CamJam XT tie-down

[Stretched out]

I personally think sport climbers are insane for using such "low" ratings on their gear. I get that they want lightweight, but I'd rather have safety! Again, self-bondage is hardly "ideal" circumstances; it's best to render things as safe as you can possibly and reasonably make them. Spending a little more on better ropes, industrial hardware, etc. is a good idea. I keep 20+kN self-locking carabiners around for just that reason.

With a dynamic rope, the peak forces are probably less than you'd think, especially when the other end of the rope is attached to a person who also becomes a shock absorber.

Even climbing above your anchor point and taking a fairly long fall. The actual forces aren't huge.

(Ryan often tests and breaks caribiners and equipment)
https://youtu.be/m8z6adEqaOs

So even a small micro nut is likely to hold a fall. Unless you're daft enough to have 20 foot between the smallest chocks available, if the first one does fail, the second fall is going to be a smaller fall factor so the second point should hold.

The majority of climbing injuries and deaths are due to incorrect use stuff of poor selection, rather than something that's rated failling.
Having a rope un through a sling and burn through it.
Clipping into the wrong piece of rope
Not clipping in.
Rocks moving and releasing the protection.... I've seen the this with someone abseiling.

For how many people climb and mostly without any formal training, the accident rate is quite low. The biggest question is why there's so many accidents and deaths from working at height when H&S and training is everywhere.


Dyneema soft shackles instead of caribiners are where its at, for strong attachments if you want to be supper safe.

[davisev5225]

The biggest question is why there's so many accidents and deaths from working at height when H&S and training is everywhere.

There's really not more "industry" deaths than there are "sport" deaths, but the industry deaths get a lot more publicity because government entities get involved.

Also, the answer is because people are stupid. I have as yet to see a single instance in which someone died because their rated equipment failed, but I've seen plenty of instances of people dying because they either didn't use their rated equipment properly or they didn't use their rated equipment at all.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

I've seen plenty of instances of people dying because they either didn't use their rated equipment properly or they didn't use their rated equipment at all.

How would you factor in aging equipment? have seen old emergency harnesses removed from service, unopened, that, in my opinion, couldn't support half of their rated capacity or take as much force any more. How can we judge this equipment for use?

[davisev5225]

I've seen plenty of instances of people dying because they either didn't use their rated equipment properly or they didn't use their rated equipment at all.

How would you factor in aging equipment? have seen old emergency harnesses removed from service, unopened, that, in my opinion, couldn't support half of their rated capacity or take as much force any more. How can we judge this equipment for use?

Manufacturers are supposed to provide date of manufacture and rated number of years. The equipment is also supposed to be inspected by a competent person annually. If the manufacturer tag or inspection log is missing, the gear is supposed to be destructively removed from service. In the case of a harness, that would mean cutting it to pieces such that no one would be capable of wearing it anymore.

[OrgasmAlley]

If you're using a block and tackle, there's really nowhere to use these except maybe as a "one way" device for your output line to hold the load in position once you hoist it up.

Yes, that's exactly the use I described for it in my configuration: "You've got to view a suspension setup as a system of components, each of which must be rated sufficient to its task. For example, a rigging point, block and tackle, tensioner, and release."

And under that scenario, the required line strength would be based on the desired system rating divided by the number of legs in the B&T, as in "This would pair fine with Type IV milspec paracord (750lb breaking strength) as the tensioner, using a 4:1 block and tackle rated for say 3000 lbs."

[davisev5225]

If you're using a block and tackle, there's really nowhere to use these except maybe as a "one way" device for your output line to hold the load in position once you hoist it up.

Yes, that's exactly the use I described for it in my configuration: "You've got to view a suspension setup as a system of components, each of which must be rated sufficient to its task. For example, a rigging point, block and tackle, tensioner, and release."

And under that scenario, the required line strength would be based on the desired system rating divided by the number of legs in the B&T, as in "This would pair fine with Type IV milspec paracord (750lb breaking strength) as the tensioner, using a 4:1 block and tackle rated for say 3000 lbs."

You conveniently left out the rest of my response:

Even then, I'd be wary of trusting it with a human life.

These things aren't rated for holding people, so even when you use the force reduction from a block and tackle, you're still stepping well outside the intended use of this device. Bad idea.

We pervert a lot of things in this hobby, using them in unintended ways, but it should always be done with safety first and foremost. This is why we use backup releases, why we plan and test rather than do "last minute" changes, and why we always recommend against suspension. Trying to use a camjam for suspension falls squarely into "safety first" and "don't suspend".

[Stretched out]

You conveniently left out the rest of my response:

Your first post, left out. a lot

Exactly.

Whilst they are more than likely strong enough to use in suspension, the 2mm to 5mm cords may not be. Especially when knots and other de-rating factors are considered. That's beside the possibility of pulling the cord out of the cam, takes them right out of the game.

As a pull to tighten device, they rock. Unless you're an international strong man competitor, there's not going to be many people capable of breaking that part of the tie. Even with just using regular 220 paracord.

Paracord is good, because it's plenty strong enough but relatively cheap and easy to cut with a pair of scissors when allowed.

Note, I'm still standing by the "likely strong enough" as thats irrelevant when they aren't safe enough overall for suspension bondage...

There's plenty of instances where things are considered safe enough without 5 or 10 multiple safety factors of their expected loading, but there's risk of injury if they fail....Car tyres. Bicycles. Hammocks. Patio furniture

[OrgasmAlley]

You conveniently left out the rest of my response:

I wasn't responding to the rest of your post, which was directly above and easily found anyway. I certainly wasn't responding to "even then, I'd be wary of trusting it with a human life" since I have not recommended it in this capacity. I did not post _recommending_ either solo suspension nor using this specific device in any suspension, yet you conveniently leave that out and respond as though I have recommended both.

I talked about assessing the capacity of a suspension system, and then about load calculation in a multi-legged segment thereof in response to the claim that the rope in a block and tackle much be rated for the entire hoisted load. Personally, in partnered suspension, I favor a chain hoist.

These things aren't rated for holding people

There isn't any magic rating things for human loads. The device in question is rated for a breaking strength of 837 pounds. At a general industrial safety factor of 3:1, it's rated for a 279 pound working load. At the standard human lifting factor of 10:1, it's rated for a 83.7 pound working load. There is not some other engineering involved, although publishing such a figure comes with an implicit endorsement and potential liability. The company might not want to do that if they deem the device _unsafe_ for hoisting people, which certainly seems likely.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Trying to prove everyone's statements is just too risky. I have avoided preaching my eye opening experience about solo suspension.
A good discussion about what something CAN do versus what it was DESIGNED to do reminds me of the Apollo 13 mission, where the Lunar Excursion Module's landing retro rockets were used to correct the ship's course. The flight director said "I don't care what anything was designed to do, I care what it can do". The engineer was unwilling to bet it would work, but praised himself after it proved successful. A great example of re-purposing something, as we do most of the time, as many desired self bondage devices are not readily available and must be improvised, as stated earlier. Not every attempt to invent will give positive results.
Please, let's just discuss, and respect. It is hard enough to judge each others' feelings without being able to see them, only to try and figure it out from words chosen, save for a few available emoticons.

[Stretched out]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this

I disagree with this

As I think we have all been agreed from the start that they would be a poor choice for suspension bondage.

I don't think the working /break load really needed arguing over. I only mentioned not doing suspension in the first post because someone may see 127kg working load and think "that's cool, I'm only 100kg."

With the non enclosed cam and <5mm cordage there's a decent chance of landing on your arse, even if you don't actually break the biner itself.

[Stretched out]

There's more to safety than stamped rated loads.
Even with a larger version with a higher break load, I wouldn't use them for suspension.

[davisev5225]

When I see people argue against common-sense safety warnings, I assume they are implicitly endorsing the unsafe behavior. Now that everyone has made their position more clear, I'll stop being so pushy about the safety and instead follow the discussion in *THEORETICAL* capacities.

Please stay safe.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

I was saying that the Apollo 13 thing went better because of their ingenuity, not so much this cam jam thingy. My bad.

[Stretched out]

When I see people argue against common-sense safety warnings, I assume they are implicitly endorsing the unsafe behavior. Now that everyone has made their position more clear, I'll stop being so pushy about the safety and instead follow the discussion in *THEORETICAL* capacities.

Please stay safe.

You seemed to be purely arguing the strength(safety factor) at the expense of common sense.

If I made a scaled up version that has 8.5Kn MBS I'd still not recommend it for suspension.


Ive just edited the first post.

[OrgasmAlley]

When I see people argue against common-sense safety warnings, I assume they are implicitly endorsing the unsafe behavior.

I'm sorry that my original post wasn't more clear, but it certainly doesn't meet this description.