Remembering our recent quick link debate, I thought this thread might interest a few:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum <http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum>
Yes… It is done with a static load. I would be interested in seeing additional results from dynamic loading.
A lot of the same opinions and concerns that were voiced here are mentioned there as well.
Sorry to resurrect another dead horse ; ) Let the beating resume!
Landon
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “utah_boarder2000” wrote:
Yes… It is done with a static load. I would be interested in seeing > additional results from dynamic loading. >
Static loading makes a very, very, very good model of the kind of loading we produce in canyoneering, which are, in a “Statics and Dynamics” sense, static loads.
For it to be a ‘dynamic load’, the speed of loading would need to be in the range of the resonant frequency of the rapide, which is very, very, very fast. You would be able to get those kinds of loading rates using explosives, if interested.
Tom
David Campen
Whew, that thread turned unpleasant quickly. I would agree with the statistics guy except that I would be tarred by association.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Lee Eismann” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “David Campen” wrote:
The links don’t work for me. I glanced in the forums at
rockclimbing.com but didn’t see the thread. Which forum is it in?
Here is a new and improved link:
http://tinyurl.com/5o7us2
The link should work, but if you want to do it manually, look in:
FORUMS > CLIMBING INFORMATION > THE LAB
The thread should be on the top or near it. >
Lee Eismann
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “David Campen” wrote:
The links don’t work for me. I glanced in the forums at > rockclimbing.com but didn’t see the thread. Which forum is it in?
Here is a new and improved link:
http://tinyurl.com/5o7us2
The link should work, but if you want to do it manually, look in:
FORUMS > CLIMBING INFORMATION > THE LAB
The thread should be on the top or near it.
David Campen
The links don’t work for me. I glanced in the forums at rockclimbing.com but didn’t see the thread. Which forum is it in?
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “utah_boarder2000” wrote:
> Remembering our recent quick link debate, I thought this thread > might interest a few:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum
Yes… It is done with a static load. I would be interested in > seeing > additional results from dynamic loading.
A lot of the same opinions and concerns that were voiced here are > mentioned there as well.
Sorry to resurrect another dead horse ; ) Let the beating resume!
Landon
utah_boarder2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Matt Maxon” wrote:
See if I can fix your link:
> Let’s try this again….. > http://tinyurl.com/5o7us2
Thanks Matt. I’ve been having a hard time with those links.
Matt Maxon
> See if I can fix your link: > Let’s try this again….. http://tinyurl.com/5o7us2
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “utah_boarder2000” wrote: > Remembering our recent quick link debate, I thought this thread might > interest a few:
See if I can fix your link:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi? do=post_view_flat;post=1868914;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh= 25;
Here’s the results 5/16 link pulled to failure: China links: Sample 1: 5472 lb-f / 24.34kN Sample 2: 5120 lb-f / 22.77kN Sample 3: 6048 lb-f / 26.90kN Sample 4: 4831 lb-f / 21.49kN Sample 5: 5212 lb-f / 23.18kN Sample 6: 4986 lb-f / 22.17kN
Petzl Link: Petzl 1: 6895 lb-f / 30.67kN Petzl 2: 6901 lb-f / 30.70kN
Folks on that thread debate the nuances of the data. The spread in the numbers from China is high (suprisingly high). But, for me, even considering some type of 3 sigma type lower load limit based on the data above, the 5/16″ links seem to provide enough strength for a standard rappelling load.
Interesting. Thanks for the head’s up!
-Brian in SLC