Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OmegaPacific biners - a word of warning


klareralt

16-Sep-2005
3:37:54 PM

On 11/09/2005 Hatman wrote:
>I have two of the "jake" biners. I have noticed that they seem to get cross
>loaded more than my regular biners. I originaly used the omega SBGII with
>them to belay. when loaded sudenly (fall) and crossloaded with the belay
>device stem in the danger (sharp) area, It can be very hard to get the
>biner orientated corectly because of the sight dip where the gate meets
>the body.

Taken from the OP website:

To be honest, the Jake is one of the coolest carabiners on the market and, for years, has set the standard for HMS carabiners. To start with, its shape orients the load, predictably, where we want it every time. Other belay carabiners can be loaded on the nose of the ‘biner … a very dangerous situation.

I'll say no more...


Climboholic

17-Sep-2005
9:57:13 AM

Still no reply from OP and it has been a week. Not the responsible reaction I was hoping for.

Does anyone know of any US climbing clubs/organisations/forums that we could inform of this problem? If enough of their market know about the potential problem and stop buying OP biners, OP will be forced to act by the almighty $$$, even if they are unwilling to act for basic moral reasons. Not to mention the threat of litigation that is much more serious from their own countrymen. I am about to contact some people I know in California who are very active in the climbing community. Hopefully they will get the word out in the US about the possible safety issue of OP Jake biners. I urge you all to do the same.

It is clear to me by now that by their lack of response to the many attempts to contact OP by members of this forum that OP are not concerned about the safety issue. If they were I would expect at least a short email saying that they will look into it. It would appear that the cost of a recall outweighs the potential costs of litigation so they have chosen to ignore it and hope it goes away.

As Jack said in fight club.
"Take the number of vehicles(caribiners) in the field (A), multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X...
If X is less that the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Here is a copy of the original email is sent on 10SEP2005.

'It seems a safety issue has been discovered in your Jake-swing gate Caribiners.

On a popular Australian climbing forum the issue has arisen that the pear shape and wire lock of the model can cause the rope to run over sharpish edges on the gate, thus stripping the sheath.

To see the chockstone forum, go to:
http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1&MessageID=27237&Replies=7#newpost

Check the link to the QUT forum. They did some tests that convincing tests to demonstrate there is a problem.

I am making you aware of this out of concern for the safety of climbers. I trust you will take the appropriate actions.'


shaggy

17-Sep-2005
11:02:05 AM

I have just read through this thread, and I think that you are all over reacting to a minor issue. Yeah, there is a small problem, but, as mentioned by various people, a lot of biners have this same problem. I have plenty of biners that are happy to sit cross loaded, with the rope sitting on the edge or the gate, and yes, most of them have an edge there. Thats one of the reasons why, when you first learn how to belay, that you should alway make sure and constantly check that your biner is NOT in this position. So, instead of hinding these biners in your cupboards, just make sure you belay correctly. If your still concerned, get a belay keeper (the rubber or metal thing that kept the biner oriented).
These biners have been around for years now, and been tested in millions of situations, by thousands of climbers and only now, someone has desided that this is a huge issue? If you are that concerned, take a fine file, and take the edge of the gate, Don't worry, It isn't structual at that point (if you only take the edge off). I have done this with plenty of (non OP) biners, it also smooths out the closing action too.
There are plenty of "flaws" with many climbing products out there, in fact, nearly all of the most commonly used quick draws have major issues with how easy it is to "flick" the rope out of a closed biner, in certain positions, but do you see people asking for recalls?
In reagards to Brat (?), the situation with the chest harness's, the gate of the biner should always be out, and thus impossible for the gate to come in contact with the harness, If the gate is towards the body, 9 time out of 10 they will end up cross loaded against the gate, as with most other biners.


mic

17-Sep-2005
12:45:42 PM

I concur Shaggy. Many biners have potential problems if not used correctly. A word of caution to Skip & others before you continue down the path you're on. It may be considered by OP and their legal team that certain ppl are leaving themselves open to litigation for potentially libellous/slanderous statements.


brat

18-Sep-2005
9:16:37 AM

Re Shaggy, it was a"full Body harness" not a "chest harness", the procedure at that gym is to have a figure of eight as a backup and a biner as the main tie in, this is to make it easier to swap routes as the figure eight should not get weighted unless the biner fails, the problem was that with the harness short rigged (to give more head room), ie the biner through the tie in points rather than the belay loop, the extra bulk caused the biner to rub the tie in loops, thus the wear. as i said, not an immediate danger, just highlighted the extent of the edge, it wasn't a problem with the replacement biner!


Wormz

18-Sep-2005
5:40:44 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Shaggy on this one. Today I had a looked at an OP Jake and compared it to my Lucky and Mammut HMS Belay Biners, I noticed they all shared some "sharp" edges and although the OP Jake's shape might make it *slightly* more likely for the rope to fall across the sharp corner, there's still a chance with most belay biners I've seen, unless you file the edges down (Interestingly enough I noticed by BD keylock normal size biners don't have those edges). So I agree in saying that it's not some urgent new developement, the property of the biners has been around for a while now and it's only just being noticed, and the chance of failure can be reduced by keeping an eye on things while your belaying. Were the tests (for sheath stripping) done on biners other than the Jake?

Happy Climbing!


brat

19-Sep-2005
8:22:09 AM

The biggest problem i can see is that biners of this shape haven't got definite corners to give the rope a positive point to go to when loaded, the edge/wear is a symptom of that rather than the problem in itself!

The biners I use have got 3 definite corners, the rope tends to those areas, on the main axis when used in belaying, to three corners when used in a powerpoint scenario, thus away from any potential problems.

The biner in question appears to be a replacement for a clip gate biner, used on a route where you want the security of a screw gate rather than a clip gate, as such it would seem ok, though i would tend away from them now thanks to this thread!

rightarmbad

19-Sep-2005
6:08:13 PM

"The biner in question appears to be a replacement for a clip gate biner, used on a route where you want the security of a screw gate rather than a clip gate, as such it would seem ok"

Not so, the biner in question is designed especially for belay duties, that is why it has a rounded shape. Any deviation from the modified D shape towards a pear shape, weakens the biner. The rounded shape is beneficial if belaying with a munter hitch. I also find that the belay is less likely to jam when feeding rope, if a pear shape is used.

michaellane

20-Sep-2005
4:35:11 AM

Hi, Everone ...

I'm the sales and marketing director for Omega Pacific. Since this was brought to my attention just last week, I've personally emailed Adam and Andrew, who originally emailed me about the concerns expressed here, to let them know we're looking into it and will provide a report. in the meantime, we've built a test to examine our own biner as well as several other HMS styles on the market.

Our QC department is preparing that report based on those tests right now and, when it's complete within the next day or so, I'll be happy to share it with you on this forum.

Some of you have speculated that we're ignoring this issue because we haven't yet posted on this site. Far from it. We take these concerns seriously and take every step possible to provide a detailed and accurate response. To do this properly, it can take a few days to complete.

I'll post again when the report is complete. In the meantime, if you wish to contact me, feel free to do so at the email below.

Regards,

--Michael Lane
info@omegapac.com


nmonteith

20-Sep-2005
9:00:01 AM

Thanks Michael for your prompt response. We all look forward to the results of your tests.


brat

20-Sep-2005
9:46:31 AM

On 20/09/2005 michaellane wrote:
>
>Some of you have speculated that we're ignoring this issue because we
>haven't yet posted on this site.
>

Thanks Michael, not at all, I think that most here would realise that it takes time to come to terms with what the actual issue is, there was some discussion that a (faster) response to the initial enquiry may have helped quell any suggestion that the issue was being ignored, or if in fact it is an issue or if the biner was being used incorrectly from it's intended use. Great to see it is being taken seriously and you've found your way to our small corner of the world!


Climboholic

20-Sep-2005
3:55:24 PM

Thanks for your response Michael.

I appologise for my previous post. I was concerned that you had ignored my email. As it turns out your reply had been put into my Bulk mail folder by Yahoo (even though it was a reply) and I had not seen it.

As Shaggy said. I don't think this is something anyone has to be too concerned about. I'm not loosing any sleep over it, I don't even own the particular biner in question. I was just annoyed because i thought the good intentions of this forum to bring a saftey concern to attention had been ignored. What better use could a forum as this have, than to promote the safety of climbers.

Once again, thank you to OP for your promt, responsible response.

Here is a copy of the email I missed:

Hello, Andrew …

Thanks for notifying me about the thread on chockstone.org. We’ve been following it for the past couple days and have, meanwhile, been conducting examinations and tests. As soon as our Quality Control department responds with their report in the next day or two, I’ll post to the forum and share our findings and conclusions. But I wanted you to know that we’d gotten your email and have been giving it our attention.

As you can imagine, we take these kinds of reports very seriously. When climbers choose Omega gear, it indicates a level of trust that we don’t take for granted. Thanks for letting us know.

Best Regards,

--Lane

michaellane

23-Sep-2005
12:47:39 AM

Hello, Everyone …

Thanks to everyone for showing concern over this issue. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing it and conducting extensive testing on our Jake as well as several other HMS & master/belay-type carabiners on the market and are happy to share our results and conclusions:

Our intention was to determine three things:

1) If minor-axis loading was possible
2) To identify any contributing factors to shredding ropes when loaded in this manner
3) How the Jake compared to other biners when ropes were dragged across the back of the gate

In addition to the Jake, we tested six competing carabiners (other brands are intentionally not revealed in this report or accompanying photos) in a similar manner as the previous poster. We set the ‘biners up so that rope could be dragged back and forth across the back of the gate with approximately 100 pounds of force until failure and noted the number of strokes necessary to produce a core shot (failure of the sheath to reveal the core).

In this test, the lowest-performing (quickest to produce failure) ‘biner took 8 strokes before we got a core shot. Others took 11, 17, 18, 21 & 33 strokes before the rope was wrecked. The Jake required 36 strokes before failure.

In the field, we belayed toproped and lead climbers alike with the various carabiners to get a feel for whether any had a greater tendency to flip and become cross-loaded than any other. While not as reproducible or objective as our lab tests, we felt this was worthwhile to refamiliarize ourselves with how other brands compare to the Jake in real-world use.

In that testing, we found that while toproping, it was consistently easier to maintain proper loading (along the major axis) for all brands. When belaying a leader, all the carabiners tested have some tendency to rotate and become cross-loaded due to the more dynamic action of paying out slack and taking in rope as required of a leader. None were particularly more prone to it than any other.

However, when clipped into both tie-in points of the harness, as opposed to being clipped into the belay loop, the tendency to rotate and become cross-loaded increased significantly, regardless of brand.

We carefully inspected all the carabiners and noted several factors which contribute to the occurrence of shredded ropes. The way the back of the gate is formed and finished (whether it was an “open” style or “hooded” style) and the manner in which the rivets were finished (whether rounded, sharp or flush with the gate) appeared to be the most significant factors. Less significant factors were the radius of the top edge of the locking sleeve and protrusions from the interior of the frame into the “working area” of the carabiner.

The Jake specifically addresses each of these factors within its design: we build all the solid gates of our climbing carabiners with an interior hood to prevent exposure to sharp edges; our flat-spin riveting process helps to keep the rivet heads from ripping open the sheath; the interior of our frames are smooth and our gate sleeves are made with wide radii on the top edges.

These features contribute to the results of our testing which shows the Jake to be among the safest of all the belay carabiners tested.

Still, as some in this forum have suggested, the most vital factor to prevent this from happening lies with the user. Every climber must ALWAYS pay attention to their ‘biner and how it’s oriented during use. Failure to do so may result in cross-loading and a shredded rope, regardless of which brand or style of carabiner is used.

We recommend that rappellers and belayers clip into the belay loop of their harnesses rather than the tie-in points. Although it does add another “link in the chain,” the belay loop is the strongest point of virtually any harness and contributes to more consistent, proper loading of carabiners.

As I’ve said in a previous post, we take these issues very seriously and put significant resources into making sure our ‘biners are among the safest and best-tested ‘biners in the world. This attention to detail has contributed to the tremendous success of the Jake carabiner.

In the eight years since we introduced this ‘biner, it’s become one of the most popular of its kind with over half a million sold to climbers, arborists and rescuers the world over. Historically, we’ve had incredibly few returns for any reason on this biner … much less than a fraction of one percent, in fact.

I hope this addresses the concerns presented here. Please feel free to contact us at info@omegapac.com at any time.

Thanks again for the time and interest you’ve all put into this.

Regards,

--Michael Lane

michaellane

23-Sep-2005
12:48:04 AM

Pictures of test 'biners:

climber72

23-Sep-2005
1:18:44 AM

O.P's response is good enough for me, im still belaying with my Jake. Really like it. Thanks Omega.


brat

23-Sep-2005
7:58:52 AM

Thanks Omega for the transparent testing/report!

As they said, it works as well as biner of that style, I'm staying with the biners i have with the more exagerated corners! 30 years of playing with biners/shackles and I've cross loaded probably twice in that time, both occasions it was operator error and I became aware of it and reset before full loading occured!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

23-Sep-2005
9:28:13 AM

I have followed this thread with interest, and its good to see a positive outcome.
Well done Omega Pacific for following through and giving feedback.


shaggy

23-Sep-2005
10:10:21 AM

Even though I still stick with my initial views, and agree that there is nothing wrong with the biners, I am a little dissapointed with OP's test results. Very predictably, their biners came out on top, it just seems like their testing methods were a little too cliche'd.


nmonteith

23-Sep-2005
10:18:25 AM

Unless you want a royal commison this is about as good as you can get! I am personally amazed that
they took an Aussie web forum so seriously and responded with action and feedback very quickly. If they
were a government department you wouldn't get any response for at least 6months...


brat

23-Sep-2005
10:54:04 AM

On 23/09/2005 nmonteith wrote:

>I am personally amazed that
>they took an Aussie web forum so seriously

I couldn't agree more, it will bring them onto my radar next time I'm buying gear!

There are 78 messages in this topic.