"Fall ratings" on ropes shouldn't be on outer rope packaging

The UIAA fall rating, as currently presented, is misleading to new and old climbers alike. I am of the opinion at this point that it should be removed from the outer packaging of ropes altogether. It's a nearly worthless statistic to the consumer and distracts from stats that actually matter, such as elongation. This is not to say that the test shouldn't be performed. It just shouldn't be published in such a way as to be misleading.

What are fall ratings?
There is a nice graphic of the test at the UIAA website for those who may be interested. Essentially, the test involves dropping a large mass 2.3 meters above an anchor point, dropping it, and repeating this procedure in rapid succession until the rope breaks. The fall rating is the number of cycles the rope could withstand before failure.

In more detail, the rope is hung with the mass so that there is 2.5 meters of rope out, and raised 2.3 meters above a 5mm in diameter carabiner slightly above the anchor point. Altogether, this results in a theoretical factor 1.71 fall. The mass used is 80kg for singles or twins used together, and 55kg for half/double ropes tested individually.

Fall ratings are misleading
The obvious translation of "fall rating" is the number of falls one can take on a rope. However, this is clearly not true given the above. The UIAA test does not have any realistic bearing on the number of "normal" falls one can take in the field. Part of this has to do with just the severity of the falls themselves. The other part has to do with timing. Since the test is done in rapid succession, the rope material does not have time to recover its elasticity. Realistically, if someone ever takes just one fall of a similar magnitude as the UIAA fall tests, the rope should be retired. However, this is an extraordinarily rare event.

The test also implies that ropes with higher fall ratings should be more durable. There is an argument to be made that the exact opposite is a more realistic conclusion. The core strands of a rope are typically what give the rope most of its fall holding capabilities. To increase the number of falls held, while holding materials and construction constant, one would add more core strands. The sheath protects the core. More sheath is more abrasion resistance. The vast majority of ropes are retired due to sheath damage, not core damage.

If one were to take two ropes of identical diameter, materials, and construction. The difference is that rope #2 has more core material to increase fall rating. As a result, it must sacrifice the thickness of the sheath in order to keep diameter constant. Rope number 2 will have a higher fall rating, but will be less resistant to wear and tear. In other words, fall rating and durability may actually have an inverse relationship.

There is also the issue of how the test itself is done. Several world famous climbers, including Will Gadd, have commented on how inane it is to have a different mass for singles and double/halves, given that falls on doubles/half ropes are typically in the same manner as singles. Having a single fall rating of 7 in a single line is not the same thing as having a fall rating of 7 in a half, but there is no way to know this without research.

Given how misleading this statistic is, I would propose that the fall rating be removed outright from the statistical summaries of ropes. It is more than enough information that the rope withstood the required 5 UIAA falls. I don't think it matters in the least if it also withstood an additional bunch of them. Let people focus on the stats that actually matter and stop distracting them with those that do not.

Edited to correct for wrong masses and fall factor on fall test.

JLP wrote:Beginners should read more, post less.

To be clear, I am less irritated with new climbers that post than I am with the enormous number of climbers who won't be checking this stuff out. I would like to arm people with the right set of information to make good choices immediately. The fall ratings on ropes not only don't accomplish this, but are arguably counter-productive.

Perhaps McDonald or Starbucks shouldn't put "WARNING! HOT BEVERAGE!" on their coffee cups. It's obvious that hot coffee is HOT.

IMO, they are responsible to disclose all information regarding the rope. Let it be the UIAA fall rating, length, and size of the rope. As a climber, if you are not intelligent enough make your own judgment with given information, perhaps you shouldn't be climbing. It's a dangerous sport after all.

Given your arguments, why put ratings on biners, webbings, harnesses, and everything climbing related? Why put on 27KN on a biner? It obviously holds a shit ton of weight.

Kai Huang wrote:Perhaps McDonald or Starbucks shouldn't put "WARNING! HOT BEVERAGE!" on their coffee cups. It's obvious that hot coffee is HOT. IMO, they are responsible to disclose all information regarding the rope. Let it be the UIAA fall rating, length, and size of the rope. As a climber, if you are not intelligent enough make your own judgment with given information, perhaps you shouldn't be climbing. It's a dangerous sport after all. Given your arguments, why put ratings on biners, webbings, harnesses, and everything climbing related? Why put on 27KN on a biner? It obviously holds a shit ton of weight.

While I agree with parts of your post, please keep in mind that the rope manufacturer can report "falls" any way they choose. They can report the average number of falls held in testing, the lowest number of falls held in testing (the worst sample,) or the highest number of falls held in testing (the best sample.) The UIAA does not control how this information is reported; they only care that all samples hold the required 5 falls.

However, the reason this useless statistic remains on ropes for sale is because people want to see it. If they don't understand it, no big deal. They'll either eventually figure out what is important in the ropes they're buying or not. It certainly isn't the manufacturer's job to try to sell ropes the hard way. Personally, I don't even see the number anymore when buying a rope. I look at max impact force and dynamic elongation. Sometimes sheath %. I know what I like, and why. Most consumers will be perfectly happy with any approved rope on the market; most buy on price.

shotwell wrote:However, the reason this useless statistic remains on ropes for sale is because people want to see it. If they don't understand it, no big deal. They'll either eventually figure out what is important in the ropes they're buying or not. It certainly isn't the manufacturer's job to try to sell ropes the hard way. Personally, I don't even see the number anymore when buying a rope. I look at max impact force and dynamic elongation. Sometimes sheath %. I know what I like, and why. Most consumers will be perfectly happy with any approved rope on the market; most buy on price.

Exactly. Here is the information. You take what you want to know and leave the rest. Besides giving consumers the information, it also servers as another purpose, to protect the manufacturers.

How much would you bet a law suit if they didn't disclose those information?

Kai Huang wrote:Perhaps McDonald or Starbucks shouldn't put "WARNING! HOT BEVERAGE!" on their coffee cups. It's obvious that hot coffee is HOT. IMO, they are responsible to disclose all information regarding the rope. Let it be the UIAA fall rating, length, and size of the rope. As a climber, if you are not intelligent enough make your own judgment with given information, perhaps you shouldn't be climbing. It's a dangerous sport after all. Given your arguments, why put ratings on biners, webbings, harnesses, and everything climbing related? Why put on 27KN on a biner? It obviously holds a shit ton of weight.

No, the ratings on the 'biner are actually useful information, particularly for minor axis strength. The obvious interpretation is virtually the same as the realistic interpretation. My argument is not to remove ratings. It is to remove ones that are useless and misleading.

Kai Huang wrote:How much would you bet a law suit if they didn't disclose those information?

$0. The fall factor rating has a negligible effect on rope safety so long as it can hold a few (such as, say 5).

Shoo, please do some more homework before you post. Your "facts" are wrong on many counts for example it's actually a 1.71 fall factor, the masses used are 80 kg and 55 kg, and fall ratings is actually a decent indicator of durability. Static elongation doesn't really tell you much and dynamic elongation isn't reliably tested.

shoo wrote: $0. The fall factor rating has a negligible effect on rope safety so long as it can hold a few (such as, say 5).

How would I know it will hold a few or 5 if it's not labeled? How would I know coffee is hot if it doesn't say so on a cup?

shotwell wrote: While I agree with parts of your post, please keep in mind that the rope manufacturer can report "falls" any way they choose. They can report the average number of falls held in testing, the lowest number of falls held in testing (the worst sample,) or the highest number of falls held in testing (the best sample.) The UIAA does not control how this information is reported; they only care that all samples hold the required 5 falls.

You sure about that? I was under the impression that the UIAA fall test rating was always the sample that held the least falls.

shoo wrote: You sure about that? I was under the impression that the UIAA fall test rating was always the sample that held the least falls.

Positive. I'll look for my source but I read this some years ago, probably from Jim at Sterling.

The confusion here is that the UIAA sample IS that sample that held the least falls. However, that is all the UIAA cares about. The manufacturer can advertise falls in a different manner.

Clyde wrote:Shoo, please do some more homework before you post. Your "facts" are wrong on many counts for example it's actually a 1.71 fall factor, the masses used are 80 kg and 55 kg, and fall ratings is actually a decent indicator of durability. Static elongation doesn't really tell you much and dynamic elongation isn't tested.

Ah, thank you for the fact check. I have changed the first e-mail to reflect this (and marked the change from my original post. As for the fall factor, I was using this reference, since I couldn't find it on the UIAA site. Have a better reference?

Kai Huang wrote: How would I know it will hold a few or 5 if it's not labeled? How would I know coffee is hot if it doesn't say so on a cup?

Because the UIAA logo is on the packaging, and because it's coffee. I think you actually made my argument for me here.

fall ratings tell you how one rope compares to the others. that's all. and, it's valuable information as you're evaluating different ropes.

as for misleading information, the worse thing that might happen is a new climber will retire his rope early because he took 6 falls and thinks it's reached its limit. big deal.

shoo wrote: Because the UIAA logo is on the packaging, and because it's coffee. I think you actually made my argument for me here.

We are in America after all. Because it's coffee, if it doesn't say it's hot, it must not be hot, and if i get burned from that, it's your fault to not tell me it's hot.

shoo wrote: Ah, thank you for the fact check. I have changed the first e-mail to reflect this (and marked the change from my original post. As for the fall factor, I was using this reference, since I couldn't find it on the UIAA site. Have a better reference?

A quick quote from RC. Not what I was looking for, but supports what you were saying. FYI, I didn't manage to find my source. Who knows where I originally read it. Regardless, I'll retract my 'positive' statement from earlier. Everything below here is quoted from Jim at Sterling.

Sorry to not be addressing the OP but rgold answered it perfectly and left pretty much nothing to add.

I did find this in greenketch's post and wanted to point something out.

greenketch wrote: What the UIAA test can tell us is information of how durable a rope is, a rope rated 7 falls is less durable than one rated 9.

This is not actually true. Number of rated falls and durability are not the same thing. Ropes with a high number of rated falls are generally on the soft side. Soft ropes tend to wear much faster than ropes of higher density. Sheath thickness is more of an indication of durability. If we go by the idea that ropes should be retired when the sheath is worn badly or all the way through to the core then a rope with a thick sheath will last longer than one which is thinner.

Another factor that may be a little more difficult to understand is the amount of twist the manufacturer puts in the sheath yarns (strands). As the yarn is twisted the cross section (diameter) of the strand increases. The larger the diameter, obviously, the thicker the sheath. However, it is possible to have too much twist, in which case there is a serious loss of strength. The optimum amount of twist will enhance durability with no loss of strength.

Sorry if this hijacks the thread.

-Jim

Crag Dweller wrote:fall ratings tell you how one rope compares to the others. that's all. and, it's valuable information as you're evaluating different ropes. as for misleading information, the worse thing that might happen is a new climber will retire his rope early because he took 6 falls and thinks it's reached its limit. big deal.

Amen!

Here are some other misleading labels:

1. EPA mileage estimates on cars.

2. calories per serving (1 bottle of coke is 2.5 servings.)

3. "The Big n Tasty" at MacD's. It's neither.

shotwell wrote: A quick quote from RC. Not what I was looking for, but supports what you were saying. FYI, I didn't manage to find my source. Who knows where I originally read it. Regardless, I'll retract my 'positive' statement from earlier. Everything below here is quoted from Jim at Sterling. Sorry to not be addressing the OP but rgold answered it perfectly and left pretty much nothing to add. I did find this in greenketch's post and wanted to point something out. greenketch wrote: What the UIAA test can tell us is information of how durable a rope is, a rope rated 7 falls is less durable than one rated 9. This is not actually true. Number of rated falls and durability are not the same thing. Ropes with a high number of rated falls are generally on the soft side. Soft ropes tend to wear much faster than ropes of higher density. Sheath thickness is more of an indication of durability. If we go by the idea that ropes should be retired when the sheath is worn badly or all the way through to the core then a rope with a thick sheath will last longer than one which is thinner. Another factor that may be a little more difficult to understand is the amount of twist the manufacturer puts in the sheath yarns (strands). As the yarn is twisted the cross section (diameter) of the strand increases. The larger the diameter, obviously, the thicker the sheath. However, it is possible to have too much twist, in which case there is a serious loss of strength. The optimum amount of twist will enhance durability with no loss of strength. Sorry if this hijacks the thread. -Jim

To take the above retraction a bit further, let me include the following from Beal. Obviously I must have been on crack.

To satisfy the Standards, single rope must withstand 5 successive factor 1.77 falls with a mass of 80kg; double rope 5 successive falls with a mass of 55kg; twin ropes 12 successive falls with a mass of 80kg on two strands.
The number of falls shown on the technical notice must not be higher than the poorest result found by the certifying laboratory.

jcurl wrote: Shoo, if you look at the graphic on the link to the UIAA website you posted you will see that the geometry leads to a factor of 1.71. But don't feel too bad as the number 1.78 is found in numerous sources like Freedom of the Hills and Craig Connally's Mountaineering Handbook (and apparently Beal's website). This small discrepency doesn't matter to someone buying a rope but you might wonder where it came from. Did the UIAA test change at some point? Is there some subtle feature to the test geometry that isn't clear from the diagram? Or is it just a mistake that has been perpetuated?

Yeah, just did the math. Definitely 1.71. I really don't know where these other numbers are coming from.

The # of falls is a relevant statistic to have on a label. It's just that most climbers won't care or will misinterpret what the stats really mean. # of falls held is a good second indicator behind impact force on the ropes ability to provide a soft catch. Highly relevant to climbers with marginal gear and/or heavy bodies. If someone buys a rope with more falls held thinking it will "last longer" or be more "Safe" they do so mistakenly but with no "risk" to themselves or others. The rope will still hold falls just fine.

An explantation of HOw the numbers are relevant to rope performance and why that matters would be a welcome ADDITION to rope tags.

They should also quote % sheath thickness on each tag.

They should REMOVE the thickness measurement as it has far too much +/-. 0.3mm is the allowable variation. More emphasis on weight per meter. Much better indicator.

The 55kg double rope weight is completely legit. You just need to know the why's and how's of the process. Doubles need to hold 1 UIAA 80kg drop test. 1 fall is a bit challenging stats wise so they came up with another method to test. The DAV figured out that 5 falls with 55kg is the same as one with 80kg. See below for the benefits of this.

From ST - "to the effect that the UIAA standards require a 'single' rope to hold at least 5 test drops before breaking; and they require a HALF rope to hold at least ONE (80kg) drop in the same test, because it typically holds an entire fall on its own in double-rope climbing, when the second-last piece is some distance below the last one. Now here's the point: one is an awkward number because if the rope survives one drop but breaks on the second one, it could be that it BARELY held ONE, or it could be that it NEARLY held TWO, or anything in between. It would be nice to know a little more, since conditions, age, or manufacturing irregularities could push the result over the line at either end, particularly below the one-drop end. So the UIAA looked for a drop-weight that would abuse the rope the same amount in 5 drops as the 80kg would abuse it in ONE. That turned out to be about 55kg.

Now the testers can drop away, and have more data to compare between different ropes or different chunks of the same rope: if a particular rope never breaks on the 4th drop, and sometimes makes it to 7 or 8, they can say it's definitely a solid half-rope. But if it sometimes breaks on the 3rd or 4th drop, they may eye it suspiciously, and re-rate it as a twin or send it back to the lab for beefing up."

mattm wrote:The # of falls is a relevant statistic to have on a label. It's just that most climbers won't care or will misinterpret what the stats really mean. # of falls held is a good second indicator behind impact force on the ropes ability to provide a soft catch. Highly relevant to climbers with marginal gear and/or heavy bodies.

How is this in any way useful when you already have both peak impact force and % elongation tests?