On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:26:23 GMT, Gary wrote:

Brian Whatcott wrote:



What a load of crap. 2" seatbelt webbing, 2 D" rings welded by some guy
who has no idea what they will be used for, a foot of 1" webbing
fashioned into some homemade sit harness by some Chouinard wanna may be
stronger (not!) but I'd go with the UIAA tested, warranteed, insured
stuff made by some reputable company who has made tens of thousands and
continues to enjoy good success rather than the trailer park version.

Gaz
Still climbing and sailing - same gear.



That is of course, your option. And if you don't have the requisite
background, it is usually an EXCELLENT idea to go with the more
expensive choice.

Fortunately, I am not limited by the concept that bucks = safe in
quite the same way. That doesn't mean you're talking crap and
projecting. It doesn't mean you're dumb with judgment to match,

I have got several pro harnesses, an industrial harness (far FAR
stronger than anything you've got) and several swiss harnesses
(home-made by a guy who knows what he is doing)
and I can evaluate relative strengths.

What have you got, besides gut-feeling?

Brian Whatcott


[Gary/Gaz/Plumper]
UIAA approval. Trumps "gut feeling" and your evaluation (which is
really your gut feeling right?).

[Brian]
Ho hum. At least this response avoids another personal attack.
Not even a whisper of back streets, gutter-snipes, trailer-trash,
etc., etc.

So in return let me explain. I will be brief, mostly because I don't
much care whether you understand or not.
The UIAA is L'Union International des Associations d'Alpinisme.
They do a worthy job in underwriting technical safety of climbing
gear.
Technical gear found its start in the back streets of enthusiasts, in
a manner of speaking. A nut was called a nut because a guy at
Rolls-Royce (I think it was) threaded a stainless loop through a
machine nut. The people who dreamed up technical stuff were either
engineers, or took careful advice of engineers. But there was a
conflict (not uncommon in aero engineering in fact) between lightness
and strength. So testing and traceability were imported from Aero
engineering practice. This is expensive. Because the trade is
low-volume.

The lower cost route to engineering reliability (and engineers are
always interested in the most bang for the buck) is generous NOT
minimum safety margins. That means the devices are heavier,
and nearly always stronger.

So if you want the very strongest device like a climbing harness you
DON'T choose a UIAA type device - you specify an industrially rated
device that is specified for abusive use under legal constraints.
But it's not everybody that wants such an awkward harness with huge
buckles etc...... so there is a middle way. An engineer is the job
description of someone capable of doing this sort of material
specification.

Get it?

If not, you'll need to look for someone else to continue this
discussion, because you've taken all the pro bono time I'm willing to
offer you.

Hasta la Vista

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:26:23 GMT, Gary wrote:


Brian Whatcott wrote:



What a load of crap. 2" seatbelt webbing, 2 D" rings welded by some guy
who has no idea what they will be used for, a foot of 1" webbing
fashioned into some homemade sit harness by some Chouinard wanna may be
stronger (not!) but I'd go with the UIAA tested, warranteed, insured
stuff made by some reputable company who has made tens of thousands and
continues to enjoy good success rather than the trailer park version.

Gaz
Still climbing and sailing - same gear.



That is of course, your option. And if you don't have the requisite
background, it is usually an EXCELLENT idea to go with the more
expensive choice.

Fortunately, I am not limited by the concept that bucks = safe in
quite the same way. That doesn't mean you're talking crap and
projecting. It doesn't mean you're dumb with judgment to match,

I have got several pro harnesses, an industrial harness (far FAR
stronger than anything you've got) and several swiss harnesses
(home-made by a guy who knows what he is doing)
and I can evaluate relative strengths.

What have you got, besides gut-feeling?

Brian Whatcott



[Gary/Gaz/Plumper]

UIAA approval. Trumps "gut feeling" and your evaluation (which is
really your gut feeling right?).


[Brian]
Ho hum. At least this response avoids another personal attack.
Not even a whisper of back streets, gutter-snipes, trailer-trash,
etc., etc.

So in return let me explain. I will be brief, mostly because I don't
much care whether you understand or not.
The UIAA is L'Union International des Associations d'Alpinisme.
They do a worthy job in underwriting technical safety of climbing
gear.
Technical gear found its start in the back streets of enthusiasts, in
a manner of speaking. A nut was called a nut because a guy at
Rolls-Royce (I think it was) threaded a stainless loop through a
machine nut. The people who dreamed up technical stuff were either
engineers, or took careful advice of engineers. But there was a
conflict (not uncommon in aero engineering in fact) between lightness
and strength. So testing and traceability were imported from Aero
engineering practice. This is expensive. Because the trade is
low-volume.

The lower cost route to engineering reliability (and engineers are
always interested in the most bang for the buck) is generous NOT
minimum safety margins. That means the devices are heavier,
and nearly always stronger.

So if you want the very strongest device like a climbing harness you
DON'T choose a UIAA type device - you specify an industrially rated
device that is specified for abusive use under legal constraints.
But it's not everybody that wants such an awkward harness with huge
buckles etc...... so there is a middle way. An engineer is the job
description of someone capable of doing this sort of material
specification.

Get it?

If not, you'll need to look for someone else to continue this
discussion, because you've taken all the pro bono time I'm willing to
offer you.

Hasta la Vista

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Remember the beginning, a comfortable harness to climb a mast instead of
a bosun's chair? We recommended climbing harnesses and you started to
overbuild (2" webbing etc). A climbing harness built to withstand a
fall of twice the length of a rope, and not fail, is already way over
built for holding you up a mast. Essentially top-roping on a 50' pitch,
right? Anything more is plain silly. That is pro bono common sense.

I know what UIAA is.
I know the history of nuts (actually started with chock stones, then
nuts - Joe Brown era).
I know what engineers do. Space shuttle, Tacoma Narrows bridge,
Titanic.......
You climb in your homemade harness, I'll stick with stuff tested by real
engineers. Think about that after you pop off wearing your seatbelt
webbing and 2" D rings.

Get it?

Gaz

I dun a wee bit o climin in my life an' my harness never failed me. I
did retire it when the stitichin showed some wear and made another. By
now, I probably climbed a couple miles of rope with no probs except
when I tried mechanical ascenders once. When I got to the top of the
pit, I realized the pin that held the cam in the shell of the ascender
had come loose, near gave me heart failure. Mechanicals also had the
habit of not gripping immediately which would put your heart in yur
mouth fer a fraction of a sec. Prusiks never failed me. OTOH, I have
friends who used commercial made stuff who are currently paralysed or
dead from falls although the gear was technically not at fault but I do
think they put so much faith in the expertise of others they failed to
give proper thought to technique.
I'd say my "gut feeling" is based on long term real experience.

So, your harness is UIAA certified but the halyard your climbing is
not? Does this make any sense?

wrote:
So, your harness is UIAA certified but the halyard your climbing is
not? Does this make any sense?

1.You are not supposed to climb the halyard because of potential damage
to the halyard.
2.You don't use a climbing (dynamic) rope either because of stretch.
3.The correct way to climb is to use a static line tied to the halyard
and backed up with a second halyard to your harness for safety.
4.Yes it makes sense to use a harness that has been approved. The fewer
weak links the better. If your harness fails nothing will stop you
(unless you are wearing two). It's the only single point of failure in
the belay system (as any climber would instantly know). Ideally you
would also have a chest harness on (approved) to stop you from inverting
by accident.
Does that make any sense?

wrote:
I dun a wee bit o climin in my life an' my harness never failed me.
Obviously.
I
did retire it when the stitichin showed some wear and made another. By
now, I probably climbed a couple miles of rope with no probs except
when I tried mechanical ascenders once. When I got to the top of the
pit, I realized the pin that held the cam in the shell of the ascender
had come loose, near gave me heart failure.
A prusik as a back up would be smart and is standard practice.
Mechanicals also had the
habit of not gripping immediately which would put your heart in yur
mouth fer a fraction of a sec. Prusiks never failed me. OTOH, I have
friends who used commercial made stuff who are currently paralysed or
dead from falls although the gear was technically not at fault but I do
think they put so much faith in the expertise of others they failed to
give proper thought to technique.
So this statement actually means nothing because "the gear was
technically not at fault". Your friends just did something stupid.
I'd say my "gut feeling" is based on long term real experience.
It always is. So is UIAA testing, "long term real experience" of many
people.

You still haven't convinced me. I wouldn't wear one of your harnesses
if you gave it to me (unless it was approved). I'd sooner tie a Swiss seat.

Gaz

OK, you climb your way, I'll climb mine. BTW, a diaper sling works
better'n a Swiss seat.

On a related note, did you hear about the MENSA outing where they went
rapelling. They were using two side by side ropes so two could rapell
at once. TWO of them rapelled off the end of the rope. I admit I read
this several years ago and do not have a reference to it so it may be
an urban legend.

In article . com,
wrote:

On a related note, did you hear about the Mensa outing where they
went rapelling. They were using two side by side ropes so two could
rapell at once. TWO of them rapelled off the end of the rope. I
admit I read this several years ago and do not have a reference to it
so it may be an urban legend.

Strongly suspect it's an urban legend, as I've been a member 20 years
and haven't heard anything even remotely approaching it. Every once in a
while, we get into a bout of "Stupid Mensa Tricks".

Sometimes it seems intelligence just gives you more creative ways to
mess it up.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/