The best knot I've ever seen tested for 1" tubular webbing is one I and others no doubt discovered about 45 years ago - the "snake eating its tail," which is a bit tedious to tie, but provides almost no reduction in the strength of a loop, hence the knot retains near 100% strength. In one end of the intended loop, tie an overhand knot about 12-14" from one end. Then, after cutting the other end and fusing it smooth, at an angle, you feed it inside the other end of the webbing until about 14" are doubled up. Then, you simply work the overhand tied before, along and around the doubled section to the midpoint, where it should be apparent that a few inches of the thick, doubled section extends to either side. Bounce tighten, and it will stay snug enough, as the inside portion has zero tendency to slip; yet it retains nearly all the webbing strength, but after everything, is actually pretty easy to untie, in case you need an extra sling to thread in a pinch.
In case of a rescue and carrying another person the load would be double. I guess we can fold the webbing/sling or rope to meet the tensile strength (also double the carabiners). without shock to the system, it will be safe to lowering 3 time a person's weight.
They are good for static forces only, no elasticity may create crazy forces, so make sur never get a fall on this equipment, this is the reason I prefer get my safety on dynamic ropes as lanyard
Danke für dieses tolle Video! Ich fange gerade erst an mit dem "Abseil" Hobby. Ich würde für den Standplatzbau an natürlichen Fixpunkten z.B. Bäumen immer 2 oder 3 Bandschlingen nutzen. Ich würde quasi 3 Bandschlingen von guter Qualität in einen Karabiner hängen. Reisst nun eine Schlinge, dann ruckt es wohl ganz kurz, danach würde mich aber die zweite, aller spätestens die dritte Schlinge auffangen. Und das drei Schlingen reißen...dann wäre das nicht erklärbar und wohl Gottes Wille ;)
Don't the sling tests refute the reason behind doing the "wrap 3 pull 2"? The theory being that the weak point is the knot, when it's really at the point where the carabiner meets the sling.
This video has a few issues. Maybe you can correct them. You need to be a bit careful about comparing these two items: climbing and industrial slings/webbing. The terminology and overall approaches used for ensuring user safety is quite different. You make a few good points: and your combination of theory and testing is nice, but I am concerned it is incomplete. If climbers take on board your suggestion of not seriously considering discarding climbing gear at a fixed time period, then they need to have some other policy of RIGOROUS inspection, as well as monitoring use. The discard policy based on number of years of use is meant for a large number of climbers: a distribution. In excess of a 1,000. Where after this time period (5, 7, 8, 10 years: whatever) there will be a certain number of climbers who have used their gear a lot, in circumstances where it has been degraded. It is VERY hard for ANYONE to know how many climbers at this time have "bad" ropes/harnesses/slings etc. Unless you do testing, often destructive testing. And that sort-of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? You don't get to keep your rope, and you had to pay for the test. But we do know, for 100% sure, that there are mechanisms where climbing textile products (ropes/harnesses/slings etc) are indeed damaged by use. In a cumulative way. These mechanisms are: - Exposure to aggressive chemicals (pollutants etc). It might not be the "sudden death" that sulphuric acid causes, but can be a more gradual attack - Ultra-Violet (UV) exposure - Abrasive wear: external as well as internal (caused by dirt) All of these are well known to the nylon/textile industry/researchers. Perhaps you won't find lots of specific studies on climbing ropes and other items, because we are a pretty small part of the market. But there are some. And others that can be related to our products. The important point is that for any given INDIVIDUAL, it is hard to know if your rope/sling/harness is affected by use after a certain number of years. Unless you do expensive and often destructive tests. But for a large enough GROUP, we DO know that statistically there is a good chance there are people in that group who used their gear enough, in circumstances that will have damaged it enough to cause it to fail under use. There is NOT a magic number where this happens. The value that the manufacturers recommend is perhaps conservative. It might well be more than 10 years for the amount of use that YOU put on your rope etc. It might be 5 years. But what we DO know is that given the large number of climbers, and their current willingness to inspect, and discard gear after a certain number of years, we don't get many failures. So the current policy WORKS. Nobody can tell you what will happen if climbers, or YOU, start to keep your gear a lot longer. Is a bit like Russian Roulette. The old climbing adage about "If you suspect your gear is bad, then don't use it" is still a good course of action.
Walter: you need to add more to your suggestions. More proof, more test data. More information on the current research. Sure, the suggestion about protecting climbing slings is interesting with a mantle/sheath. One issue is that the internal webbing/tape is not visible for inspection. Although one might argue that if it's protected, why inspect it. Perhaps it's worth having a sub-class to the existing standard for slings like this. Worth some thought. And the industrial slings have other ideas: some use internal fibre optic strands to become "smart slings": to show if the damage/wear is severe. But none of the climbing textile standards have any specific criteria about wear, or degradation due to use. In general the standards look at only NEW items, and the effect of use is left to the manufacturer because it changes so much. In fact that's in general true of ALL the climbing standards: metal or textile. Although after the fatal injury involving a Via Ferrata Energy Absorbing System (EAS) device, this is starting to change. And also with climbing anchors we are going to address SCC/corrosion issues. The video has a misleading/incorrect statement about the lifetime of the industrial lifting sling. They are NOT in fact rated for an infinite lifetime. The idea is that they are inspected frequently, and perhaps discarded if they fail that. What happens is that lifting slings and cables are used for a specific period: usually a year. Or if damage is noted. And then they are rigorously inspected and re-certified. While they are being inspected, you use other slings that are either new (certified) or inspected and re-certified. Slings/lifting items are thus usually coded with labels so you know if you are using the proper one. Like on a work site after a certain date, you know that all valid slings etc should have a label/tag of a certain colour. And any other tag colours are old, and need to be sent off for inspection. The actual requirements differ from country to country, and from offshore use to onshore use. There is a 3rd party that does the inspection, and they are quite willing to discard equipment that fails inspection: they don't try to hang onto an old harness because their great-grandfather used it to climb the Matterhorn....:-0 As far as the rated strengths are concerned, the industrial access/lifting items and climbing gear use different criteria for the required strengths in standards. And the displayed ratings. Industrial gear usually displays its Working Load, and that is based on its failure load, or even yield, with a safety factor: sometimes 7:1, sometimes 5:1. And there is very often a requirement for proof testing of each item to show that it is indeed strong enough. The proof load can be greater than the Working Load. This is the case for lifting chain. For climbing gear it is different. Historically the rated strengths used in standards are based on failure loads: not even on yield. And are for specific circumstances, quite extreme ones. Like a factor 1.78 fall with an 80kg dead weight for climbing rope. There is no direct safety factor built into the rated strengths. However, as you've noted in this video and others, something like 99.99% falls (I made the number up, I mean virtually all falls) are considerably less than 20kN. So there is in effect a safety factor. The other issue is that climbing equipment is seen as a chain of items all working together. As in a dynamic rope attached to a carabiner to a harness. Which goes to another carabiner, on an anchor, to a belayer, using a belaying device. Sure it's not always exactly like this, but you more or less always have some sort of mix of dynamic item (the rope) connected to other items. With friction involved. And some degree of redundancy. This all works to reduce the loading/impact on items. That's why there are so few failures, even when climbers use their equipment long past the time that it should be retired. It's in general been "over-designed". Although I say "over designed", it is not easy to say which items could be safely made less robust because it's not always used the same way. In any case, I would like to have some sort of nomenclature/rating system for climbing gear that does state the expected working loads and implied safety factors. It's not easy though, because this is doing it AFTER the development that has already been done, and the general acceptance by climbers. And thee are legal issues as well. Like what happens if a manufacturer were to say that his gear is now considerably weaker than he first said it was? Alan Jarvis UIAA Safety Commission
Alan Jarvis/UIAA: I have some questions regarding some points you mentioned: What do you mean when you write: "None of the textile standards have any specific criteria about wear, or degradation due to use." Isnt for example the Appendix A in the EN 1891(low stretch kernmantel ropes) defining those criterias? Regarding your comment about the labels of industrial slings: What type of slings are you referring to? I referred to EN 1492-2 slings, where the label color defines the material the sling is made of and not the year (red is not existing there). I referred to these slings because they can not have a life time if they want to conform to the standard, which is astonishing because they are made from the same material like mountaineering slings. One important issue to me is your statement: "That's why there are so few failures". Since I could not find any failures (apart from wear, acid, sharp edges and melting) I would be really interested in your cases. Walter Siebert
Walter: I wasn't in fact referring to the colour of the sling itself, but more to the LABEL that is used to IDENTIFY the slings, and various pieces of lifting gear that is used on an industrial site. I've worked in many industrial environments, and this is common practice. You have a bit of confusion about the lifetime of slings, cables and other forms of gear used for industrial lifting. There are several policies that control the use, inspection and discard criteria of these items: equipment standards as well as inspection policies. They are ALL important, and it is NOT only the standard that one needs to know about. And some of these things change depending if you are in an onshore or offshore working environment, and also on what geographical region you are in: like the EU, North America etc etc. What GENERALLY happens is that the LABELS that are used to IDENTIFY lifting equipment are colour coded, to make it easy to identify. And on a regular TIME period, usually every year, ALL of the equipment is REMOVED from use, and sent off for inspection. Rigorous inspection. By an independent third party. And if they decide it is not fit for further use, they discard it. You said something like "a time period of use is forbidden in the industrial standards" but that was unfortunately an uninformed statement. The point is that there IS a period of time, but it's NOT via the standard. This is the route that the industrial users have chosen to go to deal with use-related degradation of lifting gear: slings, ropes, cables, harnesses etc. In effect THEY have a ONE YEAR discard criteria. The equipment has to PASS an inspection BEFORE it can come back into use. If not inspected it is considered FAILED. So if any climbers do watch your videos, and listen to you, then they have thrown out one set of discard criteria, but have not accepted another one. They COULD accept this one: where every year they send their ropes, harness and slings off for rigorous 3rd party inspection. But I think they will find that the cost of that is quite high. And after just a few years, they are better off just buying new gear. So if they follow that way, it will be MUCH more expensive, and more effort than following our current 10 year guidelines.
Hi Alan, good that you mention this: I must clarify that I am referring to the EN Standard. For slings according to this standard no 3rd party inspection is required, only an inspection by a competent person. Of course it can be different in other parts of the world. We have also different definitions of "discard". I refer to that point where the manufacturer states that the device must be destroyed. What you are referring to when you mention "discard" is what I would call "inspection". It is good that you help to clarify these terms.
Sorry, but what you say in your Video is wrong and misleading. And is one major factor that is causing the problem here. You state at 1:48 that in industrial slings it is forbidden to state a lifetime, that it has to last forever (words to that effect). It is NOT intended to last forever: sorry, but that is really really misleading to say that. And you say that the climbing slings DO have a stated lifetime of 7-8 years (in fact NOT in the standard, but in the Manufacturer's information). In fact, the two types of slings (Industrial and Climbing) are handled completely differently. The Industrial ones are inspected regularly, as I've stated in my other comments. And if they do not PASS this, they are discarded. And they are REMOVED from service in order to be inspected. By law. In effect, the default is if they do not PASS an inspection, they are DISCARDED. If they are not inspected, they are DISCARDED. So the industrial standard does not have to state ANY lifetime, because it is handled by other legislation. In effect, it is usually a recurring cycle of 12 months: use, inspect, return to service ONLY if it passes. You need to edit your video.
Hello, you are right, there is something important to add: I refer only to European standards. Maybe other standards are different to the EU. I stick to my statement: "When you look into the manual, then here (I point to the climbing sling) the life time is 6-8 years. If you look to the manual and the standard here (I point to the industrial sling ) there is no life time, in the opposite, life time is forbidden." This is how I interprete the standard. What I maybe needed to add in the video, but I can do this easier here in the comment: I refer to EN standards, like EN 1492-2. But I would be interested to which law you are referring?
After 2 additional years of research I could not find anything against my statements. I can confirm my statements. Most important: time passed is no reason to discard a rope, a harness, a sling. When you read in the manual: After X years you have to discard, this is NOT based upon facts.
You’re presenting this as hard research and conclusions, but your sample set is really low with poorly-defined test parameters. I also am having a hard time understanding your conclusions because you seem to freely interchange kilograms, kilonewtons, newtons, and tons. For example, you are shouting “1500 kilos”, but have only been talking in terms of kilonewtons. Obviously you mean kilograms in that case (because 1500 kN would be insanely strong), and are using the standard conversion of 1 kg x 10 m/s/s = 1 N, but I think that many climbers (I’m looking at you Americans) don’t understand this conversion. So your 1500 kilos is 1500 x 10 = 15000 N or 15 kN. You need to pick a single unit system to work in to avoid confusion if you are going to just throw out numbers with half-formed or without units. Because if something breaks at “1.9” without units, I’m either left to conclude that is metric tones, which is a strong sling a little under MBS or in kN, which is really really weak. You also just cut off lots of sentences without finishing the thought, leaving us to fill in whatever you want. I understand that English is not your first language, but you’re choosing to present this in English and you have time to think of what you’ll say beforehand. If you can’t form it in the fly, you have to write a script to make sure we understand what you’re talking about. Because I am never sure what you mean, my conclusion is that you don’t either and that I shouldn’t trust you compared to the engineers that manufactured the thing.
The best knot I've ever seen tested for 1" tubular webbing is one I and others no doubt discovered about 45 years ago - the "snake eating its tail," which is a bit tedious to tie, but provides almost no reduction in the strength of a loop, hence the knot retains near 100% strength. In one end of the intended loop, tie an overhand knot about 12-14" from one end. Then, after cutting the other end and fusing it smooth, at an angle, you feed it inside the other end of the webbing until about 14" are doubled up. Then, you simply work the overhand tied before, along and around the doubled section to the midpoint, where it should be apparent that a few inches of the thick, doubled section extends to either side. Bounce tighten, and it will stay snug enough, as the inside portion has zero tendency to slip; yet it retains nearly all the webbing strength, but after everything, is actually pretty easy to untie, in case you need an extra sling to thread in a pinch.
Nowadays, they call it the Beer Knot.
4:55 why is this a death knot? isn't it the standard and only knot suggested for webbings???
But the human body (even falling) cannot generate that much force. A persons body will break before the webbing.
In case of a rescue and carrying another person the load would be double. I guess we can fold the webbing/sling or rope to meet the tensile strength (also double the carabiners). without shock to the system, it will be safe to lowering 3 time a person's weight.
They are good for static forces only, no elasticity may create crazy forces, so make sur never get a fall on this equipment, this is the reason I prefer get my safety on dynamic ropes as lanyard
Danke für dieses tolle Video! Ich fange gerade erst an mit dem "Abseil" Hobby. Ich würde für den Standplatzbau an natürlichen Fixpunkten z.B. Bäumen immer 2 oder 3 Bandschlingen nutzen. Ich würde quasi 3 Bandschlingen von guter Qualität in einen Karabiner hängen. Reisst nun eine Schlinge, dann ruckt es wohl ganz kurz, danach würde mich aber die zweite, aller spätestens die dritte Schlinge auffangen. Und das drei Schlingen reißen...dann wäre das nicht erklärbar und wohl Gottes Wille ;)
Don't the sling tests refute the reason behind doing the "wrap 3 pull 2"? The theory being that the weak point is the knot, when it's really at the point where the carabiner meets the sling.
This video has a few issues. Maybe you can correct them.
You need to be a bit careful about comparing these two items: climbing and industrial slings/webbing.
The terminology and overall approaches used for ensuring user safety is quite different.
You make a few good points: and your combination of theory and testing is nice, but I am concerned it is incomplete. If climbers take on board your suggestion of not seriously considering discarding climbing gear at a fixed time period, then they need to have some other policy of RIGOROUS inspection, as well as monitoring use.
The discard policy based on number of years of use is meant for a large number of climbers: a distribution. In excess of a 1,000. Where after this time period (5, 7, 8, 10 years: whatever) there will be a certain number of climbers who have used their gear a lot, in circumstances where it has been degraded.
It is VERY hard for ANYONE to know how many climbers at this time have "bad" ropes/harnesses/slings etc. Unless you do testing, often destructive testing. And that sort-of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? You don't get to keep your rope, and you had to pay for the test.
But we do know, for 100% sure, that there are mechanisms where climbing textile products (ropes/harnesses/slings etc) are indeed damaged by use. In a cumulative way. These mechanisms are:
- Exposure to aggressive chemicals (pollutants etc).
It might not be the "sudden death" that sulphuric acid causes, but can be a more gradual attack
- Ultra-Violet (UV) exposure
- Abrasive wear: external as well as internal (caused by dirt)
All of these are well known to the nylon/textile industry/researchers. Perhaps you won't find lots of specific studies on climbing ropes and other items, because we are a pretty small part of the market. But there are some. And others that can be related to our products.
The important point is that for any given INDIVIDUAL, it is hard to know if your rope/sling/harness is affected by use after a certain number of years. Unless you do expensive and often destructive tests.
But for a large enough GROUP, we DO know that statistically there is a good chance there are people in that group who used their gear enough, in circumstances that will have damaged it enough to cause it to fail under use.
There is NOT a magic number where this happens. The value that the manufacturers recommend is perhaps conservative. It might well be more than 10 years for the amount of use that YOU put on your rope etc. It might be 5 years.
But what we DO know is that given the large number of climbers, and their current willingness to inspect, and discard gear after a certain number of years, we don't get many failures. So the current policy WORKS.
Nobody can tell you what will happen if climbers, or YOU, start to keep your gear a lot longer. Is a bit like Russian Roulette. The old climbing adage about "If you suspect your gear is bad, then don't use it" is still a good course of action.
Walter: you need to add more to your suggestions. More proof, more test data. More information on the current research.
Sure, the suggestion about protecting climbing slings is interesting with a mantle/sheath. One issue is that the internal webbing/tape is not visible for inspection. Although one might argue that if it's protected, why inspect it. Perhaps it's worth having a sub-class to the existing standard for slings like this. Worth some thought.
And the industrial slings have other ideas: some use internal fibre optic strands to become "smart slings": to show if the damage/wear is severe.
But none of the climbing textile standards have any specific criteria about wear, or degradation due to use. In general the standards look at only NEW items, and the effect of use is left to the manufacturer because it changes so much.
In fact that's in general true of ALL the climbing standards: metal or textile. Although after the fatal injury involving a Via Ferrata Energy Absorbing System (EAS) device, this is starting to change. And also with climbing anchors we are going to address SCC/corrosion issues.
The video has a misleading/incorrect statement about the lifetime of the industrial lifting sling. They are NOT in fact rated for an infinite lifetime. The idea is that they are inspected frequently, and perhaps discarded if they fail that.
What happens is that lifting slings and cables are used for a specific period: usually a year. Or if damage is noted. And then they are rigorously inspected and re-certified. While they are being inspected, you use other slings that are either new (certified) or inspected and re-certified. Slings/lifting items are thus usually coded with labels so you know if you are using the proper one. Like on a work site after a certain date, you know that all valid slings etc should have a label/tag of a certain colour. And any other tag colours are old, and need to be sent off for inspection. The actual requirements differ from country to country, and from offshore use to onshore use.
There is a 3rd party that does the inspection, and they are quite willing to discard equipment that fails inspection: they don't try to hang onto an old harness because their great-grandfather used it to climb the Matterhorn....:-0
As far as the rated strengths are concerned, the industrial access/lifting items and climbing gear use different criteria for the required strengths in standards. And the displayed ratings. Industrial gear usually displays its Working Load, and that is based on its failure load, or even yield, with a safety factor: sometimes 7:1, sometimes 5:1. And there is very often a requirement for proof testing of each item to show that it is indeed strong enough. The proof load can be greater than the Working Load. This is the case for lifting chain.
For climbing gear it is different. Historically the rated strengths used in standards are based on failure loads: not even on yield. And are for specific circumstances, quite extreme ones. Like a factor 1.78 fall with an 80kg dead weight for climbing rope. There is no direct safety factor built into the rated strengths.
However, as you've noted in this video and others, something like 99.99% falls (I made the number up, I mean virtually all falls) are considerably less than 20kN. So there is in effect a safety factor.
The other issue is that climbing equipment is seen as a chain of items all working together. As in a dynamic rope attached to a carabiner to a harness. Which goes to another carabiner, on an anchor, to a belayer, using a belaying device. Sure it's not always exactly like this, but you more or less always have some sort of mix of dynamic item (the rope) connected to other items. With friction involved. And some degree of redundancy.
This all works to reduce the loading/impact on items. That's why there are so few failures, even when climbers use their equipment long past the time that it should be retired. It's in general been "over-designed". Although I say "over designed", it is not easy to say which items could be safely made less robust because it's not always used the same way.
In any case, I would like to have some sort of nomenclature/rating system for climbing gear that does state the expected working loads and implied safety factors. It's not easy though, because this is doing it AFTER the development that has already been done, and the general acceptance by climbers. And thee are legal issues as well. Like what happens if a manufacturer were to say that his gear is now considerably weaker than he first said it was?
Alan Jarvis
UIAA Safety Commission
Alan Jarvis/UIAA: I have some questions regarding some points you mentioned:
What do you mean when you write: "None of the textile standards have any specific criteria about wear, or degradation due to use." Isnt for example the Appendix A in the EN 1891(low stretch kernmantel ropes) defining those criterias?
Regarding your comment about the labels of industrial slings: What type of slings are you referring to? I referred to EN 1492-2 slings, where the label color defines the material the sling is made of and not the year (red is not existing there).
I referred to these slings because they can not have a life time if they want to conform to the standard, which is astonishing because they are made from the same material like mountaineering slings.
One important issue to me is your statement: "That's why there are so few failures". Since I could not find any failures (apart from wear, acid, sharp edges and melting) I would be really interested in your cases.
Walter Siebert
Walter: I wasn't in fact referring to the colour of the sling itself, but more to the LABEL that is used to IDENTIFY the slings, and various pieces of lifting gear that is used on an industrial site. I've worked in many industrial environments, and this is common practice.
You have a bit of confusion about the lifetime of slings, cables and other forms of gear used for industrial lifting. There are several policies that control the use, inspection and discard criteria of these items: equipment standards as well as inspection policies. They are ALL important, and it is NOT only the standard that one needs to know about.
And some of these things change depending if you are in an onshore or offshore working environment, and also on what geographical region you are in: like the EU, North America etc etc.
What GENERALLY happens is that the LABELS that are used to IDENTIFY lifting equipment are colour coded, to make it easy to identify. And on a regular TIME period, usually every year, ALL of the equipment is REMOVED from use, and sent off for inspection. Rigorous inspection. By an independent third party. And if they decide it is not fit for further use, they discard it.
You said something like "a time period of use is forbidden in the industrial standards" but that was unfortunately an uninformed statement. The point is that there IS a period of time, but it's NOT via the standard.
This is the route that the industrial users have chosen to go to deal with use-related degradation of lifting gear: slings, ropes, cables, harnesses etc. In effect THEY have a ONE YEAR discard criteria. The equipment has to PASS an inspection BEFORE it can come back into use. If not inspected it is considered FAILED.
So if any climbers do watch your videos, and listen to you, then they have thrown out one set of discard criteria, but have not accepted another one. They COULD accept this one: where every year they send their ropes, harness and slings off for rigorous 3rd party inspection. But I think they will find that the cost of that is quite high. And after just a few years, they are better off just buying new gear.
So if they follow that way, it will be MUCH more expensive, and more effort than following our current 10 year guidelines.
Hi Alan, good that you mention this: I must clarify that I am referring to the EN Standard. For slings according to this standard no 3rd party inspection is required, only an inspection by a competent person.
Of course it can be different in other parts of the world.
We have also different definitions of "discard". I refer to that point where the manufacturer states that the device must be destroyed. What you are referring to when you mention "discard" is what I would call "inspection".
It is good that you help to clarify these terms.
Sorry, but what you say in your Video is wrong and misleading. And is one major factor that is causing the problem here.
You state at 1:48 that in industrial slings it is forbidden to state a lifetime, that it has to last forever (words to that effect). It is NOT intended to last forever: sorry, but that is really really misleading to say that.
And you say that the climbing slings DO have a stated lifetime of 7-8 years (in fact NOT in the standard, but in the Manufacturer's information).
In fact, the two types of slings (Industrial and Climbing) are handled completely differently. The Industrial ones are inspected regularly, as I've stated in my other comments. And if they do not PASS this, they are discarded. And they are REMOVED from service in order to be inspected. By law.
In effect, the default is if they do not PASS an inspection, they are DISCARDED. If they are not inspected, they are DISCARDED.
So the industrial standard does not have to state ANY lifetime, because it is handled by other legislation. In effect, it is usually a recurring cycle of 12 months: use, inspect, return to service ONLY if it passes.
You need to edit your video.
Hello, you are right, there is something important to add: I refer only to European standards.
Maybe other standards are different to the EU.
I stick to my statement:
"When you look into the manual, then here (I point to the climbing sling) the life time is 6-8 years. If
you look to the manual and the standard here (I point to the industrial sling ) there is no life time, in the opposite, life time is forbidden."
This is how I interprete the standard.
What I maybe needed to add in the video, but I can do this easier here in the comment: I refer to EN
standards, like EN 1492-2.
But I would be interested to which law you are referring?
Use a Basket Hitch to double the strength of slings.
Wow, great info!
thanks Walter
After 2 additional years of research I could not find anything against my statements. I can confirm my statements.
Most important: time passed is no reason to discard a rope, a harness, a sling.
When you read in the manual: After X years you have to discard, this is NOT based upon facts.
You’re presenting this as hard research and conclusions, but your sample set is really low with poorly-defined test parameters. I also am having a hard time understanding your conclusions because you seem to freely interchange kilograms, kilonewtons, newtons, and tons. For example, you are shouting “1500 kilos”, but have only been talking in terms of kilonewtons. Obviously you mean kilograms in that case (because 1500 kN would be insanely strong), and are using the standard conversion of 1 kg x 10 m/s/s = 1 N, but I think that many climbers (I’m looking at you Americans) don’t understand this conversion. So your 1500 kilos is 1500 x 10 = 15000 N or 15 kN. You need to pick a single unit system to work in to avoid confusion if you are going to just throw out numbers with half-formed or without units. Because if something breaks at “1.9” without units, I’m either left to conclude that is metric tones, which is a strong sling a little under MBS or in kN, which is really really weak.
You also just cut off lots of sentences without finishing the thought, leaving us to fill in whatever you want. I understand that English is not your first language, but you’re choosing to present this in English and you have time to think of what you’ll say beforehand. If you can’t form it in the fly, you have to write a script to make sure we understand what you’re talking about. Because I am never sure what you mean, my conclusion is that you don’t either and that I shouldn’t trust you compared to the engineers that manufactured the thing.
storage, abuse, wear are killers
What do you mean by storage? If properly stored away, i.e. in a cool, dry place out of direct sunlight it can be stored almost indefinitely.
4:16 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Assuming you are a expert is a big mistake.