UKC

Just ordered a pair of Grivel  Airtech lightweight crampons, advertised variously  as weighing between 455g and 495g. They actually weigh in at 660g !  Still substantially lighter than my G12 steels but a deceptive description, why can't we have honest descriptions ? I'm guessing that their weight doesn't include the anti balling plates but as they are not removable its very misleading.

In reply to john spence:

Will the 100 or so grammes detract from your climbing experience?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Not at all, just find it misleading..

In reply to john spence:

50 % extra weight in ultralight gear definitely merit complaining about imo.

In reply to john spence:

But the Grivel website says they weight 455g without anti balling plates and 590 with and naturally this will vary slightly with whatever size you have. 60gr for a couple of sizes larger than whatever they use strikes me as reasonable.

In reply to jimtitt:The anti balling plates seem to be riveted on  so once removed cannot be replaced, just wonder why they don't give an honest description.  Quite happy with the kit.

 

In reply to john spence:

Probably because it's the headline weight which sells, and most people won't bother weighing the kit.

 

In reply to john spence:

I don't want to hijack this thread but how do some rucksack makers get away with the capacity claims.

I have a small sack that is supposed to hold 35 litres. That seemed a lot for its size so I tried to get as many 2 litre water bottled into it as possible.

I managed 6 in the main compartment. The smaller compartment is only about 2/3 of the height of the main one, and as it really just a pocket I doubt it could hold much more than 2 or 3 litres. By my reckoning that is a total of around 15 litres and even with a bit extra allowed for the space around the bottles, I doubt if it would total more than 20 litres.

I buy sacks by what I can see and how well I think they will hold what I want, not the claimed size, but like the OP here, I think we are being misled.

 

Dave

In reply to Tringa:

Lol. You need to empty the bottles.

In reply to john spence:

But they sell replacement plates so presumably there is some way of changing them......

In reply to Tringa:

Packing cylinders into a defined space like a cuboid (sack interior) will have a packing efficiency of less than 80% , so your example will always be significantly under the claimcl capacity. Better to have measured how much sand or other fluid like substance (air) it could hold. May still be less than claimed but a fairer way to measure.

In reply to Tringa:

IIRC a common method to measure capacity was by pouring in cordlocks, as they fill the pack nicely and have a known weight per litre. Fill pack (and pockets etc) and weigh total number of cord locks swallowed to calculate volume in litres.

Whilst likely to flatter true capacity, that's a better measure than trying to put cylindrical objects into a cuboidal space. 

 

b