Gumball Quickdraws

My two cents: most of the individuals behind this project are students at the University wall where I work, teach and climb daily. Those who have come in with the prototype are not frequent climbers (at least not at our gym) and were quite vague about safety ratings when I asked them details- no mention of CE, UIAA standards. Personally, I found that holding the gumball carabiner in a clipping position felt awkward & large compared to most quickdraws I have used when I asked to try it out (but perhaps that is because I'm so used to the feeling of traditional gym clips, my wiregate quickdraws, Petzl spirits, etc.) There were quite a few raised eyebrows from the climbing staff when they came in to film portions of their kickstarter. 

However, the few guys I know behind the project are very friendly, enthusiastic individuals and seem open to constructive criticism. As a design student myself; I hope they are encouraged to continue exploring new ideas and at the very least, that this otherwise "solution-looking-for-a-problem" project is a platform for more deliberate innovation down the road. 

Jess Arnold wrote:

My two cents: most of the individuals behind this project are students at the University wall where I work, teach and climb daily. Those who have come in with the prototype are not frequent climbers (at least not at our gym) and were quite vague about safety ratings when I asked them details- no mention of CE, UIAA standards. Personally, I found that holding the gumball carabiner in a clipping position felt awkward & large compared to most quickdraws I have used when I asked to try it out (but perhaps that is because I'm so used to the feeling of traditional gym clips, my wiregate quickdraws, Petzl spirits, etc.) There were quite a few raised eyebrows from the climbing staff when they came in to film portions of their kickstarter. 

However, the few guys I know behind the project are very friendly, enthusiastic individuals and seem open to constructive criticism. As a design student myself; I hope they are encouraged to continue exploring new ideas and at the very least, that this otherwise "solution-looking-for-a-problem" project is a platform for more deliberate innovation down the road. 

I am an engineer and have spent a lot of time looking at crowdfunded projects as part of a watch blog where I used to write.  I can smell unfulfillable promises a mile away.  If you know these guys, and want to encourage them, you should pull them aside and have a talk with them about how to properly design a project and how to be honest with their marketing materials.  They may aspire to a CE or UIAA rating, and they may aspire to a 20kn closed gate strength, but they are claiming that they are already there in the campaign, and this is at best misleading, at worst a flat out lie, and in any case intellectually dishonest.

They are not frequent climbers.  Have they talked to frequent climbers about what real issues are with biners?  Did they put this in the hands of real climbers to see how it would work in the planning stage?  With rapid prototyping being what it is today, it isn't expensive or time consuming to make mock-ups.  Do they understand that the rating which they claim to have are real world things that are very expensive to acquire are an absolute requirement to enter the market?  Do they know that they would be opening themselves up to massive lawsuits by selling this type of gear without insurance to back themselves up and the proper ratings from the certification agencies (which the insurance companies would require proir to issuing insurance)?  Do they know that some state AGs have gone after crowd funding projects that end up being scams, and with the promises made here, an argument could be made that this qualifies?

Matt Himmelstein wrote:

I am an engineer and have spent a lot of time looking at crowdfunded projects as part of a watch blog where I used to write.  I can smell unfulfillable promises a mile away.  If you know these guys, and want to encourage them, you should pull them aside and have a talk with them about how to properly design a project and how to be honest with their marketing materials.  They may aspire to a CE or UIAA rating, and they may aspire to a 20kn closed gate strength, but they are claiming that they are already there in the campaign, and this is at best misleading, at worst a flat out lie, and in any case intellectually dishonest.

They are not frequent climbers.  Have they talked to frequent climbers about what real issues are with biners?  Did they put this in the hands of real climbers to see how it would work in the planning stage?  With rapid prototyping being what it is today, it isn't expensive or time consuming to make mock-ups.  Do they understand that the rating which they claim to have are real world things that are very expensive to acquire are an absolute requirement to enter the market?  Do they know that they would be opening themselves up to massive lawsuits by selling this type of gear without insurance to back themselves up and the proper ratings from the certification agencies (which the insurance companies would require proir to issuing insurance)?  Do they know that some state AGs have gone after crowd funding projects that end up being scams, and with the promises made here, an argument could be made that this qualifies?

Thank you for the detailed response! This is obviously more complex than my own, and likely many others', initial impression. I'm very much encouraged to discuss the points you brought up here with them if and when they head back to the gym. 

All,

First of all, thank you so much for all of the feedback. You have brought up some important concerns, and we've tried to resolve them as best as possible. I'll try my best to tackle some of the specifics below, feel free to reply with any follow up.

CE Certification: First and foremost, we want to tackle the safety questions and verbiage. We're currently working with a prototype made of CNCed milled aluminum, thus we have not conducted stress tests as it will not give nearly the same results as the final forged design. We're working with our manufacturing partner to ensure the capacity to stress test a manufacturing run of a single forged clip before a major run. Obviously, we won't release a 'biner that isn't certified, and that means we'll bring it back to the drawing board if need be (which we probably already will, given the feedback here). I apologize for the inconsistent verbiage on our website vs. Kickstarter, we've changed it to future tense across the board. We never meant to lie or mislead anyone with this, and we understand safety is tantamount. We wouldn't put anything that isn't CE certified on the market, though.

Manufacturing and Product Costs: Folks are skeptical that we can get a run off the line for $10k. This is valid, as the $10k doesn't leave us a lot of breathing room. Part of the reason for our high product costs is the amortized costs of tooling, certification, and insurance that work into this figure, and we're hoping to beat that figure for this reason. Thank you to those of you who brought up the Spirit as a point of comparison, we'll work to keep our costs around that draw. This has been a balancing act between communicating legitimacy through price, making ends meet, and pricing within competitors' ranges; we'll make the adjustments where necessary to make this product more affordable.

Folks Concerned about Back / Un Clipping:  This boils down to misuse. We're looking for a way to quantify this through testing, but we're confident any freak circumstances that would unclip our 'biner would also do this to any other clip on the market. Maybe I'm not understanding this concern correctly, but could someone illustrate a situation where the Gumball adds liability not present in another carabiner? This would help us a ton in our design revisions.

Product Design and Branding: We'll work the shrink the footprint, you're all right when you say the clip is large. Keep in mind this is a prototype. If you look back through our revisions, we've come a long way in terms of viability, and we were excited to get something that felt feasible; it's tweaks from here forward. We're under certain deadlines as well, and had spent a long time going back and forth about design decisions, so we wanted to get something into the wild for exactly this reason: we wanted the forums and seasoned climbers to give us feedback, which we've been collecting ever since. In retrospect, we should have posted here sooner for a critical and widespread eyes.

TL;DR: Thank you for your feedback, we're looking to make improvements wherever possible. Keep in mind that this is a prototype and that we're trying to help new climbers get into the sport. Please reach out with any additional comments or concerns, we'll work to incorporate your feedback into our final product as best as possible.

Cheers,

Steve

When it comes to the unclipping issue, you can look to see that Mad Rock has the extension on the other side of the gate as well to help shroud and prevent this. Also, have you not realized that, essentially, Mad Rock has already created the same product you are trying to produce? I'm not sure if you guys have looked into patent infringement, but that may be another thing to take a look at. 

the thought of buying a kickstarter carabiner is terrifying, let alone some college student's crappy class project (sorry for the harsh words kids, but that's the truth). Leave the manufacture of safety equipment to professionals... 

With respect to getting the carabiner certified-- as far as I can tell, it cost 400 euros a year just to register your company with the UIAA. This does not even include the cost of testing. There's no way that a company can survive selling a single product. 

"Folks Concerned about Back / Un Clipping:  This boils down to misuse. We're looking for a way to quantify this through testing, but we're confident any freak circumstances that would unclip our 'biner would also do this to any other clip on the market. Maybe I'm not understanding this concern correctly, but could someone illustrate a situation where the Gumball adds liability not present in another carabiner? This would help us a ton in our design revisions."

You're correct that you're not understanding the concern correctly. Which leads to a question: How much do you and your team actually CLIMB? You don't have to climb that much before you encounter this scenario. The simple version is that in a fall or some other motion (downclimbing, for example, to take a rest) the rope doubles back across the gate and pops back IN. That has the effect of unclipping your rope.  It happens mostly from backclipping but that is far from the only possibility. Your big protusion of a gumball that is the claimed FEATURE of your product is going to drive the rope into the gate way more often than any other regular carabiner on the market. Even if it's not back clipped. 

AndrewArroz wrote:

"Folks Concerned about Back / Un Clipping:  This boils down to misuse. We're looking for a way to quantify this through testing, but we're confident any freak circumstances that would unclip our 'biner would also do this to any other clip on the market. Maybe I'm not understanding this concern correctly, but could someone illustrate a situation where the Gumball adds liability not present in another carabiner? This would help us a ton in our design revisions."

You're correct that you're not understanding the concern correctly. Which leads to a question: How much do you and your team actually CLIMB? You don't have to climb that much before you encounter this scenario. The simple version is that in a fall or some other motion (downclimbing, for example, to take a rest) the rope doubles back across the gate and pops back IN. That has the effect of unclipping your rope.  It happens mostly from backclipping but that is far from the only possibility. Your big protusion of a gumball that is the claimed FEATURE of your product is going to drive the rope into the gate way more often than any other regular carabiner on the market. Even if it's not back clipped. 

+1

This shit will get someone hurt. 

Not saying you wont make money off it or be able to bring it to market though. But, I doubt you will make money off it.

 You guys are better off at doing the same shit that everyone else is doing by design and making a marketing company. You already have a decent name, dont be dumb and make a carabiner like this. Or, if you dont care about losing money, lawsuits, or permanently disabling stupid people who dont know any better then by all means..market the shit out of the carabiner. 

People will buy a pet rock. I'm sure they will buy your product. 

I wonder if you have submitted the name Anchor Labs and the design of the carabiner to the patent office yet.... Interesting...

It might not help back-clipping, but it might be useful for z-clipping...as the two carabiners are pulled together they might allow the rope to unclip from both, cutting down on rope drag significantly.

ebmudder wrote:

It might not help back-clipping, but it might be useful for z-clipping...as the two carabiners are pulled together they might allow the rope to unclip from both, cutting down on rope drag significantly.

I have commented on their facebook posting re: this carabiner design, pointing out that it's more likely to lead to the rare but dangerous "rope unclipping itself".  I was given a vague but positive response by Cal McCormick.  "We did a lot of fall testing and we made some manufacturing tweaks so when it hangs, the ball is actually directly under the top of the gate, which helps avoid that.  Of course there's always a risk, but we thinks it's not any more risky that other bent gate carabiners with the changes we made."

I don't believe for a second that it's no more risky than other bent gate carabiners.  And in fact I'm not a fan of bent gate carabiners at all.
I don't feel like these guys are really hearing the concerns from the climbing community, not when they dismiss these risks as boiling "down to misuse".

I did have a friend suggest forcefully that this actually is an April Fool's joke.  

Kiri Namtvedt wrote:

I have commented on their facebook posting re: this carabiner design, pointing out that it's more likely to lead to the rare but dangerous "rope unclipping itself".  I was given a vague but positive response by Cal McCormick.  "We did a lot of fall testing and we made some manufacturing tweaks so when it hangs, the ball is actually directly under the top of the gate, which helps avoid that.  Of course there's always a risk, but we thinks it's not any more risky that other bent gate carabiners with the changes we made."

I don't believe for a second that it's no more risky than other bent gate carabiners.  And in fact I'm not a fan of bent gate carabiners at all.
I don't feel like these guys are really hearing the concerns from the climbing community, not when they dismiss these risks as boiling "down to misuse".

I did have a friend suggest forcefully that this actually is an April Fool's joke.  

If the ball is "directly under the top of the gate" wouldn't that defeat the purpose of making the rope pop in easily? And "top of the gate?" Perhaps he means the "bottom" of the gate as it's hanging?

I'd like to respectfully suggest that they simply put a bolt-side carabiner onto a dogbone and then epoxy glue the dogbone to the back of a small snapping turtle. Wave the rope in front of the snapping turtle and it will grab on an not let go. No clipping necessary. Could also use pit bulls or gila monsters in place of snapping turtles.

These are going to be certified by Trump University. There's nothing to worry about. In fact, they're going to be the best carabiners you've every seen. Or that anyone's seen. 

Andrewww wrote:

Pretty sure MadRock already beat them to this idea....

Wow... There is a lot going on here...

Folks Concerned about Back / Un Clipping:  This boils down to misuse. We're looking for a way to quantify this through testing, but we're confident any freak circumstances that would unclip our 'biner would also do this to any other clip on the market. Maybe I'm not understanding this concern correctly, but could someone illustrate a situation where the Gumball adds liability not present in another carabiner? This would help us a ton in our design revisions.

Having the rope catch the outside of the gate makes the rope coming out in a backclip much more likely. You can try this with many carabiners on the market, and you will notice that they've designed it to have the rope roll off the outside gate to make this occurrence much less likely.

Also, I wouldn't dismiss this situation to misuse or freak accidents. Backclipping is a fairly common mistake, especially for beginners . Hopefully with the graphic, you can see how allow the rope to easily catch the outside gate would greatly increase the risk of the rope coming out. Personally, I wouldn't find the increased risk worth it for the convince of a "easier" clip. There are probably ways to engineer this risk out though! best of luck!

Plus, once that BD HannSolo comes out rope and draws will essentially be completely phased out...

Hyo Byun wrote:

Having the rope catch the outside of the gate makes the rope coming out in a backclip much more likely. You can try this with many carabiners on the market, and you will notice that they've designed it to have the rope roll off the outside gate to make this occurrence much less likely.

Also, I wouldn't dismiss this situation to misuse or freak accidents. Backclipping is a fairly common mistake, especially for beginners . Hopefully with the graphic, you can see how allow the rope to easily catch the outside gate would greatly increase the risk of the rope coming out. Personally, I wouldn't find the increased risk worth it for the convince of a "easier" clip. There are probably ways to engineer this risk out though! best of luck!

That photo also illustrates why you should face the gates of your draws away from the way of intended travel so that the rope runs along the spine of the carabiner. In the above example, if the climber is cutting right the gates should be facing left. This used to be something that was mostly just known by the well-informed, but more recently manufacturers have actually been warning of the risk in the user manual for their quickdraws. Petzl does this. Further, while not that applicable to bolt hangers, U bolts have the possibility of coming uncliped if the gates are facing the wrong way. I've been able to replicate this in the field by intentionally flicking the rope in a controlled manner.

If a climber decides to face the gates the "wrong" way and the draw is not backclipped, the chances of the rope coming uncliped such as shown in your photo is extremely small. That said, over the course of an entire climbing lifetime matched with some bad luck, it is possible an incident could occur eventually if the climber consistently faced the gates the wrong way.

@Gumball Crew

Thoughtful effort, but this is a 18 yr old DMM bent gate biner providing the same solution. Basically every bent gate biner was designed to facilitate faster clipping on a quickdraw. The fact that it exists suggests you're thinking on the right track. Scrap the idea of bringing this to market and add it to your design portfolio. There are lots of problems still left to be solved unfortunately there isn't much more to be done here...

Appreciate the hustle / effort!

Since I assume these students are checking this thread I'd like to suggest that they revise their goal. Instead of making a draw that makes it "easier" to do something that, frankly, is already quite easy, why don't you retool and design an instructional product that helps people LEARN to clip more quickly.