Comments on: Carabiner Design, Evolution, & The FS Mini http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:12:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Adam http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-711 Adam Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:47:05 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-711 Good analysis, Eli.<br /><br />I think the ultra small carabiners are probably great to have for long, easier routes with miles long approaches. Any weight reduction is welcomed in those situations. However, in the type of climbing we're more likely to do, easy, timely clipping is important and at times make or break. If the gate doesn't open wide enough to slot the rope without a struggle, the loss of functionality is too big a drawback. Good analysis, Eli.

I think the ultra small carabiners are probably great to have for long, easier routes with miles long approaches. Any weight reduction is welcomed in those situations. However, in the type of climbing we're more likely to do, easy, timely clipping is important and at times make or break. If the gate doesn't open wide enough to slot the rope without a struggle, the loss of functionality is too big a drawback.

]]> By: Eli http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-710 Eli Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:33:53 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-710 Numbering fixed. Numbering fixed.

]]> By: kris http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-709 kris Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:59:47 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-709 I guess I was referring to "4" the whole time in my comment instead of "3", because I just noticed your numbering goes "1,2,2,3". He he. <br /><br />Anyhow, I'd like to see one too. One disadvantage to them may be snagging on each other when racked on your harness (if they are in the open position). In light of that, they may be more fit for sport climbing - otherwise they could snag on even more gear. I guess I was referring to "4" the whole time in my comment instead of "3", because I just noticed your numbering goes "1,2,2,3". He he.

Anyhow, I'd like to see one too. One disadvantage to them may be snagging on each other when racked on your harness (if they are in the open position). In light of that, they may be more fit for sport climbing – otherwise they could snag on even more gear.

]]> By: Eli http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-708 Eli Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:41:02 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-708 Kris- Funny, I also just saw that add in Climbing. FYI, I hadn't seen it when I wrote the article. I think that solution is more similar to "4. Design a gate that stays in two positions." I look forward to seeing one of those in person. Kris- Funny, I also just saw that add in Climbing. FYI, I hadn't seen it when I wrote the article. I think that solution is more similar to "4. Design a gate that stays in two positions." I look forward to seeing one of those in person.

]]> By: kris http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-707 kris Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:01:15 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-707 Interesting insight, Eli. I particularly like the cost/weight plot - it's amazing how much information it displays so simply.<br /><br />At first, I whisked over your 3rd solution, but got to thinking about it later. It's that kind of out-of-the-box thinking that breeds potential. Coincidently, I was looking at the new issue of Climbing Mag today and saw an eerily similar take on that solution. Not sure how I feel about it, but take a look at it <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/9gH7lFXEgKhmUlr-4sEemA?authkey=Gv1sRgCOv0q92uwKHiygE&feat=directlink" rel="nofollow">here</a>. (Photo credit: <a href="http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1063690&msg=1063742#msg1063742" rel="nofollow">justthemaid</a>) Interesting insight, Eli. I particularly like the cost/weight plot – it's amazing how much information it displays so simply.

At first, I whisked over your 3rd solution, but got to thinking about it later. It's that kind of out-of-the-box thinking that breeds potential. Coincidently, I was looking at the new issue of Climbing Mag today and saw an eerily similar take on that solution. Not sure how I feel about it, but take a look at it here. (Photo credit: justthemaid)

]]> By: Steve http://climbinghouse.com/2010/01/carabiner-design-evolution-the-fs-mini.html/comment-page-1#comment-706 Steve Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:41:39 +0000 http://deznutzinyoface.com/?p=691#comment-706 Nice work, Eli. Isn't it odd that the cost is less even though the heavier 'biner uses more material? I guess that is explained by the production and design costs of the smaller units, and possibly by the content of the materials used. Other than being lighter, do the lighter 'biners have a similar performace character, e.g. strength to weight?<br /><br />Steve from Omaha Nice work, Eli. Isn't it odd that the cost is less even though the heavier 'biner uses more material? I guess that is explained by the production and design costs of the smaller units, and possibly by the content of the materials used. Other than being lighter, do the lighter 'biners have a similar performace character, e.g. strength to weight?

Steve from Omaha

]]>