combrig
TreeHouser
Hello!
I've decided to make custom-length cambium saver. On our market there are only Petzl and Singing Rock products, which are good, but I need a little longer saver. Especially when I make an additional wrap to prevent slippage on the stem or branch.
So, I've have 3 opportunities for the ends - steel rings, aluminum rings and carabiners. I've seen the carabiner option for the first time when I was in Germany and really liked it, especially for redirects. And the good thing is, that you can add or remove the carabiner whenever you want. The same goes for the line that you redirect. The retrieval is OK with that saver, so I will go for a couple of those probably...
But the main point of this thread is focused on the webbing. Petzl's "Treesbee" cambium saver is manufactured from 25 mm (0.984 inches) flat webbing. The same goes for the KONG friction saver. Unfortunately my local webbing suppliers don't have 25 mm flat webbing, all they have is 18 mm (0,708 inches) and 40 mm (1,57 inches) flat, and 16 (0,62 inches) and 26 (1 inch) mm tubular webbing.
So, I really need your help here. My logic goes like this - the tubular webbing is softer than the flat one and if used, the whole 2-layered saver will be softer and more flexible. That will result in more surface of the saver contacting with the bark, and when we have large limbs and wrapped saver, the retrieval could be bothersome... On the other side - the slippage will be reduced to minimum. But the tubular webbing is prone to picking and stuff...
The flat webbing, on the other side, is the material of choice for the manufacturers that I know. KONG, Petzl, Buckingham, etc., use it, but they prefer 25 mm width. In some product info I've seen, that they claim, that additional width prevents twisting and there is some logic in that. But when it comes to tensile strength, the 18 mm webbing is better than 26 mm.
If we try to look at the loads, that the webbing distribute on the connector (ring, carabiner), then the narrower the webbing - the better. The load will be concentrated as close to the spine of the carabiner as possible. This will result in mostly tensile forces and will reduce the bending forces to minimum.
So I am a little confused here and I really need your help:
- Tubular or flat webbing?
- Is 18 mm flat webbing good enough?
I will appreciate any additional info on the topic!
And just a word for everyone, that think that using software, that is not certified for life support, is NOT okay - guys, you are right. I am totally agree with that. But I've made my mind on that one. I will make tensile strength test on the product and if the breaking loads are good enough, I will proceed with using it.
Thank you if you are concerned though. The personal safety is the most important thing!!!
I've decided to make custom-length cambium saver. On our market there are only Petzl and Singing Rock products, which are good, but I need a little longer saver. Especially when I make an additional wrap to prevent slippage on the stem or branch.
So, I've have 3 opportunities for the ends - steel rings, aluminum rings and carabiners. I've seen the carabiner option for the first time when I was in Germany and really liked it, especially for redirects. And the good thing is, that you can add or remove the carabiner whenever you want. The same goes for the line that you redirect. The retrieval is OK with that saver, so I will go for a couple of those probably...
But the main point of this thread is focused on the webbing. Petzl's "Treesbee" cambium saver is manufactured from 25 mm (0.984 inches) flat webbing. The same goes for the KONG friction saver. Unfortunately my local webbing suppliers don't have 25 mm flat webbing, all they have is 18 mm (0,708 inches) and 40 mm (1,57 inches) flat, and 16 (0,62 inches) and 26 (1 inch) mm tubular webbing.
So, I really need your help here. My logic goes like this - the tubular webbing is softer than the flat one and if used, the whole 2-layered saver will be softer and more flexible. That will result in more surface of the saver contacting with the bark, and when we have large limbs and wrapped saver, the retrieval could be bothersome... On the other side - the slippage will be reduced to minimum. But the tubular webbing is prone to picking and stuff...
The flat webbing, on the other side, is the material of choice for the manufacturers that I know. KONG, Petzl, Buckingham, etc., use it, but they prefer 25 mm width. In some product info I've seen, that they claim, that additional width prevents twisting and there is some logic in that. But when it comes to tensile strength, the 18 mm webbing is better than 26 mm.
If we try to look at the loads, that the webbing distribute on the connector (ring, carabiner), then the narrower the webbing - the better. The load will be concentrated as close to the spine of the carabiner as possible. This will result in mostly tensile forces and will reduce the bending forces to minimum.
So I am a little confused here and I really need your help:
- Tubular or flat webbing?
- Is 18 mm flat webbing good enough?
I will appreciate any additional info on the topic!
And just a word for everyone, that think that using software, that is not certified for life support, is NOT okay - guys, you are right. I am totally agree with that. But I've made my mind on that one. I will make tensile strength test on the product and if the breaking loads are good enough, I will proceed with using it.
Thank you if you are concerned though. The personal safety is the most important thing!!!
That's something that I will learn, eventually, but for now I am stuck with the sewing...
