"Cross Loading" your belay biner is not a thing

But bored shitposting is a thing.

mpech wrote: didn't some guys belay biner break on a rope-soloing fall? Not a  fair example, of course.

Yup. Tom Randall in 2002.

Still debate as to whether this was cross-loading or not, but it's worth looking at (especially since it took me 15 mins of googling to dig this accident up!).  Moral of the story-- don't aussie rap with a fig8 biner! As I recall, this lawsuit may have contributed to the demise of HB.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=664763;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Not quite the scenario that you are asking for, but I have personally seen someone use a Gridlock belay biner, where they had put the small part of the biner on the belay loop, and used the large-radius part of the belay biner for the belay device.

The Gridlock got cross loaded, and in the fall the little metal tail that separates the large and small part of the gridlock broke off, with the remaining sharp jagged edge damaging the belay loop of the harness.

Nobody died, or got injured. But they did end up needing a new harness and a new belay biner.

Of course using a Gridlock belay biner in this orientation is not recommended precisely because it increases the chance of cross-loading... and this accident demonstrated why. Still, it wasn’t the gate of the locked biner that broke. 

Bongwaffle....

Stop.

95% of the fun in climbing is watching paranoid people freak out about 1 in a billion chances, rumors and heresy, "BuT mEtal cant Touch MetAl!1", microfractures, and all sorts of fun hysterical shit.

Stop educating those who can't use a little common sense or actually try and test anything in a safe environment. It's taking the fun away...

I've read of two accidents in which a figure-8 device broke the gate on a carabiner that was cross-loaded by being clipped through harness hard points.  I think one was a fatality and the other a serious injury.  This was just rappelling loads, not belaying impacts.

 But whether or not we have reported accidents, I see no reason to be sanguine about a possible event that reduces belay carabiner strength by 2/3.

5.Seven Kevin wrote: Bongwaffle....

Stop.

95% of the fun in climbing is watching paranoid people freak out about 1 in a billion chances, rumors and heresy, "BuT mEtal cant Touch MetAl!1", microfractures, and all sorts of fun hysterical shit.

Stop educating those who can't use a little common sense or actually try and test anything in a safe environment. It's taking the fun away...

This.

If Harumpfster agrees to have all his climbing partners belay him off a carabiner with a breaking strength of 7kN for the rest of his climbing career, then I will admit that cross loading the belay carabiner is not a thing.

Biners are weaker in a cross loaded position. Not saying weaker to a failure perspective for climbing but definitely weaker.

When we did a lift in the correct position the biner was more resilient to stress than it was in the crossloaded position.

We were bored one day years back on the job site and tested this theory with a crane.

The biner failed much faster cross loaded than opposed to the correct position.

Saw it 1st hand.

Rick Horwat wrote: Biners are weaker in a cross loaded position. Not saying weaker to a failure perspective for climbing but definitely weaker.

When we did a lift in the correct position the biner was more resilient to stress than it was in the crossloaded position.

We were bored one day years back on the job site and tested this theory with a crane.

The biner failed much faster cross loaded than opposed to the correct position.

Saw it 1st hand.

So it took a crane to break it crossloaded? So what? A biner is plenty strong cross loaded, DONT WORRY ABOUT IT!

Here is an OSHA report on an accident resulting from a cross loaded carabiner

I recall it failed at about a tenth of its rated load

https://www.osha.gov/doc/engineering/2014_r_05.html

Lena chita wrote: Not quite the scenario that you are asking for, but I have personally seen someone use a Gridlock belay biner, where they had put the small part of the biner on the belay loop, and used the large-radius part of the belay biner for the belay device.

Um, that's how it's supposed to be used.

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/default/dw4afd6283/files/M13291_B_REGULATION_Locking%20Carabiner%20Hang%20Card%20IS-WEB.pdf

Marc801 C wrote: Um, that's how it's supposed to be used.

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/default/dw4afd6283/files/M13291_B_REGULATION_Locking%20Carabiner%20Hang%20Card%20IS-WEB.pdf

It depends.

A grigri goes on the small end, a device where the rope passes through the biner goes on the big end.

Marc801 C wrote: Um, that's how it's supposed to be used.

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/default/dw4afd6283/files/M13291_B_REGULATION_Locking%20Carabiner%20Hang%20Card%20IS-WEB.pdf

Not when you are  using Gridlock biner with a gri-gri or cinch! Look more carefully on that spec sheet that you linked above:

Here’s the enlarged photo. 
Edited to add: a coincidence, there is another thread on MP where the same pictures are used! Saw it just after I posed this/

Lena chita wrote:

Not when you are  using Gridlock biner with a gri-gri or cinch! Look more carefully on that spec sheet that you linked above:

Hence the confusion, since the belay device wasn't specified in your post.

Caveman Y wrote: Here is an OSHA report on an accident resulting from a cross loaded carabiner

I recall it failed at about a tenth of its rated load

https://www.osha.gov/doc/engineering/2014_r_05.html

Metal to metal!

Marc801 C wrote: Hence the confusion, since the belay device wasn't specified in your post.

Ha! Yes, my bad, I used the belay device = gri-Gri in my mind. 

Caveman Y wrote: Here is an OSHA report on an accident resulting from a cross loaded carabiner

I recall it failed at about a tenth of its rated load

https://www.osha.gov/doc/engineering/2014_r_05.html

This is considered a classic example of tri axle loading of a modified D. The value that it failed at is typical. 

Rob warden The space lizard wrote:

This is considered a classic example of tri axle loading of a modified D. The value that it failed at is typical. 

It’s interesting that we still use the term tri-axial loading when it is actually “ tri-directional” loading in only 2 axes (x and y, not z).

Sam Skovgaard wrote: If Harumpfster agrees to have all his climbing partners belay him off a carabiner with a breaking strength of 7kN for the rest of his climbing career, then I will admit that cross loading the belay carabiner is not a thing.

I would take a 100% guarantee of 7kN any day of the week.