Fixe PLX HCR - "New"? Metal as alt to Titanium?

John Byrnes wrote: I didn't say that. Class 1, 3 and 4 are clearly reflected in what happens to climbing bolts in the real world. It's only Class 2 that is "rubbish", since it's unnecessary, and is (I think) only included as an attempt to lower the cost of rebolting places like Kalymnos. A good goal, but it's not likely to be met. I disagree. Ti bolts have "passed" real-life Class 1 climbing applications in Thailand and Cayman Brac. The bolts we placed in 2000 show absolutely no corrosion and are well-used. I disagree again. Far and away the biggest problem here in the U.S. is that climbers are still placing Zn-plated bolts in new routes due to ignorance, cost or they just don't give a shit. Getting climbers to use stainless is a huge leap forward. Coat the block in epoxy before the test, drill through it to place the candidates, re-seal any cracks. Can you post a link to the test description? I'm surprised that you need to stress the candidate bolts; residual stresses have always done the trick in real life.

Class 1,2 and 3 reflect the real world (indoors is neither real world nor within the remit of the UIAA anyway). Remove one class and you need to readjust the classifications to cover the normal applications.

Disagree as much as you wish but you wrote (referring presumably to bolts from "PLX" steel- "So they will certainly last longer than 304/316, but no one knows just how long in a real-world application. They are clearly not appropriate for Class 1 (Thailand, Cayman Brac, Cuba, most sea cliffs, etc.)."
That is:- a bolt which passes the standard requirements to be Class 1 is still not appropriate for Class 1 applications in your opinion, therefore we can only assume you think the standard is incorrect.
Both you and I think long-term experience in an area is the best way to decide on the materials to be used and both of us clearly think the UIAA standard is not able to replace this using flawed laboratory testing.

Sure, one step at a time. Removing 304 stainless for absolutely no good reason and without considering the availability of alternatives is stupid. We know 304 and even steel can give good service for many decades even if the UIAA don´t.

Right, sounds like "real life" testing to me! Why not just coat the whole thing, or even the cliff? Be cheap enough for us to coat the bolts beforehand then we´d get through the test anyway.
Testing in the concrete block is their barmy idea, not mine. Glue-ins it´s irrelevant but bolt-ins which are the major problem have to be stressed as they would be when installed, coating the whole thing in epoxy isn´t really telling anyone anything.
Bolts are always installed and thus stressed in "real life".

The test was outlined in a press release from the UIAA Safecom meeting in Bristol in 2014 which has (suprise) since been removed. No alternative has yet been proposed as far as we know.

Fundamentally if the classes are reduced to areas with SCC and areas with moderate corrosion risk and those with effectively none and then climbers use their experience to decide on suitable materials then we are back to the situation and recommendations in the standards since 2006. Exactly as the majority of developers prefer it. A confused and flawed UIAA recommendation changes absolutely nothing.

20 kN wrote:immune to all forms of corrosion

No materials/elements are immune to corrosion if chemistry geeks try hard enough. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliu…

In the case of titanium strong acids will eat through it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Through natural processes and a WHOLE bunch of time probably would do it too. Titanium is rarely found in nature as a pure element.

(Titanium like aluminium is actually quite reactive, but it is the cohesive surface oxide that protects the underlying metal.)

20 kN wrote:There are metals that have higher corrosion resistance than grade two titanium.

Gold, platinum, iridium and a few others. All of which are found in nature unoxidised. Though again if chemistry geeks try hard enough they can corrode them.

Jim Titt wrote: Class 1,2 and 3 reflect the real world (indoors is neither real world nor within the remit of the UIAA anyway). Remove one class and you need to readjust the classifications to cover the normal applications.

Okay, I'll grant you that indoors is irrelevant, but I still disagree about Class 2. Can you give me an example (I know of none) of a Class 2 area AND a material that will withstand it?

And now we get into the next level, the lifetime of the material. Personally, I don't think that 50 years is long enough, and that is why I think two outdoor classes are enough. E.g. if in <=50 years a 316 stainless bolt shows corrosion, replace it with Ti, and all new routes should be Ti.

Jim Titt wrote: Disagree as much as you wish but you wrote (referring presumably to bolts from "PLX" steel- "So they will certainly last longer than 304/316, but no one knows just how long in a real-world application. They are clearly not appropriate for Class 1 (Thailand, Cayman Brac, Cuba, most sea cliffs, etc.)." That is:- a bolt which passes the standard requirements to be Class 1 is still not appropriate for Class 1 applications in your opinion, therefore we can only assume you think the standard is incorrect.

Agree. Agree. Agree. (Note: "PLX" is almost certainly Duplex such as 2205.)

Jim Titt wrote: Both you and I think long-term experience in an area is the best way to decide on the materials to be used and both of us clearly think the UIAA standard is not able to replace this using flawed laboratory testing.

Absolutely agree.

Jim Titt wrote: Removing 304 stainless for absolutely no good reason and without considering the availability of alternatives is stupid.

Ding! I'll buy you a pint.

Jim Titt wrote: Right, sounds like "real life" testing to me! Why not just coat the whole thing, or even the cliff? Be cheap enough for us to coat the bolts beforehand then we´d get through the test anyway. Testing in the concrete block is their barmy idea, not mine. Glue-ins it´s irrelevant but bolt-ins which are the major problem have to be stressed as they would be when installed, coating the whole thing in epoxy isn´t really telling anyone anything. Bolts are always installed and thus stressed in "real life". The test was outlined in a press release from the UIAA Safecom meeting in Bristol in 2014 which has (suprise) since been removed. No alternative has yet been proposed as far as we know.

I agree again (mark it on your calendar). From your description the tests are designed to "fish" for a material appropriate to Class 2, because there is currently no material appropriate for Class 2, which is why I don't like Class 2, and we don't need Class 2.

Jim Titt wrote: Fundamentally if the classes are reduced to areas with SCC and areas with moderate corrosion risk and those with effectively none and then climbers use their experience to decide on suitable materials then we are back to the situation and recommendations in the standards since 2006. Exactly as the majority of developers prefer it. A confused and flawed UIAA recommendation changes absolutely nothing.

Well, I like having the (flawed) standard simply because for many years (13 years, at least) no one believed me when I said SCC was a problem in many areas. I got into a huge fight with Alan Jarvis on ClimbSA in 2013 because he told me I was full of shit (I paraphrase) when I said SCC was occurring in 300-series stainless. So we've come a long way from there.

John Byrnes wrote: Okay, I'll grant you that indoors is irrelevant, but I still disagree about Class 2. Can you give me an example (I know of none) of a Class 2 area AND a material that will withstand it?

Most likely a nickel alloy. Nickel is possibly the most impressive all-around functional metal.

John Byrnes wrote: Okay, I'll grant you that indoors is irrelevant, but I still disagree about Class 2. Can you give me an example (I know of none) of a Class 2 area AND a material that will withstand it? And now we get into the next level, the lifetime of the material. Personally, I don't think that 50 years is long enough, and that is why I think two outdoor classes are enough. E.g. if in <=50 years a 316 stainless bolt shows corrosion, replace it with Ti, and all new routes should be Ti. Agree. Agree. Agree. (Note: "PLX" is almost certainly Duplex such as 2205.) Absolutely agree. Ding! I'll buy you a pint. I agree again (mark it on your calendar). From your description the tests are designed to "fish" for a material appropriate to Class 2, because there is currently no material appropriate for Class 2, which is why I don't like Class 2, and we don't need Class 2. Well, I like having the (flawed) standard simply because for many years (13 years, at least) no one believed me when I said SCC was a problem in many areas. I got into a huge fight with Alan Jarvis on ClimbSA in 2013 because he told me I was full of shit (I paraphrase) when I said SCC was occurring in 300-series stainless. So we've come a long way from there.

Well personally I´d just go for three classes, places where titanium has proved to be the only solution, other areas where stainless is the preferred option and all the rest. The only real problem with all the rest is we see an ugly mess where galvanised bolts leach and where steel bolts rust, since only stainless is allowed by the UIAA anyway and not many Euros still use steel that isn´t really an issue.
Areas where SCC might be an issue then I go for 2205 or more usually just a glue-in 316, we don´t see SCC as a real problem in Europe so don´t worry tto much.
I doubt PLX is 2205, the last lot we bought a month back cost over twice the price of 316 and strength wise it is twice as strong so doesn´t match the Fixe criteria. Duplex chain costs at least 50% more than 316 as well which makes chainsets an expensive proposition.

csa wrote: Most likely a nickel alloy. Nickel is possibly the most impressive all-around functional metal.

Too expensive.

csa wrote: Most likely a nickel alloy. Nickel is possibly the most impressive all-around functional metal.

Jim's right, it's too expensive.

Back in 1999 when we were looking for an alternative to stainless, we investigated Ni alloys, specifically Hastelly C. It was far more expensive than Ti, astoundingly heavy and its suitability for a climbing bolt was questionable.

Grade 2 Ti was the clear choice.

Jim Titt wrote: Well personally I´d just go for three classes, places where titanium has proved to be the only solution, other areas where stainless is the preferred option and all the rest. The only real problem with all the rest is we see an ugly mess where galvanised bolts leach and where steel bolts rust, since only stainless is allowed by the UIAA anyway and not many Euros still use steel that isn´t really an issue.

Why have an "all the rest" class when it's been proven that Galvanized bolts are such a shitty choice? Two class for me: one Class is SCC, the other is stainless (304/316). Simple. And it's good world-wide.

Jim Titt wrote: Areas where SCC might be an issue then I go for 2205 or more usually just a glue-in 316, we don´t see SCC as a real problem in Europe so don´t worry tto much.

How can you say that? It's absolutely clear that 300 stainless is NOT appropriate when SCC is an issue! Glue-ins are clearly susceptible. And 2205 isn't much better. And we don't see SCC in Europe? Bullshit. The entire Mediterranean is plagued with SCC.

Why have an "all the rest" class when it's been proven that Galvanized bolts are such a shitty choice? Two class for me: one Class is SCC, the other is stainless (304/316). Simple. And it's good world-wide. How can you say that? It's absolutely clear that 300 stainless is NOT appropriate when SCC is an issue! Glue-ins are clearly susceptible. And 2205 isn't much better. And we don't see SCC in Europe? Bullshit. The entire Mediterranean is plagued with SCC. 

What's interesting is increasingly I've  seen SCC occur behind the epoxy resin. Another developer just rebolted a small sea cliff that had several Fixe glue-ins, and a few of them snapped easily. They failed at the weld, which was completely covered behind epoxy. Previously I though that SCC would only occur on the portion of the bolt exposed to the elements as epoxy is completely waterproof and it absorbs almost no water. However, that does not seem to be the case. It looks like over time in some cases the bond between the epoxy and the metal, right at the surface, may break enough to allow a very small gap between the epoxy and material. At least that's my theory anyway.

John Byrnes wrote: Why have an "all the rest" class when it's been proven that Galvanized bolts are such a shitty choice? Two class for me: one Class is SCC, the other is stainless (304/316). Simple. And it's good world-wide. How can you say that? It's absolutely clear that 300 stainless is NOT appropriate when SCC is an issue! Glue-ins are clearly susceptible. And 2205 isn't much better. And we don't see SCC in Europe? Bullshit. The entire Mediterranean is plagued with SCC.

Because I can go and climb on routes adequately bolted with steel bolts, some of the ones around here are probably 40yrs old and still perfectly serviceable. Cheapo plated Home Depot is one thing, forged steel ring bolts another. Steel generally doesn´t get SCC which is a big plus!

The entire Mediteranean isn´t plagued with SCC, I don´t know of a single example of a bolt failing from SCC when it was made of properly treated 304 or 316. What plagues the Med is innumerably bolts made from sub-standard materials which fail from all sorts of corrosion, there are at least four manufacturers guilty of putting on the market bolts which have been subsequently found to be made of material not to the required specification, this the UIAA then use as evidence that SCC is rampant in 304 and 316. For example Alan Jarvis decided to ban the use of 304 after a chainset made by Fixe failed at a climbing wall(outside) in Germany, the independent laboratory report showed failure was by SCC from unknown influences AND that the chain was not 304 or any known grade of stainless steel.
All the well-publicised cases of SCC and rapid general corrosion have involved bolts which have been found to be made of inferior materials, not certified 304 and 316. The exception to this are some bolts which we found suffered from severe pitting due to the filler in the resin, something the proposals will do nothing to solve.

The simplest solution is to let installers use their own judgement and experience to select the best solution. A UIAA safety label does nothing to help especially when it is confusing and unworkable. You yourself have written that you will make your own decision on what is suitable despite their proposals and the rest of us will do the same.

Jim Titt wrote: All the well-publicised cases of SCC and rapid general corrosion have involved bolts which have been found to be made of inferior materials, not certified 304 and 316.

Without question there have been cases of SCC in high quality 304 and 316. I've seen photos of Wichard 316 shackles pulled from Thailand with cracks cutting them up like a pizza pie and Wichard is one of the most expensive marine component manufacturers out there. They make 12mm shackles that go for $350 retail (who actually pays that I have no idea). It is true that high quality SS goes a long way, but any 304 or 316 placed on a wall in Thailand is going to fail eventually, including your bolts.

20 kN wrote: Without question there have been cases of SCC in high quality 304 and 316. I've seen photos of Wichard 316 shackles pulled from Thailand with cracks cutting them up like a pizza pie and Wichard is one of the most expensive marine component manufacturers out there. They make 12mm shackles that go for $350 retail (who actually pays that I have no idea). It is true that high quality SS goes a long way, but any 304 or 316 placed on a wall in Thailand is going to fail eventually, including your bolts.

I was specifically replying to a point made about the Mediterranean:- "The entire Mediterranean is plagued with SCC."

John Byrnes wrote: Jim's right, it's too expensive. Back in 1999 when we were looking for an alternative to stainless, we investigated Ni alloys, specifically Hastelly C. It was far more expensive than Ti, astoundingly heavy and its suitability for a climbing bolt was questionable. Grade 2 Ti was the clear choice.

I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion they were questionably suitable, price aside.

20 kN wrote: What's interesting is increasingly I am seeing SCC occur behind the epoxy resin. We just rebolted a small sea cliff that had several Fixe glue-ins, and a few of them snapped easily. They failed at the weld, which was completely covered behind epoxy. Previously I though that SCC would only occur on the portion of the bolt exposed to the elements as epoxy is completely waterproof and it absorbs almost no water. However, that does not seem to be the case. It looks like over time in some cases the bond between the epoxy and the metal, right at the surface, may break enough to allow a very small gap between the epoxy and material. At least that's my theory anyway.

Crevice corrosion.

In the last 2-3 years in Portugal a range of bolts have broken under very low forces (more information here climbingpt.com/titan-project/). The main cause for this is not completely known but the climbing community think is due to SCC, as the conditions in Portuguese sea-cliffs can be quite similar to the ones from more tropical places such as Thailand. We have decided to rebolt dangerous routes with titanium bolts has they are, for the moment, the only ones that seem to be not affected by SCC. Titanium bolts are not cheap, so that there are some surprising and puzzling things in your post.

Jim Titt wrote: The entire Mediteranean isn´t plagued with SCC, I don´t know of a single example of a bolt failing from SCC when it was made of properly treated 304 or 316. What plagues the Med is innumerably bolts made from sub-standard materials which fail from all sorts of corrosion, there are at least four manufacturers guilty of putting on the market bolts which have been subsequently found to be made of material not to the required specification, this the UIAA then use as evidence that SCC is rampant in 304 and 316.

If this is true then it is very worrying. All bolts that have broken so far are all 304, hence, routes bolted with 304 are a priority for rebolting. We are "praying" that 316 bolts do not start to brake as this will mean that routes that are potentially dangerous increase dramatically and we would not have means to rebolt them in the short to medium term.
But this raises the question on who regulates and controls the quality of the materials that manufacturers use? How can a manufacturer stamp 304 or 316 (supposedly certified) in its gear when if in fact they are not proper 304/316? If this is common (4 manufacturers is quite a lot) then this leaves the user completely bling in terms of what to use!

Jim Titt wrote: The simplest solution is to let installers use their own judgement and experience to select the best solution.

This is not a solution. Many times the installers will not have enough knowledge on metals, types of corrosion and how corrosion affects the different metals to make an informed decision (the case in Portugal). Additionally, when efforts for rebolting involve a large community due to the dimension of the task then installers will have many times different ideas on what the best solution is. Consensus will be hard to obtain if there are not some sort of guidance on what are the best possible solutions considering certain conditions. This guidance needs to come from recognized organisations with sufficient funds and means to obtain the latest knowledge.

A final comment about SCC in the Mediterranean. I do not know much about metal and corrosion, but if SCC takes place in 304 and 316 bolts in places like Thailand, then most likely this will occur as well in sea-cliffs in the Mediterranean. In Portuguese sea-cliffs I can find similar conditions as in Thailand: high temperatures, high humidity, high salinity. They are not as constant as in Thailand, and this is probably the reason why SCC occurs (if it occurs) at different speed rates between more tropical places and Mediterranean. So the environmental conditions for SCC to occur in the Mediterranean are there!

20 kN wrote: What's interesting is increasingly I am seeing SCC occur behind the epoxy resin. We just rebolted a small sea cliff that had several Fixe glue-ins, and a few of them snapped easily. They failed at the weld, which was completely covered behind epoxy. Previously I though that SCC would only occur on the portion of the bolt exposed to the elements as epoxy is completely waterproof and it absorbs almost no water. However, that does not seem to be the case. It looks like over time in some cases the bond between the epoxy and the metal, right at the surface, may break enough to allow a very small gap between the epoxy and material. At least that's my theory anyway.

I'd say that's a very good theory.

Another theory, more of a guess, would be that the cracks are starting just outside the resin and then propagating inward along lines of stress. Is there rusty metal at the resin-metal boundary?

Jim Titt wrote: The entire Mediteranean isn´t plagued with SCC, I don´t know of a single example of a bolt failing from SCC when it was made of properly treated 304 or 316. What plagues the Med is innumerably bolts made from sub-standard materials which fail from all sorts of corrosion, there are at least four manufacturers guilty of putting on the market bolts which have been subsequently found to be made of material not to the required specification, this the UIAA then use as evidence that SCC is rampant in 304 and 316.

The first stage of SCC is Denial. Don't worry Jim, you'll get over it.

This same argument has been going around for about 4 years now, mostly propagated by the Kalymnos crowd. However, they came to this "conclusion" without doing any tests; also known as "Proof by Repeated Assertion". Think about it, which is more likely? That SCC occurs in Series 300 steel in the Med, just like it does in other places around the world? Or that all bolt manufacturers (like you) cheat on their product?

Jim Titt wrote: For example Alan Jarvis decided to ban the use of 304 after a chainset made by Fixe failed at a climbing wall(outside) in Germany, the independent laboratory report showed failure was by SCC from unknown influences AND that the chain was not 304 or any known grade of stainless steel.

I have many private emails from Alan regarding his ban of 304 (which I, too, disagree with). He has more than one reason for his actions, but I agree, he's over-reacting a bit.

Jim Titt wrote: All the well-publicised cases of SCC and rapid general corrosion have involved bolts which have been found to be made of inferior materials, not certified 304 and 316.

Sorry, I don't believe that, and neither does Alan Jarvis, Sjong, Prosek or Fuller who are all professional metallurgists who have done formal analyses.

Jim Titt wrote: The simplest solution is to let installers use their own judgement and experience to select the best solution.

I totally disagree. With so many installers continuing to put in galvanized bolts, which in most places must be replaced in less than 20 years at a huge incremental cost, education is paramount. Oh, you want to sell more bolts, so you actually do NOT want bolts to last very long. Gee, Jim, where are your loyalties?

Jim Titt wrote: I was specifically replying to a point made about the Mediterranean:- "The entire Mediterranean is plagued with SCC."

All stainless steel bolts in the Med are plagued by SCC. The rest are plagued by general corrosion.

csa wrote: I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion they were questionably suitable, price aside. Crevice corrosion.

I may be wrong, it was a long time ago, but I remember the Hastelloy C not having the proper set of strength characteristics for a climbing bolt. I remember Mike telling me the stock-diameter would need to be much larger than was desired.

And I think welding was an issue... maybe it just jacked-up the price???

Of course, these days no one blinks at a 9/16" drill...

mpulquerio wrote:In the last 2-3 years in Portugal a range of bolts have broken under very low forces (more information here climbingpt.com/titan-project/). The main cause for this is not completely known but the climbing community think is due to SCC, as the conditions in Portuguese sea-cliffs can be quite similar to the ones from more tropical places such as Thailand. We have decided to rebolt dangerous routes with titanium bolts has they are, for the moment, the only ones that seem to be not affected by SCC. Titanium bolts are not cheap, so that there are some surprising and puzzling things in your post. If this is true then it is very worrying. All bolts that have broken so far are all 304, hence, routes bolted with 304 are a priority for rebolting. We are "praying" that 316 bolts do not start to brake as this will mean that routes that are potentially dangerous increase dramatically and we would not have means to rebolt them in the short to medium term. But this raises the question on who regulates and controls the quality of the materials that manufacturers use? How can a manufacturer stamp 304 or 316 (supposedly certified) in its gear when if in fact they are not proper 304/316? If this is common (4 manufacturers is quite a lot) then this leaves the user completely bling in terms of what to use! This is not a solution. Many times the installers will not have enough knowledge on metals, types of corrosion and how corrosion affects the different metals to make an informed decision (the case in Portugal). Additionally, when efforts for rebolting involve a large community due to the dimension of the task then installers will have many times different ideas on what the best solution is. Consensus will be hard to obtain if there are not some sort of guidance on what are the best possible solutions considering certain conditions. This guidance needs to come from recognized organisations with sufficient funds and means to obtain the latest knowledge. A final comment about SCC in the Mediterranean. I do not know much about metal and corrosion, but if SCC takes place in 304 and 316 bolts in places like Thailand, then most likely this will occur as well in sea-cliffs in the Mediterranean. In Portuguese sea-cliffs I can find similar conditions as in Thailand: high temperatures, high humidity, high salinity. They are not as constant as in Thailand, and this is probably the reason why SCC occurs (if it occurs) at different speed rates between more tropical places and Mediterranean. So the environmental conditions for SCC to occur in the Mediterranean are there!

There lies one problem, your community thinks it is SCC and thinks the affected material is 304. Testing would tell us if this is so, thinking it tells us nothing.
We have asked previously for the UIAA to establish an open database for all developers to register the kind of bolts installed and the associated problems which would allow an overview of the situation and a more accurate assesment of what problems we should be looking for. Subsidised material testing for affected bolts should also be part of this program.This is "too expensive" so the UIAA prefer to control what climbers do rather than assist them in finding an adequate solution.

There is no external control over the materials used in any climbing equipment and there almost certainly never will be, the cost is prohibitive.

John Byrnes wrote: The first stage of SCC is Denial. Don't worry Jim, you'll get over it. This same argument has been going around for about 4 years now, mostly propagated by the Kalymnos crowd. However, they came to this "conclusion" without doing any tests; also known as "Proof by Repeated Assertion". Think about it, which is more likely? That SCC occurs in Series 300 steel in the Med, just like it does in other places around the world? Or that all bolt manufacturers (like you) cheat on their product? I have many private emails from Alan regarding his ban of 304 (which I, too, disagree with). He has more than one reason for his actions, but I agree, he's over-reacting a bit. Sorry, I don't believe that, and neither does Alan Jarvis, Sjong, Prosek or Fuller who are all professional metallurgists who have done formal analyses. I totally disagree. With so many installers continuing to put in galvanized bolts, which in most places must be replaced in less than 20 years at a huge incremental cost, education is paramount. Oh, you want to sell more bolts, so you actually do NOT want bolts to last very long. Gee, Jim, where are your loyalties?

You will have to better than that, intelligent, informed discussion is more useful than innuendo.