This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
![[The Doubledynaclip attached to a harness, 3 kb]](http://img.ukclimbing.com/t/139548.jpg "[The Doubledynaclip attached to a harness, 3 kb]")
If you are doing a lot of multipitch sport routes or even canyoning, then these could be a good bet for quick and simple attachment, says UKC Editor Jack Geldard.Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=2597
In reply to UKC Gear: IIRC Beal designed these after a couple of accidents (possibly deaths) caused by people clipping into abseil anchors with (static) slings and slipping from above the anchor, shock loading it, and having the sling or their harness fail as a result.
It still seems fashionable to use a sling as cow's tail amongst some sport climbers in Europe - and obviously using one of these is for that job is a much better idea. I have the short single one and sometimes use it for sports routes if there aren't easy clip in anchors at the top, and if I anticipate multipitch abseiling. It's a bit like a shunt, a bit heavy and specialist, but really worth it if you are doing a lot of abseiling.
It still seems fashionable to use a sling as cow's tail amongst some sport climbers in Europe - and obviously using one of these is for that job is a much better idea. I have the short single one and sometimes use it for sports routes if there aren't easy clip in anchors at the top, and if I anticipate multipitch abseiling. It's a bit like a shunt, a bit heavy and specialist, but really worth it if you are doing a lot of abseiling.
In reply to TobyA:
Morning, do you have any more information about these accidents. It seems more like a gimmick to get you to think you need another product.
A sling has many more length options and unless you are using a sling longer the 120cm there is no way you could generate enough force to break anything (Who climbs above the anchor anyway?). The ropes are so short that your going to get virtually no elongation anyway.
The two ended one might make a good lanyard for a pair of ascenders I suppose but again you have more options using a daisy chains. If you are really worried about taking a huge lob (How?!) onto the anchor then the Yates daisy with built in screamer would be far more suitable. Adjustable and with far more shock absorbing power.
http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/etriers/daisywscreamer01l.jpg
Strange to see this advertised really.
Morning, do you have any more information about these accidents. It seems more like a gimmick to get you to think you need another product.
A sling has many more length options and unless you are using a sling longer the 120cm there is no way you could generate enough force to break anything (Who climbs above the anchor anyway?). The ropes are so short that your going to get virtually no elongation anyway.
The two ended one might make a good lanyard for a pair of ascenders I suppose but again you have more options using a daisy chains. If you are really worried about taking a huge lob (How?!) onto the anchor then the Yates daisy with built in screamer would be far more suitable. Adjustable and with far more shock absorbing power.
http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/etriers/daisywscreamer01l.jpg
Strange to see this advertised really.
http://rockclimbingcompany.blogspot.com/2010/04/dyneema-slings-breaking-und...
It says on this website that DMM have done some testing on slings. Anyone know if the video is out yet?
It says on this website that DMM have done some testing on slings. Anyone know if the video is out yet?
In reply to aimaz:
If they have I hope they used an impact load graph that accurately reflects reality. The only use dropping a static load onto a static sling would serve is to unneccessarily scare people into thinking they aren't safe clipped into slings.
My guess is that if I were to fall 1m onto a sling much of my body wouldn't stop moving for maybe a whole second or more, hugely reducing the peak load compared to a rigid weight, which would come to rest in a small fraction of a second (ie. an order of magnitude higher peak load)
If they have I hope they used an impact load graph that accurately reflects reality. The only use dropping a static load onto a static sling would serve is to unneccessarily scare people into thinking they aren't safe clipped into slings.
My guess is that if I were to fall 1m onto a sling much of my body wouldn't stop moving for maybe a whole second or more, hugely reducing the peak load compared to a rigid weight, which would come to rest in a small fraction of a second (ie. an order of magnitude higher peak load)
In reply to TobyA:
Toby, out of curiosity - why did you get one of these rather than use a length of dynamic rope and make one up yourself?
I'm guessing convenience and neatness?
Cheers,
Si
Toby, out of curiosity - why did you get one of these rather than use a length of dynamic rope and make one up yourself?
I'm guessing convenience and neatness?
Cheers,
Si
In reply to Tom_Harding:
You should be careful about being so categorical. I remember a very lengthy thread on here some years back about exactly this sort of accident. I think it was in the Lake District and IIRC someone reached a belay ledge, clipped a piece of gear with a sling to their harness, and was probably looking for extra bits of gear a bit higher to back up the belay when they slipped with the sling taking the impact and some sort of catastrophic failure ensued. If I remember right, the accident led to a fatality.
> and unless you are using a sling longer the 120cm there is no way you could generate enough force to break anything (Who climbs above the anchor anyway?).
You should be careful about being so categorical. I remember a very lengthy thread on here some years back about exactly this sort of accident. I think it was in the Lake District and IIRC someone reached a belay ledge, clipped a piece of gear with a sling to their harness, and was probably looking for extra bits of gear a bit higher to back up the belay when they slipped with the sling taking the impact and some sort of catastrophic failure ensued. If I remember right, the accident led to a fatality.
1
In reply to Tom_Harding:
There have been several documented accidents where falling onto a sling at a belay has resulted in failure of the belay. It's suprisingly easy to move around and inadvertantly get into a fall factor 1 position. We're not talking huge lobs here.
If you do use a sling, make sure you take great care. As Jack points out in his review, these lanyards are fairly specialist items, but for multipitch routes where you plan to abseil off they can make life a bit safer. They are also pretty compact, and the test results speak for themselves - enough stretch to reduce fall forces quite considerably. Of course, a cavers cowstail with knots is even better, but you don't want to carry them, right?
There have been several documented accidents where falling onto a sling at a belay has resulted in failure of the belay. It's suprisingly easy to move around and inadvertantly get into a fall factor 1 position. We're not talking huge lobs here.
If you do use a sling, make sure you take great care. As Jack points out in his review, these lanyards are fairly specialist items, but for multipitch routes where you plan to abseil off they can make life a bit safer. They are also pretty compact, and the test results speak for themselves - enough stretch to reduce fall forces quite considerably. Of course, a cavers cowstail with knots is even better, but you don't want to carry them, right?
In reply to SCC: Pretty much - IIRC it was mainly that it was at a ridiculously reduced price at Decathlon, and I thought - "hmmm, I wonder if this would turn out to be much use?" This is the type of thinking that often gets me in trouble with the missus.
More seriously, Beal have obviously done tested and thought about this. If you use a bit of old 9mm or 11mmm I wouldn't really have any idea about how shock absorbent or not it would be compared to a sling.
More seriously, Beal have obviously done tested and thought about this. If you use a bit of old 9mm or 11mmm I wouldn't really have any idea about how shock absorbent or not it would be compared to a sling.
In reply to john arran:
I´d have though you´d have known better! The standard 80kg drop weight represents an approximately 100kg soft body (climber in a harness) and this has been the case since rope testing began with the UIAA.
Falling on slings or just 2 draws clipped together can be catastrophic. There is a UIAA report covering an accident in exactly these circumstances leading to a 9m groundfall, fortunately in this case without injury.
I´d have though you´d have known better! The standard 80kg drop weight represents an approximately 100kg soft body (climber in a harness) and this has been the case since rope testing began with the UIAA.
Falling on slings or just 2 draws clipped together can be catastrophic. There is a UIAA report covering an accident in exactly these circumstances leading to a 9m groundfall, fortunately in this case without injury.
In reply to john arran:
Hi John,
You're right, up to a point. The human body does act as a good damper (liquids sloshing, organs moving, limbs flailing, sounds great eh?), but even so the effect isn't as large as you'd expect. I think from memory that an 80kg solid mass performs very much like a person weighing 100kg, so yes, some effect. But the fact remains, fall even a short distance onto a sling, and you can generate pretty large forces.
Hi John,
You're right, up to a point. The human body does act as a good damper (liquids sloshing, organs moving, limbs flailing, sounds great eh?), but even so the effect isn't as large as you'd expect. I think from memory that an 80kg solid mass performs very much like a person weighing 100kg, so yes, some effect. But the fact remains, fall even a short distance onto a sling, and you can generate pretty large forces.
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:
I might be wrong here but you can take fall factors 1's all day long with no probs, factor 2 is the dangerous one.
The Americans routinely take daisy chain falls while aiding and although its not pleasant I haven’t heard of any serious incidents in this way (I had a good Google). The daisies used are likely to be 140cm as well, and you will be well above the anchor.
> fall factor 1 position
I might be wrong here but you can take fall factors 1's all day long with no probs, factor 2 is the dangerous one.
The Americans routinely take daisy chain falls while aiding and although its not pleasant I haven’t heard of any serious incidents in this way (I had a good Google). The daisies used are likely to be 140cm as well, and you will be well above the anchor.
In reply to Tom_Harding:
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The links on this thread suggest that a factor 1 fall on a dyneema sling can generate up to 25kN
Short factor 1 falls can generate high forces even on a dynamic rope, e.g falling above your first low runner.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. The links on this thread suggest that a factor 1 fall on a dyneema sling can generate up to 25kN
Short factor 1 falls can generate high forces even on a dynamic rope, e.g falling above your first low runner.
In reply to Monk:
That’s a factor two then. From what I understand (I saw a diagram somewhere). If you have 1m between the belayer and the first runner, then the climber falls from 2m above that, you will have a factor 2 fall.
Someone on here want explain fall factors again?
> e.g falling above your first low runner.
That’s a factor two then. From what I understand (I saw a diagram somewhere). If you have 1m between the belayer and the first runner, then the climber falls from 2m above that, you will have a factor 2 fall.
Someone on here want explain fall factors again?
In reply to Tom_Harding:
Fall factor is distance fallen divided by amount of rope out. So in your example the fall factor would be about 1.3. (4m fall, with 3m of rope between belayer and climber)
> From what I understand (I saw a diagram somewhere). If you have 1m between the belayer and the first runner, then the climber falls from 2m above that, you will have a factor 2 fall.
>
> Someone on here want explain fall factors again?
>
> Someone on here want explain fall factors again?
Fall factor is distance fallen divided by amount of rope out. So in your example the fall factor would be about 1.3. (4m fall, with 3m of rope between belayer and climber)
In reply to deepsoup:
"If you have 1m between the belayer and the first runner, then the climber falls from 2m above that, you will have a factor 2 fall."
Wrong and I´d call that a ground fall anyway!
"If you have 1m between the belayer and the first runner, then the climber falls from 2m above that, you will have a factor 2 fall."
Wrong and I´d call that a ground fall anyway!
1
In reply to jimtitt and Dan:
You may be right but I'd like to see the tests to prove it - that's hardly any dampening at all.
The problem of course will be that every fall will be dampened differently depending on factors such as body position, state of relaxation, etc. so I can see why the UIAA may have (always!) been playing safe and using a worst case figure. I suspect in practice the actual dampening will usually be greater, but as I say I'd like to see real tests to show it.
... and how come they think we're all lard-arses? if I weighed 100kg with a harness on I'd never get off the ground! Maybe the test was originally designed with mountaineers in mind.
You may be right but I'd like to see the tests to prove it - that's hardly any dampening at all.
The problem of course will be that every fall will be dampened differently depending on factors such as body position, state of relaxation, etc. so I can see why the UIAA may have (always!) been playing safe and using a worst case figure. I suspect in practice the actual dampening will usually be greater, but as I say I'd like to see real tests to show it.
... and how come they think we're all lard-arses? if I weighed 100kg with a harness on I'd never get off the ground! Maybe the test was originally designed with mountaineers in mind.
In reply to Tom_Harding:
It's a gear review Tom.
Companies advertise to show that gear is available. You don't have to buy product.
Please take note of some of the posts after yours and learn. Especially Dan Middleton of the BMC, Toby Archer and Jim Titt.
> (In reply to TobyA)
> Strange to see this advertised really.
It's a gear review Tom.
Companies advertise to show that gear is available. You don't have to buy product.
Please take note of some of the posts after yours and learn. Especially Dan Middleton of the BMC, Toby Archer and Jim Titt.
In reply to Tom_Harding:
The only way to get a factor 2 fall is to fall twice as far as the length of rope - i.e. you are x metres above your belay with no gear and you end up x metres below your belay. In the fall I describe (e.g. falling about 3 metres and skimming the floor) it is actually just under factor 1, but can be a very jarring fall on a tight belay.
The only way to get a factor 2 fall is to fall twice as far as the length of rope - i.e. you are x metres above your belay with no gear and you end up x metres below your belay. In the fall I describe (e.g. falling about 3 metres and skimming the floor) it is actually just under factor 1, but can be a very jarring fall on a tight belay.
In reply to TobyA:
I too have seen them in decathlon ages ago, and considered them but thought them quite large and bulky
I would have thought some skinny rope (8 or 8.1) iceline style ropes better as they'd stretch more than an 11 and provide lower impact forces - which is what we are interested in not the overall strength of an 11mm for example. And they'd be lighter and less intrusive.
I too have seen them in decathlon ages ago, and considered them but thought them quite large and bulky
> More seriously, Beal have obviously done tested and thought about this. If you use a bit of old 9mm or 11mmm I wouldn't really have any idea about how shock absorbent or not it would be compared to a sling.
I would have thought some skinny rope (8 or 8.1) iceline style ropes better as they'd stretch more than an 11 and provide lower impact forces - which is what we are interested in not the overall strength of an 11mm for example. And they'd be lighter and less intrusive.
In reply to jimtitt:
Hanging belay? My maths isn't quite that bad.
> I´d call that a ground fall anyway!
Hanging belay? My maths isn't quite that bad.
In reply to Tom_Harding:
I am not sure anyone has yet picked you up on the point that you can safely take a factor 1 or 2 onto a dynamic climbing rope because they are designed that way.
The same is not true for a static sling, and the forces involved in a factor 1 onto a sling would be far higher than onto a dynamic rope.
> I might be wrong here but you can take fall factors 1's all day long with no probs, factor 2 is the dangerous one.
I am not sure anyone has yet picked you up on the point that you can safely take a factor 1 or 2 onto a dynamic climbing rope because they are designed that way.
The same is not true for a static sling, and the forces involved in a factor 1 onto a sling would be far higher than onto a dynamic rope.
In reply to john arran:
I think the tests were done by some of the Troll guys back when harnesses were being properly developed. You wouldn't get away with it these days! You'd probably have to make, at great cost, special crash test dummies that still wouldn't give a true result.
When I worked for Lyon, we did some tests using a rescue dummy. After one drop test, one of his arms flew off! Which was funny, but expensive.
I think the tests were done by some of the Troll guys back when harnesses were being properly developed. You wouldn't get away with it these days! You'd probably have to make, at great cost, special crash test dummies that still wouldn't give a true result.
When I worked for Lyon, we did some tests using a rescue dummy. After one drop test, one of his arms flew off! Which was funny, but expensive.
In reply to john arran:
Ouch! <weeps into keyboard>
> ... and how come they think we're all lard-arses? if I weighed 100kg with a harness on I'd never get off the ground!
Ouch! <weeps into keyboard>
In reply to deepsoup: Maybe they need to test with one of these?
http://firstresponder.com.au/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPat...
http://firstresponder.com.au/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPat...
In reply to Tom_Harding:
Having done a bit of aiding, including taking a pretty decent fall when a string of RPs popped, I'm trying to work out how you would fall onto your daisy? I guess it would have to be if the top piece blows before you've had chance to move your fifi over to it but you're putting your weight onto an etrier clipped into that top piece?
> The Americans routinely take daisy chain falls while aiding and although its not pleasant I haven’t heard of any serious incidents in this way (I had a good Google).
Having done a bit of aiding, including taking a pretty decent fall when a string of RPs popped, I'm trying to work out how you would fall onto your daisy? I guess it would have to be if the top piece blows before you've had chance to move your fifi over to it but you're putting your weight onto an etrier clipped into that top piece?
In reply to UKC Gear:
Other than it being yet another piece of gear to carry about my main concern with something like this is that one of the most important things you do when lowering off from a sport climb is to retie back to your harness. Putting another piece of rope there makes it harder to visually check that operation - especially if you are unlucky enough to have a rope nearly the same colour (or its getting dark !). No doubt it will appeal to some people - all the cavers I know just make their own cows tails though.
Other than it being yet another piece of gear to carry about my main concern with something like this is that one of the most important things you do when lowering off from a sport climb is to retie back to your harness. Putting another piece of rope there makes it harder to visually check that operation - especially if you are unlucky enough to have a rope nearly the same colour (or its getting dark !). No doubt it will appeal to some people - all the cavers I know just make their own cows tails though.
In reply to Monk:
http://www.real-adventure.co.uk/downloads/articles/slings_and_anchors.pdf
Mentions two fatalities from slings failing after approx 1m falls.
http://www.real-adventure.co.uk/downloads/articles/slings_and_anchors.pdf
Mentions two fatalities from slings failing after approx 1m falls.
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC: Interesting i saw candidates for CWA assessment in manchester MCC wall all anchored with slings on the abseil ledges.
Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
In reply to muppetfilter:
...or just made aware of the limitations of the system they were using?
Al
>
> Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
> Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
...or just made aware of the limitations of the system they were using?
Al
In reply to AlH: Such as if you fall of the edge there is a possibility you could produce a large shockload on that single anchor and cause it to fail...
We have used dynamic rope cowstails for well over 20 years in rope access for this very reason...
We have used dynamic rope cowstails for well over 20 years in rope access for this very reason...
In reply to john arran:
You mean 95kg without my harness isn´t normal for a rock climber? :~(
In reality the traditional factor may even be insufficient. For fall arrest, parachutists and such like the factor was always 1.4:1 for bodies to weights but recently this has been changed to 1.1:1 though this may reflect more on the use of full body harnesses and the equipment allowance which has to be made.
The testing is here:-http://www.gravitec.com/images/pdfs/Multiplier_Material_Testing_Report.pdf
Jim
You mean 95kg without my harness isn´t normal for a rock climber? :~(
In reality the traditional factor may even be insufficient. For fall arrest, parachutists and such like the factor was always 1.4:1 for bodies to weights but recently this has been changed to 1.1:1 though this may reflect more on the use of full body harnesses and the equipment allowance which has to be made.
The testing is here:-http://www.gravitec.com/images/pdfs/Multiplier_Material_Testing_Report.pdf
Jim
In reply to muppetfilter:But for a CWA environment if you are standing or sitting in a position where you are on a sling with no slack in the system you can't fall anywhere in a manner which would create a shockload sufficient to cause either the sling or the rated anchors that are part of the artificial wall fabric to fail. The anchor points we use in IRATA work are mobile and it is easy to move level with or above them (in particular the second rope). In a CWA or for that matter an SPA situation most providers in my experience highlight the need to keep tight to high anchors to avoid shockloading them. These common climbing situations are addressed using commonly carried climbing equipment (the climbing rope, rigging rope and or slings). I'm certainly not saying there is anything wrong with rope lanyards (I teach their use in routesetting at walls, have a Millet set up for sport climbing and other uses), just that there is nothing wrong with climbing equipment well used with an awareness of what situations to avoid.
Al
Al
In reply to jimtitt:
ok I was just about to concede on this one - and it's true that I am surprised at how small the differences in those tests are, so I've definitely learned something today.
But...
From what I can tell, all of those tests were done using dynamic (rope-like) material rather than static(ish) slings. On average it looks like they were stretching 15 or 20%.
Given that our issue is one of minimising the peak load, the time it takes for this stretching to happen is likely to be very significant. If the stretching takes the same length of time as the body deforming there will be precious little reduction seen in peak load. But if the stretch is minimal (e.g. a sling) then presumably the very short peak load will be reduced to a proportionally much greater extent. (It could even be that the 1.1 figure is observed instead of the old 1.4 figure largely because today's lanyards are stretchier.)
Another way to view it is to see (or feel) the lack of energy apparently absorbed by the body during a bungee jump and compare that to what you would expect to feel if you fell onto a sling!
I still think it's surprising how little difference there is between dead weight and human falling onto a lanyard, and I suspect I'll have to revise my 'order of magnitude' assumption by rather a lot (!), but I still think that for static slings a factor of 20% difference between dead weight and human would be an underestimate.
Thanks for posting the link by the way.
ok I was just about to concede on this one - and it's true that I am surprised at how small the differences in those tests are, so I've definitely learned something today.
But...
From what I can tell, all of those tests were done using dynamic (rope-like) material rather than static(ish) slings. On average it looks like they were stretching 15 or 20%.
Given that our issue is one of minimising the peak load, the time it takes for this stretching to happen is likely to be very significant. If the stretching takes the same length of time as the body deforming there will be precious little reduction seen in peak load. But if the stretch is minimal (e.g. a sling) then presumably the very short peak load will be reduced to a proportionally much greater extent. (It could even be that the 1.1 figure is observed instead of the old 1.4 figure largely because today's lanyards are stretchier.)
Another way to view it is to see (or feel) the lack of energy apparently absorbed by the body during a bungee jump and compare that to what you would expect to feel if you fell onto a sling!
I still think it's surprising how little difference there is between dead weight and human falling onto a lanyard, and I suspect I'll have to revise my 'order of magnitude' assumption by rather a lot (!), but I still think that for static slings a factor of 20% difference between dead weight and human would be an underestimate.
Thanks for posting the link by the way.
In reply to john arran: You are obviously right and your opponents are obviously wrong. People take short falls on static slings quite often in aid-climbing. Every now and then the piece people stand on rips just as they are about to unclip the daisy below them, and surprisingly often the piece below holds giving the leader a nice set of bruises.
In reply to various: I almost snapped a dyneema sling around a granite spike that I clipped directly into in the Alps this summer. It was less than a 0.5FF fall, just a slight slip really and it cut/melted the sling 70% through.
We bailed off and unfortunately I knotted the sling and used it as abseil tat otherwise I'd have taken pictures of it. It is not a directly comparable scenario but it has made me even more wary of clipping into anything with a sling and paranoid about shock loading things.
I've looked at the Beal lanyards both in Chamonix and last weekend in Joe Browns and I am pretty sure that I will buy one in due course. Partly that is so I have one as demonstration equipment for SPA/CWA courses but also for various minor instructing and work scenarios where the Working at Heights Directive means that slings are just not an acceptable method.
We bailed off and unfortunately I knotted the sling and used it as abseil tat otherwise I'd have taken pictures of it. It is not a directly comparable scenario but it has made me even more wary of clipping into anything with a sling and paranoid about shock loading things.
I've looked at the Beal lanyards both in Chamonix and last weekend in Joe Browns and I am pretty sure that I will buy one in due course. Partly that is so I have one as demonstration equipment for SPA/CWA courses but also for various minor instructing and work scenarios where the Working at Heights Directive means that slings are just not an acceptable method.
1
In reply to muppetfilter:
It depends whether they were being used as a work restraint system or as a fall arrest system. The difference (explained here http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/campaign/personalequipment.pdf ) is:
work restraint systems and equipment will include a lanyard which must be adjusted, or set, to a fixed length to prevent the user physically getting to a place where they could fall, eg a roof edge or fragile surface;
fall arrest systems and equipment limit the impact force of a fall on the user and prevent them hitting the ground. The anchor point should be as high as possible above the feet of the user to limit the distance of the fall.
A static sling is NOT acceptable for the later but is perfectly acceptable as the former.
Some people may not be aware of the specific requirement of Schedule 5 Part 4 of the Working at Heights Regulations with regard to energy absorption. Thankfully the HSE Guidance on the application of the regulations to persons instructing climbing and caving supports the use of dynamic rope negating the need for any more complicated solutions.
Schedule 5 Part 4 Para 1 (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050735.htm#sch5p4 )
A fall arrest system shall incorporate a suitable means of absorbing energy and limiting the forces applied to the user's body
Guidance on the application of the Work at Height Amendment Regulations 2005 to persons instructing climbing and caving - para 55 (see http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/downloads/waharguideactivity.pdf )
The dynamic ropes used in climbing and caving for fall protection will generally fulfil the function of a shock absorber.
> (In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC) Interesting i saw candidates for CWA assessment in manchester MCC wall all anchored with slings on the abseil ledges.
>
> Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
>
> Surely they should have been on rope cowstails ?
It depends whether they were being used as a work restraint system or as a fall arrest system. The difference (explained here http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/campaign/personalequipment.pdf ) is:
work restraint systems and equipment will include a lanyard which must be adjusted, or set, to a fixed length to prevent the user physically getting to a place where they could fall, eg a roof edge or fragile surface;
fall arrest systems and equipment limit the impact force of a fall on the user and prevent them hitting the ground. The anchor point should be as high as possible above the feet of the user to limit the distance of the fall.
A static sling is NOT acceptable for the later but is perfectly acceptable as the former.
Some people may not be aware of the specific requirement of Schedule 5 Part 4 of the Working at Heights Regulations with regard to energy absorption. Thankfully the HSE Guidance on the application of the regulations to persons instructing climbing and caving supports the use of dynamic rope negating the need for any more complicated solutions.
Schedule 5 Part 4 Para 1 (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050735.htm#sch5p4 )
A fall arrest system shall incorporate a suitable means of absorbing energy and limiting the forces applied to the user's body
Guidance on the application of the Work at Height Amendment Regulations 2005 to persons instructing climbing and caving - para 55 (see http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/downloads/waharguideactivity.pdf )
The dynamic ropes used in climbing and caving for fall protection will generally fulfil the function of a shock absorber.
In reply to UKC Gear:
I have used a similar thing to this for both climbing and canyoning and find them to be a complete pain. They are simply not adjustable or long enough. Also I would think the shock absorbing effect of 40 cm (or 70cm) of dynamic rope to be minimal in the event of a fall. I would admit that it will be much more abrasion resistant and stronger over a hard edge than a sling.
A set up very popular in Spain for multi-pitch, and often demonstrated in books / magazines, is a Kong Slyde and a length of dynamic rope.
http://www.kong.it/doc408.htm
Scroll down the page to see it.
IMO, used in conjunction with a length of 9mm rope much better for hanging belays than a fixed sling or pre stitched lanyard. And much cheaper.
My two bobs worth.
JH
I have used a similar thing to this for both climbing and canyoning and find them to be a complete pain. They are simply not adjustable or long enough. Also I would think the shock absorbing effect of 40 cm (or 70cm) of dynamic rope to be minimal in the event of a fall. I would admit that it will be much more abrasion resistant and stronger over a hard edge than a sling.
A set up very popular in Spain for multi-pitch, and often demonstrated in books / magazines, is a Kong Slyde and a length of dynamic rope.
http://www.kong.it/doc408.htm
Scroll down the page to see it.
IMO, used in conjunction with a length of 9mm rope much better for hanging belays than a fixed sling or pre stitched lanyard. And much cheaper.
My two bobs worth.
JH
In reply to lithos:
The skiny ropes are not as much lower impact as you might think actually. If you look at the impact force figures on the label of an iceline for instance it is a much lower figure than most singles but a large part of that difference is down to the fact the drop test weight is different. While single ropes get 80kg(?) dropped on them during certification half ropes are only tested with a 55kg(?) drop mass (I may be slightly off with the figures).
Anyway, once you multiply the impact force figure up to take account of the fact the half isn't catching as much weight in the test their relative shock absorption properties end up being much more similar than you would maybe expect.
> I would have thought some skinny rope (8 or 8.1) iceline style ropes better as they'd stretch more than an 11 and provide lower impact forces - which is what we are interested in not the overall strength of an 11mm for example.
The skiny ropes are not as much lower impact as you might think actually. If you look at the impact force figures on the label of an iceline for instance it is a much lower figure than most singles but a large part of that difference is down to the fact the drop test weight is different. While single ropes get 80kg(?) dropped on them during certification half ropes are only tested with a 55kg(?) drop mass (I may be slightly off with the figures).
Anyway, once you multiply the impact force figure up to take account of the fact the half isn't catching as much weight in the test their relative shock absorption properties end up being much more similar than you would maybe expect.
In reply to neil the weak: Absolutely correct. I did think about posting the same.
New singles and doubles perform surprisingly similarly in identical falls except for two things:
- Singles resist cumulative damage from multiple falls FAR better. In lots of cases more than 5x better.
- The holding power of belay devices with thin ropes is reduced and belaying with two ropes reduces the belayers grip on each rope which may lead to a more dynamic belay and hence lower impact forces in lead falls.
In the case of lanyards the only issue is the resistance to cumulative damage and the details of the planned usage will determine how important that is and whether 8mm, 9mm or 10mm etc. would be most appropriate.
New singles and doubles perform surprisingly similarly in identical falls except for two things:
- Singles resist cumulative damage from multiple falls FAR better. In lots of cases more than 5x better.
- The holding power of belay devices with thin ropes is reduced and belaying with two ropes reduces the belayers grip on each rope which may lead to a more dynamic belay and hence lower impact forces in lead falls.
In the case of lanyards the only issue is the resistance to cumulative damage and the details of the planned usage will determine how important that is and whether 8mm, 9mm or 10mm etc. would be most appropriate.
In reply to jwi:
I don't think there is anything obvious about it. Read p.21 of the PDF report linked above.
> (In reply to john arran) You are obviously right and your opponents are obviously wrong.
I don't think there is anything obvious about it. Read p.21 of the PDF report linked above.
In reply to UKC Gear:
Is this just a cavers cows tail which has been about for at least 20 years... . ???
Is this just a cavers cows tail which has been about for at least 20 years... . ???
In reply to jwi:
Your own text weakens your assertion somewhat. In one breath you manage to claim that falling direct onto slings doesn't generate dangerously high forces and then describe the evidence that it does. How many Kn of impact does it take to give a leader a "nice set of bruises"? I don't know exactly, but big lead falls (which generate 4-6Kn) don't get anywhere close so it must be a fair bit more than that. While this level of force may not be enough to rip anchors and snap gear every time, if it (wee falls direct on to slings) is that bad it is clearly higher shock than you should want it to be and worth avoiding.
> (In reply to john arran) You are obviously right and your opponents are obviously wrong. People take short falls on static slings quite often ....... the piece below holds giving the leader a nice set of bruises.
Your own text weakens your assertion somewhat. In one breath you manage to claim that falling direct onto slings doesn't generate dangerously high forces and then describe the evidence that it does. How many Kn of impact does it take to give a leader a "nice set of bruises"? I don't know exactly, but big lead falls (which generate 4-6Kn) don't get anywhere close so it must be a fair bit more than that. While this level of force may not be enough to rip anchors and snap gear every time, if it (wee falls direct on to slings) is that bad it is clearly higher shock than you should want it to be and worth avoiding.
In reply to UKC Gear: I found this superb article on testing rope lanyards http://www.caves.org/section/vertical/nh/53/lanyard_tests_v6.pdf which is recommended reading for those following this thread.
It confirms that a knotted dynamic rope lanyard will definitely out perform the manufactured Beal lanyards in the OP with regard to impact forces, see page 31 of the pdf (report p30).
The table on page 32 of the pdf (report p31) also confirms that there is no appreciable differences in impact force between 8mm or 11mm rope.
It confirms that a knotted dynamic rope lanyard will definitely out perform the manufactured Beal lanyards in the OP with regard to impact forces, see page 31 of the pdf (report p30).
The table on page 32 of the pdf (report p31) also confirms that there is no appreciable differences in impact force between 8mm or 11mm rope.
In reply to UKC Gear:
We bought the single Beal Lanyard about a year or two ago and use it all the time on multi-pitch bolted routes due to the speed and extra safety margin on busy continental hanging belays! The rest of the time we use ordinary slings on mixed or trad routes and just make sure we don't shock load the slings by dropping on them from above! I really wouldn't bother in the UK but if you are doing a lot of continental bolted stuff even a mean Scot like me thinks it's worth it!!! BYW found we them awkward to use on continental ice routes but really good on hot rock sport routes.
We bought the single Beal Lanyard about a year or two ago and use it all the time on multi-pitch bolted routes due to the speed and extra safety margin on busy continental hanging belays! The rest of the time we use ordinary slings on mixed or trad routes and just make sure we don't shock load the slings by dropping on them from above! I really wouldn't bother in the UK but if you are doing a lot of continental bolted stuff even a mean Scot like me thinks it's worth it!!! BYW found we them awkward to use on continental ice routes but really good on hot rock sport routes.
In reply to TobyA: I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way you could break a sling in this manner.
On a note about the gear, why the balls would you not just make one for a fraction of the price?
On a note about the gear, why the balls would you not just make one for a fraction of the price?
In reply to TradHolden:
I was going to suggest you try jumping off the climbing wall attached to a bolt by a 120 cm sling to prove how 'ridiculous' it is, but then even with just my GCSE physics I understand why that's probably a really bad idea.
But it's a free society...
> There is no way you could break a sling in this manner.
I was going to suggest you try jumping off the climbing wall attached to a bolt by a 120 cm sling to prove how 'ridiculous' it is, but then even with just my GCSE physics I understand why that's probably a really bad idea.
But it's a free society...
In reply to TradHolden:
There have been accidents that show you can.
One thing I think makes a big difference is that when you fall you tend to fall away from the rock so energy is absorbed by swinging into the rock. So if you fall straight down onto your sling without any swing all the energy will be absorbed by the equipment and leads to high impact forces. If you fall away from the wall so that the sling becomes tight and you swing then very little force will go through the sling as most of the energy is absorbed, hopefully by your legs, when you hit the wall. A real fall will naturally be somewhere between those two extremes. This gives a possible reason why some people have taken falls onto slings/daisies and been completely fine whereas some people get injured or equipment breaks.
The only time I've fallen straight onto a sling was whilst trying to go from aid to free at the lip of a small roof and toppled back whilst in the top steps of my etriers. I jumped out to avoid getting flipped and just took a soft swing into the wall below.
> (In reply to TobyA) I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way you could break a sling in this manner.
There have been accidents that show you can.
One thing I think makes a big difference is that when you fall you tend to fall away from the rock so energy is absorbed by swinging into the rock. So if you fall straight down onto your sling without any swing all the energy will be absorbed by the equipment and leads to high impact forces. If you fall away from the wall so that the sling becomes tight and you swing then very little force will go through the sling as most of the energy is absorbed, hopefully by your legs, when you hit the wall. A real fall will naturally be somewhere between those two extremes. This gives a possible reason why some people have taken falls onto slings/daisies and been completely fine whereas some people get injured or equipment breaks.
The only time I've fallen straight onto a sling was whilst trying to go from aid to free at the lip of a small roof and toppled back whilst in the top steps of my etriers. I jumped out to avoid getting flipped and just took a soft swing into the wall below.
In reply to TradHolden:
I'm afraid you are either an idiot or just lazy and wilfully ignorant.
If you had actually gone to the bother of reading the thread and the numerous links that people have taken the time and effort to post before spouting off you would realise that you can, and fairly easily.
Admittedly, with a brand new un-knotted sling it's a bit of a lottery which out of the sling, the anchor, the harness or the climber's back you'd actually break in a fall. However, if the sling is knotted or even just well used then anything over a factor 1 fall on steep ground could quite happily snap it assuming the anchor holds.
> (In reply to TobyA) I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way you could break a sling in this manner.
I'm afraid you are either an idiot or just lazy and wilfully ignorant.
If you had actually gone to the bother of reading the thread and the numerous links that people have taken the time and effort to post before spouting off you would realise that you can, and fairly easily.
Admittedly, with a brand new un-knotted sling it's a bit of a lottery which out of the sling, the anchor, the harness or the climber's back you'd actually break in a fall. However, if the sling is knotted or even just well used then anything over a factor 1 fall on steep ground could quite happily snap it assuming the anchor holds.
In reply to UKC Gear: Does anyone know where I can get some of these? I'm thinking of a trip to Portland soon and reckon these would be useful.
-BS
-BS
In reply to Big Sender: Joe Brown sells them I think.
In reply to Big Sender:
I'm thinking you'll be looking like a right gear-freak punter...
> (In reply to UKC Gear) Does anyone know where I can get some of these? I'm thinking of a trip to Portland soon and reckon these would be useful.
I'm thinking you'll be looking like a right gear-freak punter...
In reply to Tom_Harding: Sorry you are mis informed some slings will fail when subjected to the 80Kg fall factor one test (especially dyneema which has virtually no stretch)This is made even worse if the sling is knotted as they often are for abeil retreat purposes. Basically its not worth finding out!
In reply to jimtitt: having a bad maths day Jim 2m plus 1m from belayer to 1st runner equals 3meters of rope out and either a ground fall or if its a multipitch route a 4 meter fall so 4/3=1.3
In reply to nealh:sorry Jim I misread your post (I take it back)
In reply to neil the weak:
thanks for that i hadn't thought it through till after i posted -
but also they are tested at 1.7 FF ?
My thinking was that using a skinny rope tied in with double fishermans
(smaller than fo8) to create a 2nd effective belay loop with tail would provide
more dynamism as the knot tightens (assuming it doesnt fully tighten under
normal body weight load). Not planning on repeated falls onto a lanyard either
and less rope to get in the way.
Good thread - it has made me think i really ought to get my arse into gear.
thanks for the post
thanks for that i hadn't thought it through till after i posted -
but also they are tested at 1.7 FF ?
My thinking was that using a skinny rope tied in with double fishermans
(smaller than fo8) to create a 2nd effective belay loop with tail would provide
more dynamism as the knot tightens (assuming it doesnt fully tighten under
normal body weight load). Not planning on repeated falls onto a lanyard either
and less rope to get in the way.
Good thread - it has made me think i really ought to get my arse into gear.
thanks for the post
In reply to JH:
I've used one of these for a while now, both for multi pitch rock and ice climbing. You can adjust them using a ropeman which is very efficient. When abbing I clove hitch a screwgate about half way down and use that for attching my ab device. I can then clip into the belay with the top end. A specialist but a very useful piece of kit which is safer to use than a knotted sling. Dave S
> (In reply to UKC Gear)
> They are simply not adjustable or long enough.
> They are simply not adjustable or long enough.
I've used one of these for a while now, both for multi pitch rock and ice climbing. You can adjust them using a ropeman which is very efficient. When abbing I clove hitch a screwgate about half way down and use that for attching my ab device. I can then clip into the belay with the top end. A specialist but a very useful piece of kit which is safer to use than a knotted sling. Dave S
In reply to UKC Gear:
I think the idea behind them is valid
but how about leaving a longer tail when tying in (figure of 8, not bowline) and using the tail as a lanyard?
alright doesn't work if you need to untie or swap rope ends but hey nothing's perfect
I think the idea behind them is valid
but how about leaving a longer tail when tying in (figure of 8, not bowline) and using the tail as a lanyard?
alright doesn't work if you need to untie or swap rope ends but hey nothing's perfect
In reply to uncontrollable:
Because you're clipping into anchors so you can untie your main rope and thread it to lower off!
> (In reply to UKC Gear)
>
> I think the idea behind them is valid
> but how about leaving a longer tail when tying in (figure of 8, not bowline) and using the tail as a lanyard?
> alright doesn't work if you need to untie or swap rope ends but hey nothing's perfect
>
> I think the idea behind them is valid
> but how about leaving a longer tail when tying in (figure of 8, not bowline) and using the tail as a lanyard?
> alright doesn't work if you need to untie or swap rope ends but hey nothing's perfect
Because you're clipping into anchors so you can untie your main rope and thread it to lower off!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...