• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

2024 Gear thread

boyne bowhunter said:
I find it interesting that the product website says the stand was "tested" to 700lbs, rated to 350lbs. It doesn't however include a testing specification or agency requirement or mention a 3rd party. Since they went 2x I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was done at least to the intent of the TMA/ASTM specifications.

However, under the description of the climbing rails there's no mention that I saw of testing or rated weight. Are we supposed to assume that they were tested to the same requirement? Seems somewhat doubtful to me that this type of catastrophic failure should occur on a single use of a product that was successfully tested per the TMA/ASTM standards for that kind of loading.
Click to expand...
“Catastrophic failure” is the best, and most correct, description of the issue in my opinion. Glad you’re ok @enkriss Other than the bruises and cost of new underwear.
 
boyne bowhunter said:
I find it interesting that the product website says the tree stand was "tested" to 700lbs, rated to 350lbs. It doesn't however include a testing specification or agency requirement or mention a 3rd party. Since they went 2x I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was done at least to the intent of the TMA/ASTM specifications.

However, under the description of the climbing rails there's no mention that I saw of testing or rated weight. Are we supposed to assume that they were tested to the same requirement? Seems somewhat doubtful to me that this type of catastrophic failure should occur on a single use of a product that was successfully tested per the TMA/ASTM standards for that kind of loading.
Click to expand...

The claim is 350lb rating on the rails. But that is over 100lbs north of what I weigh.

IMG_6441.png
 
enkriss said:
The claim is 350lb rating on the rails. But that is over 100lbs north of what I weigh.

View attachment 100897
Click to expand...
Yeah, I went back and managed to scroll down enough to see that so I edited my original post accordingly. I still maintain though that there's no mention of stick testing on the site and a stick rated to to 350# should not break on the first load application unless you're just really, really unlucky on product quality. :tearsofjoy:

If I remember the ASTM requirement for stick testing correctly (now retired with no access to ASTM Standards anymore) the steps have to hold a one time 2X rated weight without damage as well as a significant number of cyclic loadings (10,000 cycles?) at 1X rated weight without damage to simulate the stick's lifetime usage.
 
I state the obvious when I say if this isn't an isolated incident that this product launch could amount to an enormous and costly flop.

I don't think you can trust the consistency of cast aluminum, it's properties or its strength.
Even older LW stands have seen failures. TL platforms I'll make exception for, due to their material thickness and what I've put them through personally. My life and safety are worth carrying a couple extra pounds.
 
One of my sticks has a pin that has play on the bottom standoff. Will be sending them back. I really do like the stand so kind of on the fence about it. The system is well thought out as far as use goes but it sounds like they may be in for a rude awakening once customers start really using the sticks.
 
That is a real shame to see a breakage this early and with seemingly little effort. I was kind of quietly rooting for this setup even tho it is made in Asia or whatever. Not sure what you could tweak there to really correct that thin wall issue except basically redoing/rethinking the step design. And likely adding weight.
 
enkriss said:
If I had one concern about the nested stand. It’s the lack of platform material by the post.
Click to expand...

Not to fear monger or anything, but based upon what I've seen looking at photos of the stand, and the stick failure,
I tend to agree. Nowhere near the thickness or bracing in that area that it needs IMO. I wouldn't want to be setting
it on much other than a straight tree at my weight.

Did you return the whole works or just the rails?

IMG_7205.jpeg
 
Pic1 said:
Not to fear monger or anything, but based upon what I've seen looking at photos of the stand, and the stick failure,
I tend to agree. Nowhere near the thickness or bracing in that area that it needs IMO. I wouldn't want to be setting
it on much other than a straight tree at my weight.

Did you return the whole works or just the rails?

View attachment 100957
Click to expand...

Returned everything as requested.
 
Pic1 said:
Not to fear monger or anything, but based upon what I've seen looking at photos of the stand, and the stick failure,
I tend to agree. Nowhere near the thickness or bracing in that area that it needs IMO. I wouldn't want to be setting
it on much other than a straight tree at my weight.

Did you return the whole works or just the rails?

View attachment 100957
Click to expand...

I was more concerned with how thinned out they were.

IMG_6488.jpeg
 
Pic1 said:
I state the obvious when I say if this isn't an isolated incident that this product launch could amount to an enormous and costly flop.

I don't think you can trust the consistency of cast aluminum, it's properties or its strength.
Even older LW stands have seen failures. TL platforms I'll make exception for, due to their material thickness and what I've put them through personally. My life and safety are worth carrying a couple extra pounds.
Click to expand...

There's a guy on archerytalk making a fully cast aluminum working replica of a machined Mathews bow, including casting the cams.....and he's gonna shoot it....yikes
 
The cycle of life here on Saddlehunter… a new product comes out and everyone loves it… then it wets the bed and the internet dumpster fire begins… the owner of said product attempts to defend himself only to find out he’s breaking the vendor rules and must sit on the side lines and watch as the whole mess unfolds, a few folks try to sneak theirs in the classifieds quick before it’s too late… it’s kind of like sitting on the front porch… on a beautiful spring day watching a new born fawn feed on the lawn…only to have a couple coyotes burst from the brush ripping said fawn to pieces before your very own eyes and there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it, I now have the “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom” music stuck in my head… :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 
I felt I needed to report the break since I spoke so highly of the product based on my first impression. I felt morally obligated. Sure I could had kept it to myself and just sent it back and said oh well… But that’s not me. I am a man of integrity. I tell it how it is. The good and the bad.
 
enkriss said:
I felt I needed to report the break since I spoke so highly of the product based on my first impression. I felt morally obligated. Sure I could had kept it to myself and just sent it back and said oh well… But that’s not me. I am a man of integrity. I tell it how it is. The good and the bad.
Click to expand...
We’re glad you did and that you are @enkriss!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top