate
>the #1 at 700, the #2 at 1500, and the #3 at 2300. Of course,
YMMV. We never
>did rate the #5. Best guess would be 3900.
>thanks for the info!
>adios,
>Russ