EWolfe Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 anchors are unsafe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I'm not certain what exactly is the size. They are rated over a 2000 lbs. The largest loads generated when rappelling if you are careful not to bounce is about twice your weight, which in my case is 2 x 200 = 400 lbs. This leaves a comfortable safety margin. The main reason I like quick links over rap rings is that I can put them around multiple existing slings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan_taylor Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I heard about some testing done on quicklinks in the mid 90's. Sorry, I don't have a link or magazine article to refer to. Basically the Taiwan quicklinks occasionally broke below their "rated" strength of 800kg and the french made Maillon Rapides broke at nearly double their stamped strength. But again, this was 10 years ago, so maybe quality control has improved and this is a moot point. However, it would be interesting to see which QL's corode faster, in regard to which types should be left on permanent chain stations. These days, if someone's old QL looks thick enough, and it isn't worn through, I'll rap off of it, regardless of where it was made. And if it looks dodgy, I'll leave my own 'biner anyway. I've seen some awfully skinny quick links being left on bail slings out there. Basically, I keep finding booty 'biners faster than I need to leave them. So thats why I'm not in the market for quick links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I'm not certain what exactly is the size. They are rated over a 2000 lbs. The largest loads generated when rappelling if you are careful not to bounce is about twice your weight, which in my case is 2 x 200 = 400 lbs. This leaves a comfortable safety margin. The main reason I like quick links over rap rings is that I can put them around multiple existing slings. Â There's also the history issue. Â I have never questioned the legitimacy of a quicklink in a system: They're steel and wrenchlocked. Â But I have many times wondered with left 'biners, aluminum rap rings, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan_taylor Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 inspecting your gear goes without saying. All the biners I don't trust get turned into coat hangers, bottle openers, dog-leash connectors, and kite-skiing hooks. But 99% of the booty biners I find look pretty darn fresh, and i don't think twice rappin off them - or adding them to my rack if they're spiffier than the ones I already have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaphappy Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Not tryin to kick a dead horse in the jaw, but... Â Some facts for those that may be confused: Â Standard zinc plated quick links at Lowe's (Home Depot was slightly more$): Â 3/16"- 660 lbs working load limit; $1.82 1/4"-880 lbs working load limit; $1.96 5/16"-1765 lbs working load limit; $2.39 7/16"-2450 lbs working load limit; $2.67 Â Still would love to know where you guys find $.75-$.85 5/16"or bigger quick links!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 My understanding is that the rated working load is about one third of the breaking strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 traditionally, WLL is a rating in kg. For instance, a tri-link will be stamped 900kg. If you wanted a breaking strength, I believe the calculation would be (900kg)(9.81m/s^2)(5) = 44,145N, or 44 kN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaphappy Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 traditionally, WLL is a rating in kg. For instance, a tri-link will be stamped 900kg. If you wanted a breaking strength, I believe the calculation would be (900kg)(9.81m/s^2)(5) = 44,145N, or 44 kN. Â They were clearly marked "lbs". Â Wish someone could hook me up with those cheap ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason_Martin Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 It's not a bad idea to pay attention to rap slings. Testing has showed that cyclic loading on water-knots tends to cause them to come untied. In other words, the more often a knot is rappelled on, the more likely it is to slowly work its way untied. Â I'm with Dylan. I find biners faster than I can leave them behind. I haven't carried rap rings or quick links for quite awhile. Â Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 traditionally, WLL is a rating in kg. For instance, a tri-link will be stamped 900kg. If you wanted a breaking strength, I believe the calculation would be (900kg)(9.81m/s^2)(5) = 44,145N, or 44 kN. Â NO ian, you have to know what factor of safety that they are using for their computations...assuming 5 is pretty big...probably more like 2 or 3... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancegranite Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 (edited) 5 to 1 safety factor is a good standard. Quicklinks are the only truely rated accessory in climbing. All the recreational stuff gives breaking strengths not working loads. Â but everybody knows that.... Edited May 5, 2004 by lancegranite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 My point was that he doesn't neccesarily know that is the FS used in determining the WL...it varies from company to company (no, it is NOT STANDARD)...i do this for a living...a better method is to determine the gr of steel and then look at the prop's or contact the mfr directly. Â help me here GregW!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I thought components like maillon rapide links that pass ANSI (or is it OSHA) hoist standards are required to have a minimum 5:1 factor of safety. I could go dig up the reg. but I'm pretty lazy. I believe OSHA at least requires overall rigging to meet 5:1. Â But I will not argue with a structural engineer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ketch Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Iain, your correct about ANSI or OSHA rated hardware. I think if we look back through the thread there is some question about whether it's the OSHA rated or CE certified links verses the Home Depot $1.39 links. Since there is no regulating body the cheapies don't neccessarily follow all the rules. Â It is probably wise to use two (there cheap ) and figure on the conservitive side. On the other hand I don't know if I would want to try OSHA approved climbing, talk about a fuster cluck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 But I will not argue with a structural engineer  Why not? Those guys are all fuckin' dumb! Give a man a fancy calculator and some spreadsheets and catalogs and he thinks he's hot shit on a stick ... fehhh.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancegranite Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I just suggested that a 5 to 1 is a good standard, not the standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMo Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Don't know/remember what UIAA or other climbing bodies use as a safety factor but for rigging as used for lifting 5:1 is the standard ratio for breaking strength to rated load. There are lots of good reasons & examples why that's not excessive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collin Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 bomb proof... Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirp Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Really Bombproof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Â THOSE are some sweet anchors. Â A guy would have to be independently wealthy to put those up on all his routes, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Really Bombproof really close together only one anchor clipped. shadetree welded ring bullshit. virtually non serviceable biners. real hard to clip directly to hanger. Â in summary: dinner plate fish dance dirt napper gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Really Bombproof : really close together only one anchor clipped. shadetree welded ring bullshit. virtually non serviceable biners. real hard to clip directly to hanger.  in summary: dinner plate fish dance dirt napper gear.  Those rings are rated to like 3400lbs - not too shabby. Agree on the non-serviceable biner part  Best anchors out there are stainless fixe hangers with quicklinks into those really big links of chain - ala the stations on STP, upper walls, index  Anyone know where to find chain that big? gonna do some anchor replacement this summer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin_B Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 But I will not argue with a structural engineer  Why not? Those guys are all fuckin' dumb! Give a man a fancy calculator and some spreadsheets and catalogs and he thinks he's hot shit on a stick ... fehhh.   Sounds like someone failed out of engineering school and holds a grudge... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.