Really appreciate this video. If you would have time for it I would love to see more of this. It’s not a recommended practice as an arborist, but it’s still something I do regularly. I think the most important takeaway for me in a future video would be: What is the ratio between bend radius and major axis of the carabiner that results in less than maybe 80% MBS. I know to fully explore that would be a lot of testing, but as always I would be plenty happy with pretty good enough. Thank you so much for your content!
I was just wondering about this the other day. Once again, Ryan is proving invaluable to the arborist community. Sterile lab tests have less meaning the more I watch this channel. I now consider ratings on gear to be more or less guidelines, or metrics based on most favorable conditions. I love seeing how gear fails in situations that are actually similar to what I do, as that's far more valuable than dry numbers on a page.
We've done this climbing trees.... we tend to use a welded ring over a carabiner. It takes a little more thought to incorporate, but feels super super good enough! I wouldn't be concerned about the carabiner breaking, rather the gate being compromised, and steel makes me feel good, unless I have to carry it too far.... :)
This is how I used to climb trees, and I did wonder if the sideloading would be a concern but didn't think the forces involved would be sufficient - thanks for confirming! As it happens I avoided the issue by moving to a "rigged for rescue" setup with the rope anchored to the base of the tree with a munter-mule-overhand and enough spare rope for someone to lower me out if I knock myself out or whatever. When you take into account the extra rope you need to pull over the branch to set up the "smashed carabiner" method, the "rigged for rescue" approach uses about the same amount of rope (~3x the branch height).
Does the "rigged for rescue" put twice the force on the branch though? If you want to keep the pressure on the branch to a minimum in case it looks weaker/smaller, then would you ever prefer this method in the video? Otherwise I like your method more since it's the same amount of rope anyways.
I really would like to see this as a full video. In the arborist world where I am, they tell you not to do this. But it always seemed to me that the side loading forces would be tiny. And on larger diameter branches what you are showing here backs that up. Smaller diameter tubes and how the carabiner fares would be super interesting. Also, for the arborist guys out there: get some sections of a tree and see what forces it takes to break various size branches. That would be both tree species and how far out on the limb the rope was dependent. Thanks for the great video. Short, sweet, to the point.
Ok first off a steel ballad isn't a wooden branch. Second I personally always use my 40kN ISC steel rigging carabiners for setting top anchors when climbing SRT because I know that they will be a little side loaded. Just some thoughts from a tree guy. Really like the channel.
The rope access world is all in for a more in depth vid on this Ryan! We are clipping stuff around stuff all the time. Another thing I would like to see in the machine: sometimes, to avoid this side loading around a pipe/branch/whatever, some people will “double clip” the rope. Aka, one wrap around pipe, clip rope, and then clip the rope once more, creating a full round turn around the spine of the carabiner. This will, due to the friction around the spine, create a loop that holds the carabiner free from the pipe. Would be cool to see that pull tested to see how much friction there actually is, and what happens when it all cinches down on the pipe. 👍🤗
My guess is that larger carabiners would break sooner, as they've got more torque when bent across the same diameter. But I don't have any idea of the diameter where you'd need to consider carabiner size.
Great test, I use this setup quite a bit, although usually with steel oval carabiners. In Germany, this is a recommended way of tying in to a tree when blocking it down, this would be your redundancy to your flipline. My prefered way of using it is tying the carabiner on the end of the rope with a fishermans loop, that keeps the biner from crossloading. The direction of pull is usually straight down, so 90° offset to your configuration here. Sometimes it does get loaded away from the branch or trunk though, and you can usually choke it off like you were trying here, the friction keeps it there. Would be nice to see that tested, as well as smaller diameters of wood and pipes like scaffolding, etc. I have seen a video somewhere of a pull test being done on a branch about the diameter of the (Aluminium) carabiners length, the branch was crushed before anything broke.
I feel like this is pretty much super good enough, we now know this is super good enough, we will have stronger results the larger the diameter of the pipe. Could be worth testing a scaffolding pipe with some ultralight hms's like a Petzl attache and if that doesn't break bellow the rope we definitely know it's suuuuper bomber.
Interesting test. I prefer to ascend into trees with a base anchor (rig to rescue). If I decide to use a canopy anchor, I usually feed the end of my rope through an alpine butterfly and pull that up against the branch. This way there’s no cross losing biner and I can retrieve my rope after;-) however, it has been done with carabiners in an alpine butterfly…don’t think that the type of knot would affect the result but yeah. I’m using 9.5 to 10.5 mm static rope btw.
Any chance of breaking gnarly edge recoverable anchors that use semi static 10.5 , wire sling and pulley? We use these as recoverable anchors over gnarly edges, often set up from the ground. Super good channel (better than good enough)
I don't know exactltly if it'd be feasable to attachech the bleay bar or something similar securly on your drop tower you could get some really interesting results doing this. With it breaking the rope first you would be better off with something a bit narrower as you mentioned you can do that, the benefit with the branches is it'll create more friction possibly generating another result, however in that case the weak point may become the branch or if the bark is rough it could damage the causing the failure to be there. Anyways thank for the videos they're always entertaining.
I'd be really interested to see some small aluminum biners broken like this, even if it's not a real use case. Smaller diameter "branches" would also be cool.
Would love to see a full video testing different ropes (static or semi static) and an alternate of just an alpine butterfly (no carabiner) for the rope access value.
I use maillons (quick link) for putting ropes to trees. Being shorter than carabiner, there is less to be bent. They take side loading better too (and are less likely to get side loaded) which I find good for something that is difficult/impossible to inspect up there. Smaller pipe would be interesting to see, especially if agains maillons too.
I wouldn’t say that’s standard practice in tree work. But it’s not uncommon to load carabiners in that fashion. However it’s usually as a base tie or canopy anchors with a trunk/branch diameter of 8in to 4ft. So it’s not a lot of “side” load.
Go down the rabbit hole. There is a smaller locking carabiner it comes with the grivel ice tool leashes, rated for 540kg…. I might know someone who may or may not have been using that for an entire hunting season 😬. This is a video every saddle hunter should see!
i sometimes use this method with a spliced eye in the tree to tie in on a spar (gate facing out) interested to see what diameter is to small. using dmm perfect O. the pull direction would be 90 degrees to what you're pulling on. interested to see if you can include in your test. wood need a log so the rope can grip it.
testing all sorts of diameters would be cool. Also, i've noticed if you do this on really small thing (like on rappel ring to descent a core shot rope), you'll get to a point were the knot is stuck first and the biner never touches the thing at all. I wonder how it will perform in this position
Hi, great video! Please do more like this! Also, maybe a stupid question, but what if you took a figure 8 bite out of the center of the rope and fed the climbing side through so you have no carabiner but the rope is retrievable. I know there will be rope on rope friction but maybe the numbers are the same and you're not damaging the carabiner. Thanks so much!
I'd like to see a similar test when the carabiner and rope are used as a tree tether. It would be hard to do in a lab because in that instance the rope is around a tree trunk and the pull is downward.
I’d be interested to see this set up as per rope access “pull through” where the rope goes through an eye bolt then through the crab clipped into an alp?
Great vid. Tree removal guys do this all the time even though they are told not to. Generally not with an aluminum biner but generally not locking either. 👍🏼
The interesting data point is real hard to isolate, but basically you need to figure out at what force did the biner start bending. That's the point at which you've exceeded it's ability to be safe, because it's taking permanent damage even if the gate still opens ok enough, it will save you once probably but loading it like that regularly could lead to disaster
I’ve always heard you don’t want to tie a rope around a tree this way. I’d be interested in watching a full video on using carabiners like this around small branches all the way up to trees and even rocks.
From the limited evidence in this video, it seems like this is more: "Don't beat up your carabiners unless there's no better option. Gear gets expensive and there's always a chance the compromised unit is overlooked and stays in use." and less: "This has a real chance of failing if you do it to an otherwise fine carabiner."
If you decide to do a more exhaustive test use Triple Action, Double Locking carabiners like the ones that arborists use. I suspect it will make no difference in terms of breaking strength, but it would produce test results that are directly applicable to the kinds of carabiners that are required for tree climbers in Federal agencies like the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Why not just spare the carabiner from this rig and use only rope? Is there a certain reason beside the comfort of just cliping the carabiner instead of threding the rope al the way through?
Thank you for this! As an arborist i do this a lot, with a beefy steel triple locking biner
Really appreciate this video. If you would have time for it I would love to see more of this. It’s not a recommended practice as an arborist, but it’s still something I do regularly. I think the most important takeaway for me in a future video would be:
What is the ratio between bend radius and major axis of the carabiner that results in less than maybe 80% MBS.
I know to fully explore that would be a lot of testing, but as always I would be plenty happy with pretty good enough. Thank you so much for your content!
I was just wondering about this the other day. Once again, Ryan is proving invaluable to the arborist community. Sterile lab tests have less meaning the more I watch this channel. I now consider ratings on gear to be more or less guidelines, or metrics based on most favorable conditions. I love seeing how gear fails in situations that are actually similar to what I do, as that's far more valuable than dry numbers on a page.
We've done this climbing trees.... we tend to use a welded ring over a carabiner. It takes a little more thought to incorporate, but feels super super good enough! I wouldn't be concerned about the carabiner breaking, rather the gate being compromised, and steel makes me feel good, unless I have to carry it too far.... :)
This is how I used to climb trees, and I did wonder if the sideloading would be a concern but didn't think the forces involved would be sufficient - thanks for confirming! As it happens I avoided the issue by moving to a "rigged for rescue" setup with the rope anchored to the base of the tree with a munter-mule-overhand and enough spare rope for someone to lower me out if I knock myself out or whatever.
When you take into account the extra rope you need to pull over the branch to set up the "smashed carabiner" method, the "rigged for rescue" approach uses about the same amount of rope (~3x the branch height).
Does the "rigged for rescue" put twice the force on the branch though? If you want to keep the pressure on the branch to a minimum in case it looks weaker/smaller, then would you ever prefer this method in the video? Otherwise I like your method more since it's the same amount of rope anyways.
Fair point. Though it would be less than double the force due to the considerable friction.
I really would like to see this as a full video. In the arborist world where I am, they tell you not to do this. But it always seemed to me that the side loading forces would be tiny. And on larger diameter branches what you are showing here backs that up. Smaller diameter tubes and how the carabiner fares would be super interesting.
Also, for the arborist guys out there: get some sections of a tree and see what forces it takes to break various size branches. That would be both tree species and how far out on the limb the rope was dependent.
Thanks for the great video. Short, sweet, to the point.
I’d like to see a blakes hitch pulled on too. He might have, but i don’t remember
Ok first off a steel ballad isn't a wooden branch. Second I personally always use my 40kN ISC steel rigging carabiners for setting top anchors when climbing SRT because I know that they will be a little side loaded. Just some thoughts from a tree guy. Really like the channel.
Why not a quickie? No side load risk, Also try Edelrids New quick snaps, Specially for retrievable anchors, Built in pulley.
@@TimberWolf21 quick links, screw gates, and wire gates aren't approved for life support by OSHA, has to be triple locking.
The rope access world is all in for a more in depth vid on this Ryan! We are clipping stuff around stuff all the time.
Another thing I would like to see in the machine: sometimes, to avoid this side loading around a pipe/branch/whatever, some people will “double clip” the rope. Aka, one wrap around pipe, clip rope, and then clip the rope once more, creating a full round turn around the spine of the carabiner. This will, due to the friction around the spine, create a loop that holds the carabiner free from the pipe.
Would be cool to see that pull tested to see how much friction there actually is, and what happens when it all cinches down on the pipe. 👍🤗
My guess is that larger carabiners would break sooner, as they've got more torque when bent across the same diameter. But I don't have any idea of the diameter where you'd need to consider carabiner size.
Great test, I use this setup quite a bit, although usually with steel oval carabiners. In Germany, this is a recommended way of tying in to a tree when blocking it down, this would be your redundancy to your flipline. My prefered way of using it is tying the carabiner on the end of the rope with a fishermans loop, that keeps the biner from crossloading. The direction of pull is usually straight down, so 90° offset to your configuration here. Sometimes it does get loaded away from the branch or trunk though, and you can usually choke it off like you were trying here, the friction keeps it there. Would be nice to see that tested, as well as smaller diameters of wood and pipes like scaffolding, etc. I have seen a video somewhere of a pull test being done on a branch about the diameter of the (Aluminium) carabiners length, the branch was crushed before anything broke.
I just use a notch Quickie for this, would love to see you test some of those
And other bow shackles as well!
I feel like this is pretty much super good enough, we now know this is super good enough, we will have stronger results the larger the diameter of the pipe. Could be worth testing a scaffolding pipe with some ultralight hms's like a Petzl attache and if that doesn't break bellow the rope we definitely know it's suuuuper bomber.
Interesting test. I prefer to ascend into trees with a base anchor (rig to rescue). If I decide to use a canopy anchor, I usually feed the end of my rope through an alpine butterfly and pull that up against the branch. This way there’s no cross losing biner and I can retrieve my rope after;-) however, it has been done with carabiners in an alpine butterfly…don’t think that the type of knot would affect the result but yeah. I’m using 9.5 to 10.5 mm static rope btw.
Any chance of breaking gnarly edge recoverable anchors that use semi static 10.5 , wire sling and pulley? We use these as recoverable anchors over gnarly edges, often set up from the ground. Super good channel (better than good enough)
I don't know exactltly if it'd be feasable to attachech the bleay bar or something similar securly on your drop tower you could get some really interesting results doing this.
With it breaking the rope first you would be better off with something a bit narrower as you mentioned you can do that, the benefit with the branches is it'll create more friction possibly generating another result, however in that case the weak point may become the branch or if the bark is rough it could damage the causing the failure to be there.
Anyways thank for the videos they're always entertaining.
This is good to know. In Swiftwater rescue there are debates on things like this when anchoring to trees when boats get pinned.
I'd be really interested to see some small aluminum biners broken like this, even if it's not a real use case. Smaller diameter "branches" would also be cool.
Would love to see a full video testing different ropes (static or semi static) and an alternate of just an alpine butterfly (no carabiner) for the rope access value.
Considering how they are meant to be loaded, climbing rated bow shackles seem like the best quick disconnect hardware in this case.
I use maillons (quick link) for putting ropes to trees. Being shorter than carabiner, there is less to be bent. They take side loading better too (and are less likely to get side loaded) which I find good for something that is difficult/impossible to inspect up there.
Smaller pipe would be interesting to see, especially if agains maillons too.
extremely good enough for any 5 5 and alive im tieing too.
Sick work, excited to see the full vid if it gets there
I wouldn’t say that’s standard practice in tree work. But it’s not uncommon to load carabiners in that fashion. However it’s usually as a base tie or canopy anchors with a trunk/branch diameter of 8in to 4ft. So it’s not a lot of “side” load.
Go down the rabbit hole. There is a smaller locking carabiner it comes with the grivel ice tool leashes, rated for 540kg…. I might know someone who may or may not have been using that for an entire hunting season 😬.
This is a video every saddle hunter should see!
I have seen instructions in this lean to Rings vice carabiners for canopy anchors.
Please test this some more. I agree with the above reasons. Mainly rope around a trunk and rope being pulled downward.
This is great stuff Ryan. Lots of arb guys are unsure about that kind of cross-loading
i sometimes use this method with a spliced eye in the tree to tie in on a spar (gate facing out) interested to see what diameter is to small. using dmm perfect O. the pull direction would be 90 degrees to what you're pulling on. interested to see if you can include in your test. wood need a log so the rope can grip it.
testing all sorts of diameters would be cool.
Also, i've noticed if you do this on really small thing (like on rappel ring to descent a core shot rope), you'll get to a point were the knot is stuck first and the biner never touches the thing at all. I wonder how it will perform in this position
Hi, great video! Please do more like this! Also, maybe a stupid question, but what if you took a figure 8 bite out of the center of the rope and fed the climbing side through so you have no carabiner but the rope is retrievable. I know there will be rope on rope friction but maybe the numbers are the same and you're not damaging the carabiner. Thanks so much!
I'd like to see a similar test when the carabiner and rope are used as a tree tether. It would be hard to do in a lab because in that instance the rope is around a tree trunk and the pull is downward.
Interesting as always, would love to see different sizes of tube as well as different karabiners.
I’d be interested to see this set up as per rope access “pull through” where the rope goes through an eye bolt then through the crab clipped into an alp?
Great vid. Tree removal guys do this all the time even though they are told not to. Generally not with an aluminum biner but generally not locking either. 👍🏼
Great video , love to see some arborist stuff . I would love to see this become a full video.
Maybe worth looking at something with a ANSI gate on it. something like a dmm ultra d with a ANSI gate they have a rating for sideways gate loading.
Why test what we already know?
The interesting data point is real hard to isolate, but basically you need to figure out at what force did the biner start bending. That's the point at which you've exceeded it's ability to be safe, because it's taking permanent damage even if the gate still opens ok enough, it will save you once probably but loading it like that regularly could lead to disaster
More tests and on smaller diameter pipe please!
Would love to see more of this
I’ve always heard you don’t want to tie a rope around a tree this way. I’d be interested in watching a full video on using carabiners like this around small branches all the way up to trees and even rocks.
From the limited evidence in this video, it seems like this is more: "Don't beat up your carabiners unless there's no better option. Gear gets expensive and there's always a chance the compromised unit is overlooked and stays in use." and less: "This has a real chance of failing if you do it to an otherwise fine carabiner."
Very interesting results. Its one of those angles noones has ratings for.
If you decide to do a more exhaustive test use Triple Action, Double Locking carabiners like the ones that arborists use. I suspect it will make no difference in terms of breaking strength, but it would produce test results that are directly applicable to the kinds of carabiners that are required for tree climbers in Federal agencies like the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
I kinda wanna see how the Edelrid bulletproof gear would break.
Thanks. During the first pull the knot pulled up against the carabiner. What difference would that make?
Do the same test but with progressively smaller diameters.
Why not just spare the carabiner from this rig and use only rope? Is there a certain reason beside the comfort of just cliping the carabiner instead of threding the rope al the way through?
rope wear when pulling it down? it will rub on one spot on the loop
From my experience because there isnt any force applied to that specific point there is no wear on the point where the rope slides
Going around branches easier. Pulling yr rope all the way through is a waste of time!
Do a test on a smaller diameter pipe
Do the Connecticut tree hitch
Test alec steel carabineer
I vote chase the rabbit. I also vote to throw a catch on the pipe. 😉
This is a comment for Ryan. :)