• Forum maintenance

    Wednesday 28 February 2024

    The forum will be off-line for part of the day for essential maintenance. Hopefully it won't take too long!

9mm Type B rope with common ascenders

Wardy

Active member
The following may help explain some things from the opposite perspective and especially as testing of products is always an interesting area.

As pointed out by some and apparent from others comments, we generally take note of and pay a lot of interest in the standards an item has been tested to when selecting / buying it.
Unfortunately this information is not always representative of the products actual capabilities.

When designing a product most manufacturers have a function, user group or user application in mind and test it for that.
It is also quite likely that the item can fulfil other functions and so the testing may be broadened to cover it or possibly not.
If the manufacturer doesn't identify or value the opportunity the additional testing would provide then they may not widen the testing to cover it.

Fundamentally testing and certification can be expensive so you target it to areas you are most interested in or where you recoup your costs.

As users this can be a little frustrating as some items are tested and certified for your purpose, but perform badly.
The truth then is that they may have been designed for that purpose, but they are simply not very good products.

Other items lack the testing and certification for your application, but when used perform really well.
These may just be really good products aimed at a different market and if the testing had been broadened they would most likely have passed, but without it where do you stand?
Well your position is unclear.

You know it works, but lack the endorsement of the manufacturer or reassurance of testing.
As a private individual you can use it at your own risk, but you may feel a little short changed or unappreciated as a customer.
You could approach the manufacturer who may have additional information.
You should also remember that product instructions do not have to be comprehensive they only have to achieve the bare minimum to comply!

This unfortunately presents problems to those who partake in minority activities.
In cavings case we often push the limits and look for gains, but test standards and the wider market struggle to keep up.

This is where you all need good representation and whilst the French are better looked after you would have to say that BCA has not really grasped this, but that is not to say it can't..........

If manufacturers think they will lose income by failing to do something they will change and the role of a national body should be to apply pressure from us all collectively.
So who wants to push our national association to back people like the rope testers?
 

Wardy

Active member
To help explain this a little more I have a great example that just struck me.

In a very well known through trip there are some truly great zip lines and tensioned wires.
Most of you will have noticed the slings used as their anchors.
They are 2 ton rated (14 ton minimum break strength) roundslings - often called SpanSet's, tested and certified for Lifting.

A zip line is not a lifting activity, but they are a nevertheless a good choice and more than capable of fulfilling the function.
Zip lines just do not have a big enough demand to justify manufacturers to change the testing and certification.

So this is an example of users innovating and using their knowledge to go beyond the manufacturers testing.
Long may this continue, just make sure you understand what you are doing.
 

mwitek

Member
We use 8,5 spelenium, typeB, no isues with common ascenders/descenders like petzl bobins (old stop works even better) ascension/basic/croll/turbochest etc.
 
The following may help explain some things from the opposite perspective and especially as testing of products is always an interesting area.

As pointed out by some and apparent from others comments, we generally take note of and pay a lot of interest in the standards an item has been tested to when selecting / buying it.
Unfortunately this information is not always representative of the products actual capabilities.

When designing a product most manufacturers have a function, user group or user application in mind and test it for that.
It is also quite likely that the item can fulfil other functions and so the testing may be broadened to cover it or possibly not.
If the manufacturer doesn't identify or value the opportunity the additional testing would provide then they may not widen the testing to cover it.

Fundamentally testing and certification can be expensive so you target it to areas you are most interested in or where you recoup your costs.

As users this can be a little frustrating as some items are tested and certified for your purpose, but perform badly.
The truth then is that they may have been designed for that purpose, but they are simply not very good products.

Other items lack the testing and certification for your application, but when used perform really well.
These may just be really good products aimed at a different market and if the testing had been broadened they would most likely have passed, but without it where do you stand?
Well your position is unclear.

You know it works, but lack the endorsement of the manufacturer or reassurance of testing.
As a private individual you can use it at your own risk, but you may feel a little short changed or unappreciated as a customer.
You could approach the manufacturer who may have additional information.
You should also remember that product instructions do not have to be comprehensive they only have to achieve the bare minimum to comply!

This unfortunately presents problems to those who partake in minority activities.
In cavings case we often push the limits and look for gains, but test standards and the wider market struggle to keep up.

This is where you all need good representation and whilst the French are better looked after you would have to say that BCA has not really grasped this, but that is not to say it can't..........

If manufacturers think they will lose income by failing to do something they will change and the role of a national body should be to apply pressure from us all collectively.
So who wants to push our national association to back people like the rope testers?
Very well put.

I use a 8mm hyperstatic for caving and canyoning. It is highly abrasion resistant has under 1% elongation and handles incredibly well butbitbjsnt rated by EN standards for PPE as its under the 8.5mm criteria despite having almost twice the breaking strength of a EN rated 8.5mm.

I understand why certifications and standards are there. They need to be for commercial uses and general safety. However for recreational use we have the choice of what we want to use at our own discretion, rated or not.

I know there is a new certification being applied for at current by a swiss company which will hopefully allow the hyper statics to be certified for commercial use going forward....
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Which 8mm hyperstatic cord is this (that has twice the breaking strength of an EN rated 8.5mm rope)?

Also very static ropes are likely _too_ static to pass the EN standards? True static cord is inherently more dangerous than semi-static in any dynamic situation - you can have (hypothetical examples) a static cord with 10kN strength that snaps in a dynamic fall where a less static cord with 5kN strength does not (because the peak load is lower).
 
Which 8mm hyperstatic cord is this (that has twice the breaking strength of an EN rated 8.5mm rope)?

Also very static ropes are likely _too_ static to pass the EN standards? True static cord is inherently more dangerous than semi-static in any dynamic situation - you can have (hypothetical examples) a static cord with 10kN strength that snaps in a dynamic fall where a less static cord with 5kN strength does not (because the peak load is lower).
Your correct, due to the nature of its elongation % it can't pass EN standards at current along with it being under 8.5mm of course.

Just last week I saw a couple using a 7.8mm line in the Peaks, semi static. Rope technology has moved on a fair bit in the past few years and the EN standards need to keep up with it, which at current they aren't.

I also agree that semi static is the 'correct' rope for this purpose however I have found the hyper static an incredibly versatile and user friendly rope. You would never want to use this cord for climbing or situations where a 'fall' may occur but for abseiling on and SRT I have found it great.
 

mikem

Well-known member
They've likely done drop tests on it during development (although may not have made info public)
 
They've likely done drop tests on it during development (although may not have made info public)
I'm sure they would have, Im sure i did see that information somewhere, maybe in the paperwork supplied with the rope, not sure where I put it now though.... May have a hunt around to see if I can find it.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Last edited:
Top