This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Toby Archer tests out the versatile world of triple rated ropes, and reviews three alternatives from three of the biggest rope manufacturers. The triple rating means that each rope has been approved to work on its own (as a single rope), as one half of a double rope system, and as one half of a twin rope system.Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3765
In reply to UKC Gear:
Strange thing i noticed. It seems the impact forces in all these ropes are much higher than the ones obtained with single ropes, and the number of falls till failure are smaller. (Cross-checking all Beal ropes in that linked catalogue).
That means to me, that even though they have not spent big bucks getting the triple certification, you are better off using a single rope as a single, double, or twin in terms of safety both with regards forces in the system and rope longevity.
The only advantage of the triple gimmick is one purely of weight when used as a single. Handy for sport climbing, but no so good when marginal protection is involved.
Strange thing i noticed. It seems the impact forces in all these ropes are much higher than the ones obtained with single ropes, and the number of falls till failure are smaller. (Cross-checking all Beal ropes in that linked catalogue).
That means to me, that even though they have not spent big bucks getting the triple certification, you are better off using a single rope as a single, double, or twin in terms of safety both with regards forces in the system and rope longevity.
The only advantage of the triple gimmick is one purely of weight when used as a single. Handy for sport climbing, but no so good when marginal protection is involved.
In reply to UKC Gear:
Well written review Toby.
I am criticising the product here, not your writing. 20/30 years ago we all climbed on 9mm half ropes, many still do, these would at a push do all the jobs required. These manufacturers have reproduced old technology and charged a premium for it.
I can see the advantage in a thin single/fat double but I cannot see a need for the rope to be rated as twin as well, just clip every others rather than all runners. Still, if folks are daft enough to buy it.
Well written review Toby.
I am criticising the product here, not your writing. 20/30 years ago we all climbed on 9mm half ropes, many still do, these would at a push do all the jobs required. These manufacturers have reproduced old technology and charged a premium for it.
I can see the advantage in a thin single/fat double but I cannot see a need for the rope to be rated as twin as well, just clip every others rather than all runners. Still, if folks are daft enough to buy it.
In reply to 3leggeddog: I can see the point in ropes being rated for both double and twin, or single and double useage but sinle and twin does seem kind of pointless to me.
In reply to 3leggeddog: Like I say, I've never really got the attraction of twins either (minimal weight perhaps?, but it does seem very popular with ice climbers in continental Europe, and to a less extent on multipitch sports routes. I guess that is why these ropes are triple rather than just double rated.
I remember reading about Moon using a single half rope when doing the FA of Statement (IIRC) to save weight, but then at the time I guess he didn't weigh much more the 55 kg testing weight they use on half ropes!
I remember reading about Moon using a single half rope when doing the FA of Statement (IIRC) to save weight, but then at the time I guess he didn't weigh much more the 55 kg testing weight they use on half ropes!
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
A little higher yes, but not really "much higher". I notice the Joker is the same impact force as the 9.4 Stinger - their top of the range single.
But I'm sure you're right, the designer have to make some compromises so that the rope is usable in the three different ways.
> Strange thing i noticed. It seems the impact forces in all these ropes are much higher
A little higher yes, but not really "much higher". I notice the Joker is the same impact force as the 9.4 Stinger - their top of the range single.
But I'm sure you're right, the designer have to make some compromises so that the rope is usable in the three different ways.
In reply to TobyA:
I use half ropes as twins for multipitch alpine sport where I need the abseil range. The ropes I use are *not rated as twins* (shock! gasp!) but they're fairly soft half ropes - Beal Ice Lines - so I don't lose too much sleep over them shattering bolts with their enormous impact force. Probably will buy proper twins next time though.
I use twin rope rather than double rope technique because (a) my current partners don't have a British trad background, or very much alpine multipitch experience, and trying to learn double rope belaying techniqe would be just one more thing to confuse, overwhelm and intimidate them. (b) I grew up climbing on 9mm ropes and find the thought of falling on a single strand of 8mm unappealing, (c) no need for double rope technique on sport routes anyway, given judicious use of the odd sling for traverses/roofs.
> I've never really got the attraction of twins either
I use half ropes as twins for multipitch alpine sport where I need the abseil range. The ropes I use are *not rated as twins* (shock! gasp!) but they're fairly soft half ropes - Beal Ice Lines - so I don't lose too much sleep over them shattering bolts with their enormous impact force. Probably will buy proper twins next time though.
I use twin rope rather than double rope technique because (a) my current partners don't have a British trad background, or very much alpine multipitch experience, and trying to learn double rope belaying techniqe would be just one more thing to confuse, overwhelm and intimidate them. (b) I grew up climbing on 9mm ropes and find the thought of falling on a single strand of 8mm unappealing, (c) no need for double rope technique on sport routes anyway, given judicious use of the odd sling for traverses/roofs.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
As far as I have read thin ropes = higher impact force when used in the same test. Makes sense when you think about the fibres in the rope equilibrating, but goes against the fairly standard advice trotted out about using a skinny half rope when clipping marginal gear.
I don't think its surprising that the thin ropes won't take as much abuse. For your average uk cragging type something a bit fatter is probably more ideal but the thin ropes always seem to appeal
> (In reply to UKC Gear)
>
> Strange thing i noticed. It seems the impact forces in all these ropes are much higher than the ones obtained with single ropes, and the number of falls till failure are smaller. (Cross-checking all Beal ropes in that linked catalogue).
>
> Strange thing i noticed. It seems the impact forces in all these ropes are much higher than the ones obtained with single ropes, and the number of falls till failure are smaller. (Cross-checking all Beal ropes in that linked catalogue).
As far as I have read thin ropes = higher impact force when used in the same test. Makes sense when you think about the fibres in the rope equilibrating, but goes against the fairly standard advice trotted out about using a skinny half rope when clipping marginal gear.
I don't think its surprising that the thin ropes won't take as much abuse. For your average uk cragging type something a bit fatter is probably more ideal but the thin ropes always seem to appeal
In reply to TobyA:
Its interesting to compare the "double" vs "twin" impact forces (both 80 kg test mass). Clipping twin only adds about 10% to the impact force.
> Conversely 'double' ropes aren't usually designed to be both clipped into the same piece of gear; doing so can increase the forces in the event of a fall.
Its interesting to compare the "double" vs "twin" impact forces (both 80 kg test mass). Clipping twin only adds about 10% to the impact force.
In reply to petellis:
That's because they're NOT both 80kg. Half ropes are tested with a 55kg weight. Singles and twins with 80kg.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the diameters and weights per metre are entirely meaningless to the consumer as well.
Toby: did you actually weigh the ropes before quoting one as heavier than the others? If not, you really can't make that statement.
Iain
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> [...]
>
> Its interesting to compare the "double" vs "twin" impact forces (both 80 kg test mass). Clipping twin only adds about 10% to the impact force.
>
> [...]
>
> Its interesting to compare the "double" vs "twin" impact forces (both 80 kg test mass). Clipping twin only adds about 10% to the impact force.
That's because they're NOT both 80kg. Half ropes are tested with a 55kg weight. Singles and twins with 80kg.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the diameters and weights per metre are entirely meaningless to the consumer as well.
Toby: did you actually weigh the ropes before quoting one as heavier than the others? If not, you really can't make that statement.
Iain
In reply to petellis:
I'm not sure if that is really very true. Climber magazine did a very interesting rope review recently - written by someone who post here (was Ian Whitehouse? Apologies if I have got that confused), and they found some thick ropes wore badly and some thin ropes wore very well. It all seems a bit random to me.
Depends what you mean by cragging. My UK cragging used to be doing a bunch of trad routes and almost never falling off. I think that is very normal for many UK climbers, and its for them I reckon these 3x ropes could be very useful. Now with my cragging I do a lot more sport and (for me) hard trad and I fall a lot and also top rope routes first etc. In which case, totally agree, a tough 10 mm or bigger seems the way to go.
> (In reply to Mr Lopez)
> [...]
>
> As far as I have read thin ropes = higher impact force when used in the same test. Makes sense when you think about the fibres in the rope equilibrating, but goes against the fairly standard advice trotted out about using a skinny half rope when clipping marginal gear.
>
> I don't think its surprising that the thin ropes won't take as much abuse.
> [...]
>
> As far as I have read thin ropes = higher impact force when used in the same test. Makes sense when you think about the fibres in the rope equilibrating, but goes against the fairly standard advice trotted out about using a skinny half rope when clipping marginal gear.
>
> I don't think its surprising that the thin ropes won't take as much abuse.
I'm not sure if that is really very true. Climber magazine did a very interesting rope review recently - written by someone who post here (was Ian Whitehouse? Apologies if I have got that confused), and they found some thick ropes wore badly and some thin ropes wore very well. It all seems a bit random to me.
> For your average uk cragging type something a bit fatter is probably more ideal but the thin ropes always seem to appeal
Depends what you mean by cragging. My UK cragging used to be doing a bunch of trad routes and almost never falling off. I think that is very normal for many UK climbers, and its for them I reckon these 3x ropes could be very useful. Now with my cragging I do a lot more sport and (for me) hard trad and I fall a lot and also top rope routes first etc. In which case, totally agree, a tough 10 mm or bigger seems the way to go.
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
Hi Iain - you wrote the Climber review didn't you? That I mentioned just above? It was a very interesting piece.
I didn't weigh them and I accept that perhaps I was being too trusting of the companies figures as you laid out in your piece. Partly this was because I realised that cutting the ropes isn't perhaps the most accurate thing in the world so if I weighed say the Swift and found it was lighter than the Joker, this could of course be because the Edelrid rope happens to be 59.5 metres whilst the Beal one is 60.5, in which case the weight will of course be different. But I was hoping that even if our ropes aren't exactly 60 times the manufacturers stated weight per metre, at least their figures suggest proportionately how different the ropes should weigh - answer being: not much really.
> Toby: did you actually weigh the ropes before quoting one as heavier than the others? If not, you really can't make that statement.
Hi Iain - you wrote the Climber review didn't you? That I mentioned just above? It was a very interesting piece.
I didn't weigh them and I accept that perhaps I was being too trusting of the companies figures as you laid out in your piece. Partly this was because I realised that cutting the ropes isn't perhaps the most accurate thing in the world so if I weighed say the Swift and found it was lighter than the Joker, this could of course be because the Edelrid rope happens to be 59.5 metres whilst the Beal one is 60.5, in which case the weight will of course be different. But I was hoping that even if our ropes aren't exactly 60 times the manufacturers stated weight per metre, at least their figures suggest proportionately how different the ropes should weigh - answer being: not much really.
In reply to TobyA:
Hi Toby, yes, it was me that wrote the Climber article. I really hope I didn't come across as trying to suggest that manufacturers are guilty of fiddling the stats. I have no reason to think they are at all.
The problem is that the stats bear little or no relation to real-world experience. Taking weights as an easy example, I found that the weights weren't in proportion to the quoted g/m at all (like you, I didn't expect a 60m rope to be 60 x measured g/m but I did expect rough proportionality). I had a rope measured at 65g/m weighing less than another quoted at 63g/m. So, everyone like me that was anally retentive about getting the lightest gear could be getting misled by the figures.
I'll stop banging my drum but if you want to have a look at my data drop me a private mail.
Incidentally, pretty much all manufacturers cut 5% long so a '60m' rope will come out of production at 63m, plus or minus tolerance. As you point out, that tolerance may not be great.
Hi Toby, yes, it was me that wrote the Climber article. I really hope I didn't come across as trying to suggest that manufacturers are guilty of fiddling the stats. I have no reason to think they are at all.
The problem is that the stats bear little or no relation to real-world experience. Taking weights as an easy example, I found that the weights weren't in proportion to the quoted g/m at all (like you, I didn't expect a 60m rope to be 60 x measured g/m but I did expect rough proportionality). I had a rope measured at 65g/m weighing less than another quoted at 63g/m. So, everyone like me that was anally retentive about getting the lightest gear could be getting misled by the figures.
I'll stop banging my drum but if you want to have a look at my data drop me a private mail.
Incidentally, pretty much all manufacturers cut 5% long so a '60m' rope will come out of production at 63m, plus or minus tolerance. As you point out, that tolerance may not be great.
In reply to IainWhitehouse: Yes, fiddling is the wrong word. I suppose the testing standard just means the quoted weight per metre doesn't bear so much relation to the actual weight of the rope you buy. I should be doing some work right now as I have a deadline tomorrow, but after that I will weigh the three ropes I reviewed and see how they compare. Of course this will included whatever dust they have picked up over the last six months.
And to everyone else, you should try and read Iain's review in Climber - it is really interesting. For me the biggest take away from it was that all ropes 'work', none are dangerous, but beyond that neither price nor width seem any guarantee of what wears well or not.
Iain - I was glad to see though that your testers had noted their Edelrid rope seemed to kink more than others. When you test one rope like I did, you are always thinking "is it just this rope? Did I uncoil it badly?" etc. but to hear others found the same thing is reassuring!
And to everyone else, you should try and read Iain's review in Climber - it is really interesting. For me the biggest take away from it was that all ropes 'work', none are dangerous, but beyond that neither price nor width seem any guarantee of what wears well or not.
Iain - I was glad to see though that your testers had noted their Edelrid rope seemed to kink more than others. When you test one rope like I did, you are always thinking "is it just this rope? Did I uncoil it badly?" etc. but to hear others found the same thing is reassuring!
In reply to TobyA:
Very nicely put.
> For me the biggest take away from it was that all ropes 'work', none are dangerous, but beyond that neither price nor width seem any guarantee of what wears well or not.
Very nicely put.
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
Yeah. I stuffed up the post, I meant twin vs single (both 80 kg test mass).
> (In reply to petellis)
> [...]
>
> That's because they're NOT both 80kg. Half ropes are tested with a 55kg weight. Singles and twins with 80kg.
> [...]
>
> That's because they're NOT both 80kg. Half ropes are tested with a 55kg weight. Singles and twins with 80kg.
Yeah. I stuffed up the post, I meant twin vs single (both 80 kg test mass).
In reply to petellis:
We really need a campaign to get the testing standards changed so that half ropes are tested with 80 kgs as well!
We really need a campaign to get the testing standards changed so that half ropes are tested with 80 kgs as well!
In reply to TobyA:
Corrected that for you
I suggested to a few interested parties that there were ways the testing could be better. In almost every case the reaction was to patiently explain very simple aspects of the testing to me as though I was a child who couldn't possibly have actually read the standards or have any understanding of them. (There was at least one notable exception.)
> (In reply to petellis)
> We really need a campaign to get the testing standards changed
> We really need a campaign to get the testing standards changed
Corrected that for you
I suggested to a few interested parties that there were ways the testing could be better. In almost every case the reaction was to patiently explain very simple aspects of the testing to me as though I was a child who couldn't possibly have actually read the standards or have any understanding of them. (There was at least one notable exception.)
In reply to TobyA & Iain:
R.e Iain's Climber article.
I have used most of the ropes Iain reviewed and have different opinions to those reached in Iain's article. For what it is worth I don't think it is fair to give ropes to different people and then try to consolidate their experiences.
As you say Toby, they all work.
R.e Iain's Climber article.
I have used most of the ropes Iain reviewed and have different opinions to those reached in Iain's article. For what it is worth I don't think it is fair to give ropes to different people and then try to consolidate their experiences.
As you say Toby, they all work.
In reply to Richard Hall: There is certainly some certain randomness involved - is that fluffy bit sticking out of my rope because the weave pattern chosen by company X isn't optimal for hardwearing mantles? Or is because I trod on it with my crampons and didn't notice?
I guess even if you don't give the ropes to different people - one person can't test multiple ropes at once so you are never going to be able to really get exactly like for like comparisons.
I'd be interested to hear how your experience differs to Iain's testers'. Richard.
cheers,
Toby.
I guess even if you don't give the ropes to different people - one person can't test multiple ropes at once so you are never going to be able to really get exactly like for like comparisons.
I'd be interested to hear how your experience differs to Iain's testers'. Richard.
cheers,
Toby.
In reply to Richard Hall: I'd be interested to hear what you think too, Richard. You're not the only person to have said that and you are right that the testing can't be absolutely reproduciable. As Toby points out, it wouldn't be reproducible even if I only used one tester.
That said, I already have duplicates of some o the ropes out with alternative testers to get second opinions. Also, you have to realise that I wasn't relying only (or even mainly) on tester's reviews - they were primarily doing the job of thrashing the ropes and logging how much thrashing they got. I took all the ropes back and appraised the wear myself, side by side.
Anyway, I think it's time we stopped talking about my article. this thread should be about Toby's, which incidentally was very good. Anyone wants to comment on the Climber piece, please PM me.
Cheers, Iain
That said, I already have duplicates of some o the ropes out with alternative testers to get second opinions. Also, you have to realise that I wasn't relying only (or even mainly) on tester's reviews - they were primarily doing the job of thrashing the ropes and logging how much thrashing they got. I took all the ropes back and appraised the wear myself, side by side.
Anyway, I think it's time we stopped talking about my article. this thread should be about Toby's, which incidentally was very good. Anyone wants to comment on the Climber piece, please PM me.
Cheers, Iain
In reply to Gorilla:
Gordon? John? Abigail? Ethel? Is there a prize?
Most Finnish icefalls are single pitch so WI grades don't really work. Perhaps they should all be WI1 or 2, but then some people might get worried on the vertical bit. Scottish grades might be better, in which case I would say it II,6 although I'm sure some Scottish climbers would say that is using the system wrongly too.
> If that Oikea Suora in your article is WI4 then my name is ........
Gordon? John? Abigail? Ethel? Is there a prize?
Most Finnish icefalls are single pitch so WI grades don't really work. Perhaps they should all be WI1 or 2, but then some people might get worried on the vertical bit. Scottish grades might be better, in which case I would say it II,6 although I'm sure some Scottish climbers would say that is using the system wrongly too.
In reply to IainWhitehouse: In reply to IainWhitehouse: Will re-read your article and send you an email when i have some time.
The thing is everyone uses ropes in different ways and has different expectations of wear. Personally I don’t think logging falls is all that useful. Half an hour of dogging in which no proper falls may be logged can be much damaging than taking a couple of 50 footers while on-sighting.
As Toby says it is very hard to design a really fair test. I think the only fair way to do it is for a single person to give to 2 or 3 ropes expensively in a short period of time and then give a qualitative assessment of them. This however is probably less useful to the consumer than review of several ropes like Iain's.
I think as long as people are buying a rope appropriate to its intended it matters less which exact one they buy.
Right, better get back to work.
The thing is everyone uses ropes in different ways and has different expectations of wear. Personally I don’t think logging falls is all that useful. Half an hour of dogging in which no proper falls may be logged can be much damaging than taking a couple of 50 footers while on-sighting.
As Toby says it is very hard to design a really fair test. I think the only fair way to do it is for a single person to give to 2 or 3 ropes expensively in a short period of time and then give a qualitative assessment of them. This however is probably less useful to the consumer than review of several ropes like Iain's.
I think as long as people are buying a rope appropriate to its intended it matters less which exact one they buy.
Right, better get back to work.
In reply to TobyA:
Thanks for the grading lesson. Technical grade 6? Crikey don't go to Canada then (or a whole load of places for that).
> (In reply to Gorilla)
>
> [...]
>
> Gordon? John? Abigail? Ethel? Is there a prize?
>
> Most Finnish icefalls are single pitch so WI grades don't really work. Perhaps they should all be WI1 or 2, but then some people might get worried on the vertical bit. Scottish grades might be better, in which case I would say it II,6 although I'm sure some Scottish climbers would say that is using the system wrongly too.
>
> [...]
>
> Gordon? John? Abigail? Ethel? Is there a prize?
>
> Most Finnish icefalls are single pitch so WI grades don't really work. Perhaps they should all be WI1 or 2, but then some people might get worried on the vertical bit. Scottish grades might be better, in which case I would say it II,6 although I'm sure some Scottish climbers would say that is using the system wrongly too.
Thanks for the grading lesson. Technical grade 6? Crikey don't go to Canada then (or a whole load of places for that).
In reply to Gorilla: Sorry, I hadn't realised you had climbed here. What grade do you reckon it is then?
The 6 was a) like I said, a Scottish tech grade and b) meant as a joke.
The 6 was a) like I said, a Scottish tech grade and b) meant as a joke.
In reply to UKC Gear:
Completely unrelated but in the video the sound of axe on ice evoked some string memorys
Completely unrelated but in the video the sound of axe on ice evoked some string memorys
In reply to TobyA:
I notice on the Mammut website that they don't seem to specifically advertise the Serenity as a 3-in-1 rope. Do they actually recommend it for use as half/twin ropes? And might have a bearing on how it compares to the others in terms of the test results if it's not been designed specifically with the intention of meeting the various standards?
I notice on the Mammut website that they don't seem to specifically advertise the Serenity as a 3-in-1 rope. Do they actually recommend it for use as half/twin ropes? And might have a bearing on how it compares to the others in terms of the test results if it's not been designed specifically with the intention of meeting the various standards?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...