Fixed Hardware Etiquette? and a question re: glue-in bolts

Alexander Blum wrote:

1. We aren't arguing, we (mostly Ken and Marc) are explaining the applied science behind why it doesn't matter. 

2. There isn't any harm, except to your wallet. It's your money, you are free to do what you want with it. Just don't expect other people to do so, because it is completely unnecessary.

1. What is going on here is exactly arguing. I don't want to get too far off track, but that's what it's called when people with different points of view present and defend those points of view to/from each other. Where that exchange lies on the spectrum from completely amicable to completely hostile doesn't change that fact. Is that "settled science" they're/you're explaining? Can any of you link to the statistically significant and peer reviewed (maybe even replicated) studies of the long term effects of using various combinations of metallic components in climbing anchors across a wide variety of environmental conditions? How about even mentioning the credentials (let alone linking to them) that ought to make me believe the evidence any of you is claiming to present?

2. There is no harm, and like I've said over and over (and over) it's better, but not necessary. That's exactly what "in an ideal world" means.

James Schroeder wrote:

2. There is no harm, and like I've said over and over (and over) it's better, but not necessary. That's exactly what "in an ideal world" means.

The biggest problem here, and the reason why the argument continues is because you continue to try to assert that mot mixing metals is "better, but not necessary", when in fact this just isn't the case.  There are in fact many reasons why it is better to mix metals, especially as noted up thread when you have a stainless glue in bolt (as in the case of the OP).  In this case, where the bolt is extremely difficult to remove and replace, using your arguments, it would be better (even if only marginally) to mix the metals to help protect the stainless glue in.

Ken Noyce wrote:

The biggest problem here, and the reason why the argument continues is because you continue to try to assert that mot mixing metals is "better, but not necessary", when in fact this just isn't the case.  There are in fact many reasons why it is better to mix metals, especially as noted up thread when you have a stainless glue in bolt (as in the case of the OP).  In this case, where the bolt is extremely difficult to remove and replace, using your arguments, it would be better (even if only marginally) to mix the metals to help protect the stainless glue in.

You've got me listening now. To be clear, you're saying stainless-on-stainless is more likely to corrode (or damage in some other way) the original glue in?

James Schroeder wrote:

You've got me listening now. To be clear, you're saying stainless-on-stainless is more likely to corrode (or damage in some other way) the original glue in?

In some instances, yes.  In locations near the ocean, or with run-off that contains lots of chloride it is possible that using a non-stainless quicklink on a stainless bolt would help protect the stainless bolt. This is going to be a very rare occurance, but this is one of the reasons you can't just say that it is better to use similar metals.  

Another reason you can't say that using similar metals is better is cost.  No matter what you want to pretend, cost isn't equal between stainless and plated steel.  For any component where wear is a concern (i.e. last link in the system) provided it is a relatively dry environment (much of the world we climb in), plated is a much better choice because wear will be the cause for replacement, not corrosion.  Since plated is less expensive than stainless, plated is a better choice for these components.

I know you really want to win this argument, but unfortunately, there is absolutely no way that you can say that "In a perfect world you'd match stainless to stainless and plated to plated" which is your initial argument.  That just isn't correct, there is no perfect world, and even if there was, there are reasons why it may be better to mix metals.

Let's just end the thread here with the statement of In a perfect world every piece of climbing gear would be made of unobtanium, since that's about as valid of a statement as your argument..  

James Schroeder wrote:

1. What is going on here is exactly arguing. I don't want to get too far off track, but that's what it's called when people with different points of view present and defend those points of view to/from each other. Where that exchange lies on the spectrum from completely amicable to completely hostile doesn't change that fact. Is that "settled science" they're/you're explaining? Can any of you link to the statistically significant and peer reviewed (maybe even replicated) studies of the long term effects of using various combinations of metallic components in climbing anchors across a wide variety of environmental conditions? How about even mentioning the credentials (let alone linking to them) that ought to make me believe the evidence any of you is claiming to present?

2. There is no harm, and like I've said over and over (and over) it's better, but not necessary. That's exactly what "in an ideal world" means.

I recall being that opinionated and obstinate when I was 37, too.

Marc801 C wrote:

I recall being that opinionated and obstinate when I was 37, too.

Backs opinionated 34 year old, then slags opinionated 37 year old for his youth. Solid reasoning.

Ken, I'm prepared to be wrong, and will fully admit to it, if you can show me the data. You comment on the science as though you're credentialled to do so, yet you seem unwilling to share those credentials. I'd almost certainly admit you were right, shut up, and go away if you could say something even remotely like any of these:

1. Here is a brief synopsis of the science behind my view and a link to the litany of confirming articles and peer-reviewed work in the field.
2. I, Ken, am a Professor of Metallurgy at XYZ University and here is a link to my bio on that university's website.
3. I, Ken, have been working in the metallurgical field for 10+ years and have and undergrad in it from ABC University.

Until then, you're just another guy on the internet who sounds like he might know what he's talking about. Yes, stainless costs more. I'm not arguing for all stainless, I'm arguing for matching. Which I'll maintain until someone proves to me otherwise, at which point I'll happily abandon my position and adopt what I perceive to be more correct at the time. It seems to me that convincing me should be an easy task for you if you're as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be. It ought to be no big deal for you to point me to the studies (or even your own credentials) someone with your implied knowledge level must be citing, that is, no big deal, if such information exists. Three pages in and you've yet to link either the studies or your credentials. To be clear I'm not attacking you, just telling you what I actually have evidence for.

In the end, what I want is the correct information, in the absence of that, I want people to make the mistake that is less likely to cause a problem for themselves or the broader community. With the knowledge I have, that means using matching hardware when possible.

Just out of curiousity James, how many anchors have you replaced? 

Not the bolts, just the rings, mussys, links, etc. 

James Schroeder wrote:

Ken, I'm prepared to be wrong, and will fully admit to it, if you can show me the data. You comment on the science as though you're credentialled to do so, yet you seem unwilling to share those credentials. I'd almost certainly admit you were right, shut up, and go away if you could say something even remotely like any of these:

1. Here is a brief synopsis of the science behind my view and a link to the litany of confirming articles and peer-reviewed work in the field.
2. I, Ken, am a Professor of Metallurgy at XYZ University and here is a link to my bio on that university's website.
3. I, Ken, have been working in the metallurgical field for 10+ years and have and undergrad in it from ABC University.

Until then, you're just another guy on the internet who sounds like he might know what he's talking about. Yes, stainless costs more. I'm not arguing for all stainless, I'm arguing for matching. Which I'll maintain until someone proves to me otherwise, at which point I'll happily abandon my position and adopt what I perceive to be more correct at the time. It seems to me that convincing me should be an easy task for you if you're as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be. It ought to be no big deal for you to point me to the studies (or even your own credentials) someone with your implied knowledge level must be citing, that is, no big deal, if such information exists. Three pages in and you've yet to link either the studies or your credentials. To be clear I'm not attacking you, just telling you what I actually have evidence for.

In the end, what I want is the correct information, in the absence of that, I want people to make the mistake that is less likely to cause a problem for themselves or the broader community. With the knowledge I have, that means using matching hardware when possible.

I Ken, an am Aerospace Engineer with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Utah, and have been working in corrosion and fatigue of aircraft and missile components for the past 7 years and am considered a subject matter expert in both corrosion and fatigue. 

James Schroeder wrote:

Backs opinionated 34 year old, then slags opinionated 37 year old for his youth. Solid reasoning.

Correct that to "Backs opinionated 34 year old..." who knows WTF they're talking about.

Lunch reading achieved..... an honest to goodness MP pissing match.

Luke Bertelsen wrote:

Lunch reading achieved..... an honest to goodness MP pissing match.

Glad to be of service!

Disclaimer: This coming from another climber/internet dude with no credentials - Let's also keep in mind that plated steel, by definition, mixes metals. Plated steel will start its outdoor life on one side of stainless on the anodic scale and, once the zinc is gone, finish on the other. More importantly, for those unfortunate cases where a plated anchor bolt is in place, it's still better to use a stainless link, if cost is no object. Galvanic corrosion is negligible enough to be ignored, and the stainless link will be much easier to unscrew and remove/re-use than a rusted-closed plated link - a very significant real-world advantage during bolt replacement, or if the link becomes worn, etc. 

J Achey wrote:

 for those unfortunate cases where a plated anchor bolt is in place, it's still better to use a stainless link, if cost is no object. Galvanic corrosion is negligible enough to be ignored, and the stainless link will be much easier to unscrew and remove/re-use than a rusted-closed plated link

Which gets us to what might be the worst problem: People replacing the visible external hardware because they can see the corrosion, and because it's much easier to replace -- but not doing anything to address the more dangerous and difficult problem of corrosion of the foundational Plated-Steel bolt.

In this regard there are two problems with putting Stainless quick-link over a Plated-Steel bolt. The important problem is that because the replacement Stainless will corrode more slowly, it will lull future users into inferring that the foundational bolt is likely still OK, because the external link still looks nice and shiny. 

The advantage of replacing the link with Plated steel, is that by the time the external link is so rusted that it's difficult to open it, that is perhaps a useful signal that the foundational Plated-Steel bolt _ought_ to be replaced -- in which case the difficulty of opening the quick-link is not a major obstacle in the work to be done.

The second reason (less important) is that to the extent there is some galvanic corrosion (in a wet environment?), external Stainless over foundational Plated puts in in the "wrong direction", with the underlying bolt in a "sacrificial" role.

Ken

Ken Noyce wrote:

I Ken, an am Aerospace Engineer with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Utah, and have been working in corrosion and fatigue of aircraft and missile components for the past 7 years and am considered a subject matter expert in both corrosion and fatigue. 

Its been my experience, over the last 17 years, that explaining science to certain non-scientists should be replaced with repeatedly banging one's head against some form of concrete. The latter always proves to be more fruitful and less personally irritating.

Edek Falkowski wrote:

I have heard a bunch of mixed things regarding how to treat fixed hardware (mainly anchors). I understand that it's frowned upon to set up a TR through anchor rings (which should only be used to get lowered/rap down as TRing off of them causes unnecessary wear), but what are the rules of thumb to follow to respect fixed hardware? (including cold shuts)

Additionally, how do you use glue-in bolts that do not have rap rings? I did a trad climb that ended at a 3-piece fixed anchor comprised of glue-ins, and I didn't know if it was okay to get lowered through the glue-in bolts (because they didn't have rings). I was able to top this route out which was convenient but in the future if going down is the only option what would I do? 

Thank you!

Are you sure this wasn't the intended way off this climb? Not every bolted anchor is meant to also be a rappel station. 

(Apologies if this was already addressed, I usually try to read through threads before commenting but couldn't get through the metallurgical pudding contest. No judgment though we all have our passions.)

(My phone autocorrected to "pudding". I'm gonna leave it.)

Mike Slavens wrote:

Ken, your science is off on this one.  I can't vouch for why ClimbTech sells that tool, but damaging the protective layer on true stainless steel during installation is not a perfect spot for general corrosion to begin.  Its true, manufacturers can use certain treatments to improve the protective layer before it leaves their shop (straight from Jim Titt).  However, if you were to damage that layer during installation or during any other part of the hardware's life that protective layer (called a passivization layer in this case) will re-form during the natural oxidation of the metal surface.  Stainless steel is "self healing" in this fashion.

It will not reform if carbon steel deposits remain on the stainless steel and are not washed away. This becomes more of an issue where rusting carbon steel parts are left in continuous contact with stainless steel parts which can compromise the passive layer and prevent it from reforming. But yes, if you were to damage the layer with a tool steel hammer blow and you were to thoroughly clean off the iron left on the stainless steel, then the passive layer would reform. Ken is correct as to why CT sells the stainless steel adapter; it's to prevent strikes on the bolt from a tool steel hammer. However, you can also just buy a stainless steel hammer which is cheaper anyway.

Ken Noyce wrote:

In 99% of climbing areas around the world matching metals between the hanger or glue in and quicklinks/rings doesn't matter at all.  Just use plated for a dry environment or stainless for a wet/humid environment (or titanium for tropical).

I agree with this 99%  ;-)    

I'd change the ending to or titanium for tropical and ALL seacliffs.    Portugal is certainly not tropical but its sea cliffs have confirmed SCC in stainless.

Ken Noyce wrote:

I Ken, an am Aerospace Engineer with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Utah, and have been working in corrosion and fatigue of aircraft and missile components for the past 7 years and am considered a subject matter expert in both corrosion and fatigue. 

Can't wait to hear the rhetorical contortions the other guy will go through to avoid admitting he was wrong this whole time

Ken Noyce wrote:

Another reason you can't say that using similar metals is better is cost.  No matter what you want to pretend, cost isn't equal between stainless and plated steel.  For any component where wear is a concern (i.e. last link in the system) provided it is a relatively dry environment (much of the world we climb in), plated is a much better choice because wear will be the cause for replacement, not corrosion.  Since plated is less expensive than stainless, plated is a better choice for these components.

That would be the case if they both wear out at the same speed, as stainless steels have over three times the wear resistance of normal steels this possibly might not be good economics. Once the plating is worn through the steel component will acquire surface rust on the unprotected areas and this accelerates the wear even more to around four to five times faster than stainless steel.