Rope can be cut due to user error, regardless of brand

That is a good point Matt.   SHE should not consider cutting it herself and selling it, as that could be very misleading.  That rope should only be sold “as is”  so that the next user can inspect it and understand 100% what happened and what they are getting and cut it themselves should they want to.  

To pile on in defense of brands like Maxim, I core shot a brand new 70m 9.5mm Sterling Helix on its first outing. On the 4th class scramble top "pitch" of Prodigal Sun, no less. Not even on real climbing terrain! Not to say there's no brand differentiation at all but climbing is abusive to bodies and gear.  These things are uncommon but do happen when circumstances align which have nothing to do with a brand or defect. I would 100% buy a Helix again, great rope. 

Yah, definitely user error.  Great way to ruin the return policy for the rest of us, Karen.  Shame, shame I say!!!

The first rope I ever bought (back in 2016) was a Sterling Evolution Velocity. I still use that rope. Though the ends have been trimmed, and it's now a 54m instead of the original 60m, it's still going strong.

in 2019, I bought another Velocity just prior to a trip to SD to climb at Rushmore and Custer. Shredded the sheath on our first day out. Rope got pinched funny against some big crystals in the granite, and just like that, the brand new rope is now suspect. There were no core shots, but in a few of the spots, I was able to "close the eye" on a bight no matter which direction I bent it. I suspected that the core was okay, but out of an abundance of caution, I trimmed the rop to remove the bad sections. Pulling those spots open confirmed that indeed, the core strands were perfectly fine.

Thankfully, this still left me with 42m of pristine brand-new rope, so it's been repurposed for the gym. (Cuz everyone needs a dry-treated gym rope, or YGD!)

Preeti Pwrote:

I don't know the cut/abrasion test, but knowing that test would give us an Idea of when a rope will pass or fail in the real world.  

back in the day (thinking late 80s/early90s) edelweiss used to have an abrasion test for their ropes.  couldn't dig up anything from them, but found this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6u9Fg7Yxk

there's also a nice test/write up by sterling here:

https://sterlingrope.com/logbook/145-testing-abrasion-resistance

the uiaa had an edge fall test (uiaa 108) in the early 2000s, 90 degrees angle with a 0.75mm radius edge, for a while and ropes who passed that test could claim that edge resistance. the test was later abandoned.  while the link below deals mostly with edelrid and static ropes, there's a slide on the dynamic rope test. 

 https://www.edelrid.de/en/salesmeeting/salesmeeting-ws/Safety-Range-2020_Ropes.pdf?m=1572877606

in the less complicated and big picture one should always keep in mind that dynamic climbing ropes are generally made of nylon (or similar material) and less than half an inch thick.  they are amazing at the job they do, but are not infallible and imho it is a serious mistake to expect them to be or look at them that way.  the op in the other thread certainly seemed surprised, don't be that person.  

HughCwrote:

Yah, definitely user error.  Great way to ruin the return policy for the rest of us, Karen.  Shame, shame I say!!!

Is this what the climbing community is now, calling total strangers names? Shame, shame I say!!!

Fehim Hasecicwrote:

Is this what the climbing community is now, calling total strangers names? Shame, shame I say!!!

Having seen your ethics in practice,  I am not surprised you'd support returning a rope to REI after shredding it while lowering someone over an edge.

Yeah I would also blame a nail through my new tire on the manufacturer and not because I drove over a bed of nails. 

Stay in the gym if you want to blame everyone else for everything. 

Former Climber wrote:

Two climbers... Your sharp edge can be different from his sharp edge. Your rope movement over an edge can be different from his rope movement. No two scenarios are the same. 

No lab testing can give you any idea when a rope will pass or fail in your own real world. Only your own sound judgement in the moment can.

Sorry for being blunt and I don't mean to offend, but there is really no other way to put it.

Welcome to test standards and engineering!

Yes, the real world has many variables, but test standards are just a repeatable approximation of the real world. You need to measure it to know it is "good".  A example is automotive crash standards.  No crash in the real world is the same, yet we run cars through a gambit of crashes.  New crash standard have been added over time like the "Moderate Overlap tests".  

SNELL Motorcycle helmet test standards have been modified over time as research was found and uncovered by Motorcycle magazines that the SNELL standard was not as safe as the DOT standard.  

old5tenwrote:

back in the day (thinking late 80s/early90s) edelweiss used to have an abrasion test for their ropes.  couldn't dig up anything from them, but found this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6u9Fg7Yxk

there's also a nice test/write up by sterling here:

https://sterlingrope.com/logbook/145-testing-abrasion-resistance

the uiaa had an edge fall test (uiaa 108) in the early 2000s, 90 degrees angle with a 0.75mm radius edge, for a while and ropes who passed that test could claim that edge resistance. the test was later abandoned.  while the link below deals mostly with edelrid and static ropes, there's a slide on the dynamic rope test. 

 https://www.edelrid.de/en/salesmeeting/salesmeeting-ws/Safety-Range-2020_Ropes.pdf?m=1572877606

in the less complicated and big picture one should always keep in mind that dynamic climbing ropes are generally made of nylon (or similar material) and less than half an inch thick.  they are amazing at the job they do, but are not infallible and imho it is a serious mistake to expect them to be or look at them that way.  the op in the other thread certainly seemed surprised, don't be that person.  

Thanks for the information.  

As a Engineer, no edge/abrasion test sounds quite scary.  I could see the potential of a new high performance rope being developed that could have dangerous edge/abrasion resistance, but we would never know because no test is done.

Its grim, but here is one scenario:

After a fatality, a failure analysis is done.  They take samples of rope and test it for abrasion and find that the failed rope has 1/4 the abrasion resistance of the all the other ropes on the market.  When they ask the rope manufacture for there abrasion resistance test data, they say "we don't have any".  Well, how do you know its safe? Yikes!

I wonder if REI has any data on returns due to sheath damage.

It never occurred to me to return it and complain. 

This attitude puts you out of sync with 99% of MP posters.

Considering how many falls have been taken, and how many sharp edges there are, it's wonderful and somewhat reassuring that so few fatalities have occurred. 

Still, I would pay more for a rope with increased cut resistance, however they measure it.

Garry Reisswrote:

Still, I would pay more for a rope with increased cut resistance, however they measure it.

What if they measure it by comparing its mass to that of a duck?

Garry Reisswrote:

Considering how many falls have been taken, and how many sharp edges there are, it's wonderful and somewhat reassuring that so few fatalities have occurred. 

Still, I would pay more for a rope with increased cut resistance, however they measure it.

And static ropes have this, but they are incredibly stiff and therefore poor for climbing outside of not having enough stretch and the corresponding shock absorption ability for falls. We need ropes that are supple, easy to tie knots in, and go through belay devices smoothly for lead belays. Imagine doing that with a new, static rope. Those ropes are like cables.

Tim Stichwrote:

And static ropes have this, but they are incredibly stiff and therefore poor for climbing outside of not having enough stretch and the corresponding shock absorption ability for falls. We need ropes that are supple, easy to tie knots in, and go through belay devices smoothly for lead belays. Imagine doing that with a new, static rope. Those ropes are like cables.

.. But gyms use 'static' ropes on top rope.  

This goes back to the "you have to measure it".  "Static" is probably a misnomer since there still could be 2.5%, 5% elongation.  Depends on the rope..  

Joseph Brodywrote:

"Static" is probably a misnomer since there still could be 2.5%, 5% elongation.

It's static relative to dynamic lead climbing ropes. It doesn't mean no elongation; just a whole lot less.

Preeti Pwrote:

Thanks for the information.  

As a Engineer, no edge/abrasion test sounds quite scary.  I could see the potential of a new high performance rope being developed that could have dangerous edge/abrasion resistance, but we would never know because no test is done.

Its grim, but here is one scenario:

After a fatality, a failure analysis is done.  They take samples of rope and test it for abrasion and find that the failed rope has 1/4 the abrasion resistance of the all the other ropes on the market.  When they ask the rope manufacture for there abrasion resistance test data, they say "we don't have any".  Well, how do you know its safe? Yikes!

I get your point, but to take back you example with cars, we don't test for instance how long a given model takes to sink if it falls into a body of water. Yet people have accidents that end up in bodies of water. Similarly, as far as I know, no or little tests are done with regards to various chemical compounds that end up in the car of cars from exhausts & engine combustion). Yet I wouldn't be surprised that on the average car, we're exposed to some amount of those chemicals, which can't be good for our health over our lifetime.

At some point, a line is drawn as to what is a needed test to put a given device through in order to certify it is save for it's intended uses. More tests would always be better, from purely a safety standpoint. I guess the line was drawn that resistance to single abrasion over a sharp edge isn't part of the safety guarantee of the rope itself, but falls into proper use instead. I'm personally OK with that, others may not. It may very well change - we tend to put in more tests & safety measures in most things as time go by. And it's not like the user has no control over that - a 10.5mm rope will very likely be more resistant to that kind of failure than a thin 8.0....

Franck Veewrote:

I get your point, but to take back you example with cars, we don't test for instance how long a given model takes to sink if it falls into a body of water. Yet people have accidents that end up in bodies of water. Similarly, as far as I know, no or little tests are done with regards to various chemical compounds that end up in the car of cars from exhausts & engine combustion). Yet I wouldn't be surprised that on the average car, we're exposed to some amount of those chemicals, which can't be good for our health over our lifetime.

At some point, a line is drawn as to what is a needed test to put a given device through in order to certify it is save for it's intended uses. More tests would always be better, from purely a safety standpoint. I guess the line was drawn that resistance to single abrasion over a sharp edge isn't part of the safety guarantee of the rope itself, but falls into proper use instead. I'm personally OK with that, others may not. It may very well change - we tend to put in more tests & safety measures in most things as time go by. And it's not like the user has no control over that - a 10.5mm rope will very likely be more resistant to that kind of failure than a thin 8.0....

I agree that you have to draw the line between main cases and corner cases. Rope manufactures can test their rope separately for corner cases. I would still put rope abrasion as a main case. The UIAA testing is very brief.