Mountain Project Logo

HowNot2 Gets Closer to Reality

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
Tradiban wrote:

The industry ratings are only good for comparisons, "that biner is stronger than that biner", they aren't helpful in determining best practices. Ryan et al is at least is striving for more informative testing.

Maybe in your fantasy world but the rest of the climbing population seem to find the standards useful if not essential. You could always set up a company selling un-rated "climbing" ropes made in China and test your theory.

You are the person that queried Ryans test method even though he made a correct decision, your idea would give no more information, in fact less. His test gives several pieces of information to his viewers ( apart from the karabiner/quick link issue) which may be of use to those less knowledgeable, that soft shackles may not be as good as hoped, that cross loaded steel karabiners blow out and burly static ropes can also fail. None of which your concept would provide.

Ryans testing is good, he's young(er), more enthusiastic, willing to put his time and money where his mouth is and learning. If nothing alse his tests can lead to dabates where normal climbers get an idea of why it isn't simple, why "real world testing" is usually a waste of time and why a certain amount of thought and knowledge is required to design effective tests. Reading dull technical papers is regrettably the only way to provide normal climbers with reliable information, he doesn't pretend to be scientific, he's producing entertainment for Tubers.

For example Ryan mentions he is going to drop test karabiners (one assumes to see if the strength rating derived from pull tests is accurate). So he'll bust a few, make a 15 minute video which raises more questions than it answers and everyone is happy since they see "real world testing" but nothing will change in the real world. That this was done in the early 70's when the standards were established is irrelevant, that this was extensively and extremely accurately studied (the usual 2 year post grad engineering student thing) and that derived from their recommendations re testing I was paid a four-figure sum to work out why this occurred won't effect his YouTube clicks or his income and the subsequent debate MP's click count either. It won't change good climbing practice or karabiner design either, it's just gear porn videos instead of real sex.

Javinder Bains · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2021 · Points: 0

The real question is will we all die from chinesium carabiners that he couldn't break below ratings?

Asking for a friend off course!

I never expected such entertainment from these forums!

Should have signed up years ago!

.

Tradiban · · 951-527-7959 · Joined Jul 2020 · Points: 212
Jim Titt wrote:

Maybe in your fantasy world but the rest of the climbing population seem to find the standards useful if not essential. You could always set up a company selling un-rated "climbing" ropes made in China and test your theory.

You are the person that queried Ryans test method even though he made a correct decision, your idea would give no more information, in fact less. His test gives several pieces of information to his viewers ( apart from the karabiner/quick link issue) which may be of use to those less knowledgeable, that soft shackles may not be as good as hoped, that cross loaded steel karabiners blow out and burly static ropes can also fail. None of which your concept would provide.

Ryans testing is good, he's young(er), more enthusiastic, willing to put his time and money where his mouth is and learning. If nothing alse his tests can lead to dabates where normal climbers get an idea of why it isn't simple, why "real world testing" is usually a waste of time and why a certain amount of thought and knowledge is required to design effective tests. Reading dull technical papers is regrettably the only way to provide normal climbers with reliable information, he doesn't pretend to be scientific, he's producing entertainment for Tubers.

For example Ryan mentions he is going to drop test karabiners (one assumes to see if the strength rating derived from pull tests is accurate). So he'll bust a few, make a 15 minute video which raises more questions than it answers and everyone is happy since they see "real world testing" but nothing will change in the real world. That this was done in the early 70's when the standards were established is irrelevant, that this was extensively and extremely accurately studied (the usual 2 year post grad engineering student thing) and that derived from their recommendations re testing I was paid a four-figure sum to work out why this occurred won't effect his YouTube clicks or his income and the subsequent debate MP's click count either. It won't change good climbing practice or karabiner design either, it's just gear porn videos instead of real sex.

Yes, there has to be industry standards in order to make sure quality and safe product is available but that's really all that industry standards achieve. 

I get it you are trying to protect your livelihood and these YouTubers amateur scientists are a threat and a nuisance. They are not a threat to you and what you do, they are doing something different.  

Sometimes to advance science we have to start with a fresh perspective, and ignore the old ways.

that guy named seb · · Britland · Joined Oct 2015 · Points: 236

Jim, I suggest you ignore the troll. 

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
that guy named seb wrote:

Jim, I suggest you ignore the troll. 

I enjoy making him look more meaningless every time he posts, welding is boring!

soft crux · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2021 · Points: 0
Tradiban wrote:

The industry ratings are only good for comparisons, "that biner is stronger than that biner", they aren't helpful in determining best practices. Ryan et al is at least is striving for more informative testing.

Exactly.

And the comparisons are not even very useful because all gear exceeds any real-world breaking scenario, when the gear is used as it is tested. 

Ryan isn't scientifically rigorous but his projects might still teach us something useful. The exact science of industry testing is no longer interesting. It's just a routine and mundane QA process. We already know that gear is plenty strong unless we use it in a way that hasn't been tested. The industry may as well stamp gear with a label "strong enough" and skip all the silly numbers. The specific numbers don't mean anything any more.

But "strong enough" gear still breaks occasionally and it is interesting to investigate why that happens. That's all Ryan is trying to do.

We can all see in this thread that Jim has a bit of a following that is regularly checking in so that they can immediately press the like button every time he posts (as well as occasionally taking a moment to write a short fan letter.)  Celebrities can be fun, some people enjoy following the Kardashians, others are into people who make climbing gear. And if the celebrity gets a rise from the attention or the like count or whatever, it's all good. But for those that are curious why gear still breaks in unusual stations, answers like "I know how to test better than the other guy" are not useful.

Ryan's stuff is fun, thought-provoking, and even collaborative because he responds to viewer suggestions. Has anyone tried making a suggestion to JT? I wonder how that would go over...

Noel Z · · UK · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 15
Jim Titt wrote:

I enjoy making him look more meaningless every time he posts.

Every time you come on here, it's to see who is hanging on your coat tails.

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
soft crux wrote:

Has anyone tried making a suggestion to JT? I wonder how that would go over...

You mean like how strong is a karabiner loaded over a quicklink? Sure, we did that one before.

The thread was 15th April 2018, with photo's no less.

soft crux · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2021 · Points: 0
Jim Titt wrote:

You mean like how strong is a karabiner loaded over a quicklink? Sure, we did that one before.

Thanks Jim. I think it's very clear at this point that you've done [insert everything here] before.

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
soft crux wrote:

Thanks Jim. I think it's very clear at this point that you've done [insert everything here] before.

Well no, there's some stuff I don't get involved with as I don't have neither the background knowledge nor any interest. I don't do SLCD's for example as I know basically nothing and have an acqaintance who has 30 years experience in their design. Don't do ice gear either, I only scrape ice off my car or put it in my whisky. But I know who to ask if I want to.

We (Ryan, Bobby and I) know what we each do and mutually respect this, we aren't in some grade-school willy- waving conpetition, we comunicate privately and do our own thing. Ryan is a publicist, I'm an engineer. He get's his kicks from clicks, I don't. Internet discussion is simply entertainment, nothing much reaĺly happens on it of importance in the real world, Tradiban is merely trolling when he says Ryan is threatening my income, he knows nothing whatsoever about me and my assets or my earnings.

If you really want to know how it works look at Ryan's video titled something like Too much epoxy is bad, there you will see him testing something posted on MP and confirming the the results, guess who wrote the original. And he didn't follow up the repeated requests to perform the tests in soft rock, guess who did and posted them. 

Some if his testing is entertaining but absolute garbage, his equalising is a myth is one but that has been commented on enough anyway, the wrapped slings one is sorta fun but completely flawed, he removes the much beloved "real world" factor from the word go to both obtain a completely incorrect conclusion and at the same time rubbish someone elses incorrect crap. All of which with the knowledge he already posseses he knew.

soft crux · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2021 · Points: 0
Jim Titt wrote:

Well no, there's some stuff I don't get involved with as I don't have neither the background knowledge nor any interest. I don't do SLCD's for example as I know basically nothing and have an acqaintance who has 30 years experience in their design. Don't do ice gear either, I only scrape ice off my car or put it in my whisky. But I know who to ask if I want to.

We (Ryan, Bobby and I) know what we each do and mutually respect this, we aren't in some grade-school willy- waving conpetition, we comunicate privately and do our own thing. Ryan is a publicist, I'm an engineer. He get's his kicks from clicks, I don't. Internet discussion is simply entertainment, nothing much reaĺly happens on it of importance in the real world, Tradiban is merely trolling when he says Ryan is threatening my income, he knows nothing whatsoever about me and my assets or my earnings.

If you really want to know how it works look at Ryan's video titled something like Too much epoxy is bad, there you will see him testing something posted on MP and confirming the the results, guess who wrote the original. And he didn't follow up the repeated requests to perform the tests in soft rock, guess who did and posted them. 

Some if his testing is entertaining but absolute garbage, his equalising is a myth is one but that has been commented on enough anyway, the wrapped slings one is sorta fun but completely flawed, he removes the much beloved "real world" factor from the word go to both obtain a completely incorrect conclusion and at the same time rubbish someone elses incorrect crap. All of which with the knowledge he already posseses he knew.

Thanks for making it clear that there is mutual respect.

I see now that this is not some grade-school willy- waving competition.  It can't be a competition when only one grade schooler is waving their willy.

Tradiban · · 951-527-7959 · Joined Jul 2020 · Points: 212
Jim Titt wrote:

Well no, there's some stuff I don't get involved with as I don't have neither the background knowledge nor any interest. I don't do SLCD's for example as I know basically nothing and have an acqaintance who has 30 years experience in their design. Don't do ice gear either, I only scrape ice off my car or put it in my whisky. But I know who to ask if I want to.

We (Ryan, Bobby and I) know what we each do and mutually respect this, we aren't in some grade-school willy- waving conpetition, we comunicate privately and do our own thing. Ryan is a publicist, I'm an engineer. He get's his kicks from clicks, I don't. Internet discussion is simply entertainment, nothing much reaĺly happens on it of importance in the real world, Tradiban is merely trolling when he says Ryan is threatening my income, he knows nothing whatsoever about me and my assets or my earnings.

If you really want to know how it works look at Ryan's video titled something like Too much epoxy is bad, there you will see him testing something posted on MP and confirming the the results, guess who wrote the original. And he didn't follow up the repeated requests to perform the tests in soft rock, guess who did and posted them. 

Some if his testing is entertaining but absolute garbage, his equalising is a myth is one but that has been commented on enough anyway, the wrapped slings one is sorta fun but completely flawed, he removes the much beloved "real world" factor from the word go to both obtain a completely incorrect conclusion and at the same time rubbish someone elses incorrect crap. All of which with the knowledge he already posseses he knew.

I'm not saying Ryan threatens your income, I'm saying he threatens your cachet. But like I said, no need to worry, he's not going after industry standards anyway.

You've done your job Jim and you've done it well enough. Let Ryan et al do their work, they might surprise you!

Cole Forsmark · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Jul 2021 · Points: 5

7:48 IM FAMOUS MOM 

https://youtu.be/D_i0sP9EXBc

Rough to see ryan so worked up here. But he seems to have the right attitude about this

steve barratt · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2019 · Points: 0

I'm a scientist and have been a rock climber for 30 years. I have learnt a bunch of interesting things from observing how gear breaks in Ryan and Bobby's tests. They are exactly what Ryan says: backyard science. It's mostly not going to be publishable, or suitable for the basis of a standardised certification test, but that is not the point for me. All my gear is already certified. The videos let me see a variety of modes of failure in action. I know that these won't apply in all settings, but at least I have some knowledge of how these systems might fail, compared to none at all.

Why is that extra knowledge useful to me? We already have access to standardised data for product strength comparison, between similar products, in the form of MBS-type ratings on the products themselves. The standardised tests -the methods of which I only vaguely understand- for strength, CE and UIAA certification don't give me much extra information for when I need to make well-informed decisions about relative risks when I meet an edge-case scenario out on the rock. I have browsed the info at UIAA (which can be frustrating because it often just references the obfuscated CE tests), read the bolt-products info and tried to search for specific things in the published academic literature. HowNot2 provides a valuable augmentation to those sources of information. In our climbing world it happens that occasionally gear rips, breaks, ropes become damaged, people lose control of the rope, abseil anchors fail, and people do become injured or die. If I can understand a little more about how some of the gear failures occur -even if it is a rare thing, or user error- I can know where to best direct my suspicion, caution and attention. If I understand slightly more of the mechanics, I can say, for example, "well that's a risk, but because of this factor here, in this exact spot, this other thing is more of a problem". I can make more informed choices.

It's useful to cite specific papers which have performed rigorous academic testing. Unfortunately, these can be hard to find for non-experts, are often are highly specific to a single failure factor, and almost never have videos which I can watch while eating my breakfast! We (almost) all have limited bandwidth these days, and a 20 minute youtube clip is just a bonus chunk of information for me, at zero cost. It's worth keeping in mind that most of the climbing world doesn't have mountainproject on its radar, let alone specific experts therein. By contrast, the chances of people coming across Ryans videos are significantly higher. If one wanted to rank effectiveness in educating the climbing world about about detailed gear failure modes, even if he makes errors here and there, he is probably the world leader. This should bring some degree of responsibility, and he seems usually quite responsible when providing caveats and cautions in the break tests. He makes some errors sometimes, and I find that frustrating, but on the other hand I'm doing nothing to help anyone. It is hard to believe his contributions haven't made the climbing (and slacklining) world safer overall, even if that is by a very small degree.

If you are an expert on a topic like those we're talking about, chances are you didn't get there by just believing what someone credible told you in a brief communication. Instead you probably worked through actual tests or their data, built an internal appreciation of the mechanisms involved, then synthesised all that into an understanding. I think it is worth always keeping it in mind that just as the expert is not satisfied with 'just being told', neither are many non-experts. We non-experts want to understand too, and most of this isn't all that complicated that it is out of reach. If you are an expert, and you know a bunch more, or there is a pertinent study please add links, at youtube comments or somewhere like here, so we can actually read the details. As I said, just being told something is a particular way, because an expert said so, or because of a vaguely referenced study, its not particularly intellectually satisfying, nor compelling, even if it is technically useful.

Thanks to everyone who provides more information to help us understand our climbing systems as completely as possible!

Tim Parkin · · Ballachulish, Highland · Joined Jun 2018 · Points: 0
steve barratt wrote:

I'm a scientist and have been a rock climber for 30 years. I have learnt a bunch of interesting things from observing how gear breaks in Ryan and Bobby's tests. They are exactly what Ryan says: backyard science. It's mostly not going to be publishable, or suitable for the basis of a standardised certification test, but that is not the point for me. All my gear is already certified. The videos let me see a variety of modes of failure in action. I know that these won't apply in all settings, but at least I have some knowledge of how these systems might fail, compared to none at all.

Why is that extra knowledge useful to me? We already have access to standardised data for product strength comparison, between similar products, in the form of MBS-type ratings on the products themselves. The standardised tests -the methods of which I only vaguely understand- for strength, CE and UIAA certification don't give me much extra information for when I need to make well-informed decisions about relative risks when I meet an edge-case scenario out on the rock. I have browsed the info at UIAA (which can be frustrating because it often just references the obfuscated CE tests), read the bolt-products info and tried to search for specific things in the published academic literature. HowNot2 provides a valuable augmentation to those sources of information. In our climbing world it happens that occasionally gear rips, breaks, ropes become damaged, people lose control of the rope, abseil anchors fail, and people do become injured or die. If I can understand a little more about how some of the gear failures occur -even if it is a rare thing, or user error- I can know where to best direct my suspicion, caution and attention. If I understand slightly more of the mechanics, I can say, for example, "well that's a risk, but because of this factor here, in this exact spot, this other thing is more of a problem". I can make more informed choices.

It's useful to cite specific papers which have performed rigorous academic testing. Unfortunately, these can be hard to find for non-experts, are often are highly specific to a single failure factor, and almost never have videos which I can watch while eating my breakfast! We (almost) all have limited bandwidth these days, and a 20 minute youtube clip is just a bonus chunk of information for me, at zero cost. It's worth keeping in mind that most of the climbing world doesn't have mountainproject on its radar, let alone specific experts therein. By contrast, the chances of people coming across Ryans videos are significantly higher. If one wanted to rank effectiveness in educating the climbing world about about detailed gear failure modes, even if he makes errors here and there, he is probably the world leader. This should bring some degree of responsibility, and he seems usually quite responsible when providing caveats and cautions in the break tests. He makes some errors sometimes, and I find that frustrating, but on the other hand I'm doing nothing to help anyone. It is hard to believe his contributions haven't made the climbing (and slacklining) world safer overall, even if that is by a very small degree.

If you are an expert on a topic like those we're talking about, chances are you didn't get there by just believing what someone credible told you in a brief communication. Instead you probably worked through actual tests or their data, built an internal appreciation of the mechanisms involved, then synthesised all that into an understanding. I think it is worth always keeping it in mind that just as the expert is not satisfied with 'just being told', neither are many non-experts. We non-experts want to understand too, and most of this isn't all that complicated that it is out of reach. If you are an expert, and you know a bunch more, or there is a pertinent study please add links, at youtube comments or somewhere like here, so we can actually read the details. As I said, just being told something is a particular way, because an expert said so, or because of a vaguely referenced study, its not particularly intellectually satisfying, nor compelling, even if it is technically useful.

Thanks to everyone who provides more information to help us understand our climbing systems as completely as possible!

I came to pretty much say exactly the same. I wish that there was a web page out there that could summarise some of the academic papers available. I've a PhD in engineering and find many of the research papers are written terribly in terms of clarity of communication and that's from someone with a high level engineering background. Having a video available to see how a test was done and to see how failures happen is so important to me personally. 

e.g. Seeing how cams fail in rock. You can read that they fail based on rock strength and that the external forces are great etc but until you see things actually pulling with the lobes of a came flexing, you don't really understand what is happening.

e.g. seeing how sequential failures absorb energy in a system. I read the paper but just seeing it happen gave me more information in two seconds than spending 30 minutes reading the paper. I'm not saying that the paper is useless - the paper is essential but there are two side to communicating. Ideally, the paper would come with a set of videos showing exactly how things were done and with somebody explaining the results but we have wait for somebody else to provide this info.

If I had the resources, I'd love to try to build something like Ryan is doing myself, even though I can research things online with academic access (as for the criminal unavailability of good papers to non-acadamic access. That obviously makes things even harder).

 In short - there's a place for both and I would hope that Ryan will keep talking to Jim and investigating previous research and I also hope that new research papers take a communication leaf out of Ryan's book in order to make their results more accessible (and also make their methodology a lot clearer - a written description can miss so much)



Carolina · · Front Range NC · Joined Nov 2010 · Points: 20

Ryan is sharp guy.  Jim is sharp guy.  Can't yawl be friends.  I mean lets go climbing and then share a chicken and beer.  

amarius · · Nowhere, OK · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 20
Tim Parkin wrote:

I came to pretty much say exactly the same. I wish that there was a web page out there that could summarize some of the academic papers available. I [...] find many of the research papers are written terribly in terms of clarity of communication and that's from someone with a high level engineering background. Having a video available to see how a test was done and to see how failures happen is so important to me personally. 

Having read quite a few technical papers related to both climbing equipment and technique I  wholeheartedly agree with you.
Ryan's videos might not have scientific rigor worth a peer reviewed publication, but they are "super good enough" to get some points across. Kudos to him for having backdoor communication channels open with people having experience in industry.

Teton Climber · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2011 · Points: 1

Looks like Ryan is upset at everyone for taking themselves too seriously about the BS that passes for content on MP.. 

Posting about this thread on YouTube is an interesting move. Doesn't seem to be worth the investment of time to me. 

M M · · Maine · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 2

This guy Ryan is accumulating "beefs" quickly, I wonder if it has anything to do with hits on his page lol. Ignoring the freaks and haters definitely does not generate many hits...

 I gotta hand it to people that make a living off of amateur videos, its definitely hard work.

Ok, made it halfway through and the guy is obsessed with calling anything and anyone a troll for not being 100% on board his personal experiments... 

Well played I say, well played!

M M · · Maine · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 2

Here is a serious question. Would highliners actually highline if nobody was watching?

This topic is locked and closed to new replies.

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.