Petzl Ice Tool Failures (Current Generation Quark, Nomic, and Ergonomic)

Mark Pilate wrote:

Conspiracy theory:  since the Nomic has been the pinnacle of a pure ice/easy mixed climbing tool for many years now, the only way BD could leap ahead, was to copy it, and then plant seeds of doubt in Petzl owners to get them to convert by staging and posting up several “failures” in a covert media smear campaign

This is a despicable business practice.  

But… just in case I’m wrong, I’ll probably get Hydras when it’s time to replace my Nomics  ;)

I’m not buying the smear campaign conspiracy. I think you’re just being silly. Since I’ve been accused of conspiracy theories here, it would be nice to stay focused on the fact that we are hearing real stories from real climbers that have bought Petzl tools and broken Nomics and Ergonomics (some of which have then replaced with more Petzl tools and have broken them again!).

If BD can basically copy the design but offer strength improvements I’m all for that. Hopefully Petzl can do the same and is focused on actually acknowledging this problem and making a stronger tool.

But while we’re being fair, here’s an interesting QC concern for the Hydra worth considering: reddit.com/r/iceclimbing/co…

Christian Donkey wrote:

I’m not buying the smear campaign conspiracy. I think you’re just being silly…..

Lol

ya think?

I would say that it really sucks.    Ice climbing is like full contact combat. You don't want to die because your fecking tool is a wimp.   The guys doing hard mixed most likely have good gear but plenty of folks climbing more traditional stuff don't always have good or any gear.  when I am hiking snow fields between pillars and my crampon balls up do I now have to worry that If I whack the snowball off with my tool that the head will pop off the next time  I desperately swing over a frozen mushroom and whack the shaft? or should I suck it up and risk a slip, fall and death to preserve my fragile tool....  What's with the clip in point not being full strength?  The guys who tried to do the 2nd ascent of Gorillas in the Mist by moonlight before the sun hit it would be dead right now with these tools. They ended up bailing from a pair of Quarks that subsequently melted out and were recovered at the base the next day.. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Nick, maybe you would be happier with DMM Cortex, Forecast, or Elite Climb tools.

They are all more expensive, but from a durability standpoint I’d argue they are the best options available currently.

Edit: also this Kailas tool would be likely more durable, and currently on sale. https://verticallstore.com/products/kailas-entheos-ii-ice-tool

Edit 2: also the Grivel X Monster possibly the strongest tool on the market (and possibly the most affordable!) according to JJ’s backyard tests: us.grivel.com/products/x-mo…

didn't like the way my grivel machines climbed...  climbing is a mental game. I do really like how the nomics climb. I really like how the x dreams climb. I would probobly just go back to X dreams but  don't have the budget to  just buy whatever I want whenever...  I like the swing of nomics a tiny bit better than X dreams,  The  nomic has a sharper spike than the x dreams  which is nice when topping out and hiking lower angle ice, The nomic pure ice pick is much more durable than the x dream Mixed picks..  The x dream picks seem soft and flatten out quickly, sharpen easily and therefore wear out quickly.   Th hammer on the nomics even works ok for pounding pins. X dream has no hammer. The Nomics can apparently break in half when you swing them into a mushroom.... 

Nomics just about the perfect steep ice tool except for the handle not being full strength..  You should Never clip that thing for pro but you should be able to if you absolutely had to. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

didn't like the way my grivel machines climbed...  climbing is a mental game. I do really like how the nomics climb. I really like how the x dreams climb. I would probobly just go back to X dreams but  don't have the budget to  just buy whatever I want whenever...  I like the swing of nomics a tiny bit better than X dreams,  The  nomic has a sharper spike than the x dreams  which is nice when topping out and hiking lower angle ice, The nomic pure ice pick is much more durable than the x dream Mixed picks..  The x dream picks seem soft and flatten out quickly, sharpen easily and therefore wear out quickly.   Th hammer on the nomics even works ok for pounding pins. X dream has no hammer. The Nomics can apparently break in half when you swing them into a mushroom.... 

Nomics just about the perfect steep ice tool except for the handle not being full strength..  You should Never clip that thing for pro but you should be able to if you absolutely had to. 

There is a hammer for X Dream: mountaineer.com/x-dream-x-a…

Interestingly the pommel on the Nomic may achieve a higher strength rating in the L position than the S. That star connector also doesn’t line up too nicely in all positions I’ve observed, which may have something to do with this.

Not sure if those test results I mentioned have been posted yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/iceclimbing/comments/1hf2r3t/ice_tool_strength_13/

Also, if you must clip into a Nomic handle, I’d personally loop a cord above the pommel for best results. This doesn’t fix the other problems with the tool breaking above the handle, however.

Grant Watson wrote:

No, it doesn't.  A force rating is a statement of the mimimum breaking strength.  It doesn't mean the component will break at that force, and in fact actual break forces on new gear are generally well above the MBS.

Good point & I think that is only partially correct. What you're describing sounds more in line with a Working Load Limit.

As far as I have been able to research, MBS ratings are 3-sigma calculations meaning that 99.7% of failures occur AT or ABOVE the given MBS. Therefore, this would imply that something's MBS will tell us the lowest amount of force or load that a something can withstand before it breaks or fails. Which means that something CAN break at that force or close to (MBS testing has no standard for a Safety Factor like a WLL would tell us).

Additionally, the issue with MBS tests in general is that there is no way to account for all variables (directions of pull, scenarios it was tested in, etc), and perhaps even more problematic, is that manufactures don't share how they test and calculate their MBS. Who knows under what parameters Petzl calculated their MBS of their pommel (Complicated even more by the fact, that the pommel is modular in 3 different configurations). The idea is that MBS is supposed to give us a reasonable number to work with based on the product's intended applications, but it's not a flawless calculation.

It's interesting to look at JJ's testing (just linked this in the post above): in the S setting it broke at 2.01kN, and L at 4.58kN. While this is a small data sample, they are real measurements for which we have not seen anyone else actually measure, so I believe they are of some use. To your point, Grant, he measured forces here greater than 1.5kn before it broke ~2kN (remember that's also sitting right around the rating of the tether at 2kn, for which there is no modular settings I am aware of). 

Looking at the photo posted from Greg's Ergonomic, it appears to be in either the stock M or S setting. 

I just find it hard to believe forces were significantly greater than 1.5kn-2kN if neither the pommel or tether broke, but I suppose it's possible?

And if Greg mentions that one of his failures was simply at body weight, that's even more frightening. No idea how much you weigh, Greg, but assuming somewhere between 150-300lbs, that's roughly only 0.666kN-1.333kN if you were directly clipped into your tool (implying this wasn't a fall scenario, just weighting the tool unassisted by a climbing rope/anchor(s), and full body weight?). 

To anyone, please chime in if you're more knowledgeable in these departments and can fact check me. 

Its a gnarly thought that companies actually make and sell an ice tool that can't  withstand a short shock load with body weight.  Heck back when I started ice climbing early 80's it was SOP to  clip directly into your tool on vertical terrain and bounce around while pounding a snarg into bulletproof ice. 

I'm going to regret wading back into this mess, but here goes:  

Has any manufacturer ever represented that their ice tools should be used as protection?  If not, why do people expect them to perform like protection?  Sure, people use stuff like ski poles and Nalgene bottles to make dead man snow anchors in a pinch (for example), but you don't hear them saying, "I can't believe that little stick of telescoping aluminum broke at less than 2 KN!"  Ice tools are aid, not pro. If you want/need pro, grab yourself an ice screw.

Mark Pilate wrote:

Conspiracy theory:  since the Nomic has been the pinnacle of a pure ice/easy mixed climbing tool for many years now, the only way BD could leap ahead, was to copy it, and then plant seeds of doubt in Petzl owners to get them to convert by staging and posting up several “failures” in a covert media smear campaign

This is a despicable business practice.  

But… just in case I’m wrong, I’ll probably get Hydras when it’s time to replace my Nomics  ;)

Oh I like a good conspiracy theory! In defence of Petzl tools, these failures are apparently extremely rare. I'm probably the only one who's broken two of them. And they did warranty the tools in all cases. I'm told they've done something to strengthen them, but I didn't get details. Perhaps they've eliminated this hole in the aluminum where they were snapping.

It's just that for me personally now, they feel spooky. BD tools feel more solid/stiff, and I really like a bunch of the details of the design. I'm now doing most of my hard dry tool cragging on CNC'd solid aluminum tools meant for comp climbing. I don't climb on them anywhere that falls matter, so if they somehow snap, so be it. Hydras climb that terrain beautifully, but it gives me peace of mind knowing I haven't cranked on them that hard. 

Greg Barrett wrote:

Oh I like a good conspiracy theory! In defence of Petzl tools, these failures are apparently extremely rare. I'm probably the only one who's broken two of them. And they did warranty the tools in all cases. I'm told they've done something to strengthen them, but I didn't get details. Perhaps they've eliminated this hole in the aluminum where they were snapping.

It's just that for me personally now, they feel spooky. BD tools feel more solid/stiff, and I really like a bunch of the details of the design. I'm now doing most of my hard dry tool cragging on CNC'd solid aluminum tools meant for comp climbing. I don't climb on them anywhere that falls matter, so if they somehow snap, so be it. Hydras climb that terrain beautifully, but it gives me peace of mind knowing I haven't cranked on them that hard. 

Could you post a picture of said cnc’d tools?

Climbing Weasel wrote:

Could you post a picture of said cnc’d tools?

Sure, mine are wrapped in tape so it's harder to see what's going on. This is someone else's photo. 

Christian Donkey wrote:

It's interesting to look at JJ's testing (just linked this in the post above): in the S setting it broke at 2.01kN, and L at 4.58kN. While this is a small data sample, they are real measurements for which we have not seen anyone else actually measure, so I believe they are of some use.

Do these results imply that the Nomic pommel-to-shaft connection (the original topic of this thread) fails at 9 kN?  A bit ironic that the Nomic seems to be the strongest of all the tools (Monster aside) in this test, given the history of this thread.

It seems unlikely that any of the failures previously mentioned are anywhere near this level, which probably implies that the mechanism at play here is more complex than a simple axial pull test, and that this data may not be representative of in-the-field failure modes.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Do these results imply that the Nomic pommel-to-shaft connection (the original topic of this thread) fails at 9 kN?  A bit ironic that the Nomic seems to be the strongest of all the tools (Monster aside) in this test, given the history of this thread.

It seems unlikely that any of the failures previously mentioned are anywhere near this level, which probably implies that the mechanism at play here is more complex than a simple axial pull test, and that this data may not be representative of in-the-field failure modes.

I believe the working theory is as you suspect and that they can’t withstand lateral forces. I’m not sure where his other tests results are though.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Its a gnarly thought that companies actually make and sell an ice tool that can't  withstand a short shock load with body weight.  Heck back when I started ice climbing early 80's it was SOP to  clip directly into your tool on vertical terrain and bounce around while pounding a snarg into bulletproof ice. 

It's ludicrous. You gotta wonder what Petzl's logic is. When I wrote to them regarding a spate of broken Lynx bails amongst numerous friends and aquaintances, they suggested we "rethink how we are using the crampons." WTAF.

Grant Watson wrote:

I'm going to regret wading back into this mess, but here goes:  

Has any manufacturer ever represented that their ice tools should be used as protection?  If not, why do people expect them to perform like protection?  Sure, people use stuff like ski poles and Nalgene bottles to make dead man snow anchors in a pinch (for example), but you don't hear them saying, "I can't believe that little stick of telescoping aluminum broke at less than 2 KN!"  Ice tools are aid, not pro. If you want/need pro, grab yourself an ice screw.

There's not always ice for a screw. A tool driven into a crack or frozen turf is a nice addition to an anchor and I like having that option.

• Garry Reiss wrote:

There's not always ice for a screw. A tool driven into a crack or frozen turf is a nice addition to an anchor and I like having that option.

Sure, you can do that.  You can also sling a dead tree root, make a snow bollard, or use that little connected icicle that might even hold your body weight on rappel.  They're all off-label uses that offer no real security.  But clearly, the power of psychological pro is strong in this thread.

Grant Watson wrote:

I'm going to regret wading back into this mess, but here goes:  

Has any manufacturer ever represented that their ice tools should be used as protection?  If not, why do people expect them to perform like protection?  Sure, people use stuff like ski poles and Nalgene bottles to make dead man snow anchors in a pinch (for example), but you don't hear them saying, "I can't believe that little stick of telescoping aluminum broke at less than 2 KN!"  Ice tools are aid, not pro. If you want/need pro, grab yourself an ice screw.

Yea actually, DMM. The switch and the apex upper and lower clip in holes are rated, 22kn I believe. I’d imagine the new cortex is as well. They were designed to actually be used as pro or part of an anchor and was it was noted in there intro media (and the accompanying safety pamphlet) when they were released years back. 

Grant Watson wrote:

or use that little connected icicle that might even hold your body weight on rappel…..

speak of the devil on a tangent: This successfully held a couple normal 50 foot raps under belayed test conditions, (not a rap “in the wild”), until I broke it bouncing around to test its limits.
Ice is stronger than most give it credit for.

Ok back to your regular programming.  

This year I’m not bitching about anything (yet).  At least there’s ice to climb.

Grant Watson wrote:

Sure, you can do that.  You can also sling a dead tree root, make a snow bollard, or use that little connected icicle that might even hold your body weight on rappel.  They're all off-label uses that offer no real security.  But clearly, the power of psychological pro is strong in this thread.

What are you too good for this kind of stuff or something?