• 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

bridge - Rope vs Amsteel

Did Wood saddles go out of business because they knew this thread would come into existence one day or did they provide Amstel bridges on their saddles because they are superior to rope?
 
TreeRecon said:
Amsteel was never intended to be used for life safety. Show me an industrial harness or arb saddle that uses Amsteel for the life safety connection? Maybe there is one, but I haven't found it in all my discussions and research. This is marketing being pushed by saddle manufacturers, accessories too. Amsteel isn't new and has been around forever.

The durability of Amsteel can't match climbing rope. Amsteel is an awesome product, but there are better options for climbing.

The weight savings is nil when comparing a 6' piece to climbing rope.
Click to expand...
I was hoping you’d say this so I didn’t feel compelled to.
I guess I understand a fixed amsteel bridge for the friction coefficient over a carabiner but if you do any research at all into knots and splicing and bend radii and how amsteel behaves in these various situations…let’s just say I won’t be using an amsteel tether with amsteel prusik or an adjustable shwabisch-based amsteel bridge on my own setup, and I kinda say a Hail Mary for anyone who does use these kinda systems. Some of the slippage and break testing I’ve seen, even on spliced amsteel, is really pucker-inducing, considering some of the activities and climbing methods used by fellow “saddle hunters”. Amsteel prusiks sliding at hyper low kN ratings, amsteel splices done without precision tapering breaking well below MBS, and sliding knots causing so much heat that they cut clear through themselves basically. Not to mention that knots lower the MBS of amsteel by upwards of 70% in many cases.
We all know I’m not an expert, but @TreeRecon is. There are many cheap, ultra-strong, knottable and/or spliceable climbing ropes available that are barely a few ounces heavier per foot than amsteel, and are actually purpose-built for similar use to “saddle hunting”.
 
Last edited:
DelaWhere_Arrow said:
I was hoping you’d say this so I didn’t feel compelled to.
I guess I understand a fixed amsteel bridge for the friction coefficient over a carabiner but if you do any research at all into knots and splicing and bend radii and how amsteel behaves in these various situations…let’s just say I won’t be using an amsteel tether with amsteel prusik or an adjustable shwabisch-based amsteel bridge on my own setup, and I kinda say a Hail Mary for anyone who does use these kinda systems. Some of the slippage and break testing I’ve seen, even on spliced amsteel, is really pucker-inducing, considering some of the activities and climbing methods used by fellow “saddle hunters”. Amsteel prusiks sliding at hyper low kN ratings, amsteel splices done without precision tapering breaking well below MBS, and sliding knots causing so much heat that they cut clear through themselves basically. Not to mention that knots lower the MBS of amsteel by upwards of 70% in many cases.
We all know I’m not an expert, but @TreeRecon is. There are many cheap, ultra-strong, knottable and/or spliceable climbing ropes available that are barely a few ounces heavier per foot than amsteel, and are actually purpose-built for similar use to “saddle hunting”.
Click to expand...
Thanks. No expert, but I've been fortunate to learn from and work with some top industry folks over the years.
 
DelaWhere_Arrow said:
Let’s ask @Fl Canopy Stalker
I have always trusted his idea of “safety” so he probably knows something I/we don’t.
Click to expand...

I used to share the same opinion as you on amsteel bridges. It was actually @Fl Canopy Stalker that talked me out of my anti amsteel position on bridges, at least to the point I won’t cut off an amsteel bridge that comes on a saddle from the manufacturer. I also won’t choose it as my first choice.
 
GCTerpfan said:
I used to share the same opinion as you on amsteel bridges. It was actually @Fl Canopy Stalker that talked me out of my anti amsteel position on bridges, at least to the point I won’t cut off an amsteel bridge that comes on a saddle from the manufacturer. I also won’t choose it as my first choice.
Click to expand...
Just found this gem from earlier in the year. Canopy addresses differences between using Amsteel on bridge vs LB/tether:

Post in thread 'Cons of amsteel tether/lineman's ?'
https://saddlehunter.com/community/...-of-amsteel-tether-linemans.50720/post-713849

As you said, I wouldn’t select it as my first bridge material choice, but it does make sense the way he describes it. I know this thread is primarily about bridges so I don’t wanna derail too much but I still think the concern of bending, splicing, and knots is highly pertinent to OP and we see Amsteel “abuse” running rampant lately.
 
My Cruzr XC came with an Amsteel bridge. I dont see any need to change it out. Probably will last 10-15 years. That said I reckon a rope bridge would be just as good IF It has a prussic attachment on one end and a double prussic loop on the other, so length is adjustable with a prussic, and its attached to both bridge loops with prussics to adjust there too.
 
GeoFish said:
You are going yo see fewer Amsteel bridges. Tethrd has a patent and they are inforcing it.
I like my HTP rope bridge on my Transformer.

Google Patents

Search and read the full text of patents from around the world with Google Patents, and find prior art in our index of non-patent literature.
patents.google.com
Click to expand...
Even more glad I bought a Cruzr now
 
TreeRecon said:
Splicing is the only proper method

Amsteel is designed for straight pulls. Think about the original intention, winches etc.

You're not supposed to tie knots in Amsteel and are supposed to splice instead.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at is that if you can’t bend amsteel, then you also can’t pull with a splice eye because it is bent on itself within the eye

I don’t see how those 2 stipulations can coexist because they are in conflict (pull straight but splice into an eye where it is not straight in the splice)
 
raisins said:
What I was getting at is that if you can’t bend amsteel, then you also can’t pull with a splice eye because it is bent on itself within the eye

I don’t see how those 2 stipulations can coexist because they are in conflict (pull straight but splice into an eye where it is not straight in the splice)
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I believe this has to do with the bend radius. I think 3:1 ratio of host diameter to diameter of eye (or greater) is acceptable with dyneema/amsteel but someone may correct me on that. I think this “rule”, if it is one, suggests that you shouldn’t put too sharp of a bend radius on a properly spliced eye, either. So, again, leaves the consumer (us) to either do their own homework (shocking) or DIY a solution without necessarily acquiescing to the product’s inherent strengths or weaknesses (equally shocking). Tons of gray area to play in there. I’m not a huge personal fan of gray areas in my equipment, and I value purpose-built equipment. but I also appreciate multi-purpose gear…more gray area.
 
DelaWhere_Arrow said:
I could be wrong, but I believe this has to do with the bend radius. I think 3:1 ratio of host diameter to diameter of eye (or greater) is acceptable with dyneema/amsteel but someone may correct me on that. I think this “rule”, if it is one, suggests that you shouldn’t put too sharp of a bend radius on a properly spliced eye, either. So, again, leaves the consumer (us) to either do their own homework (shocking) or DIY a solution without necessarily acquiescing to the product’s inherent strengths or weaknesses (equally shocking). Tons of gray area to play in there. I’m not a huge personal fan of gray areas in my equipment, and I value purpose-built equipment. but I also appreciate multi-purpose gear…more gray area.
Click to expand...

Maybe it has to do with bend radius around a sharp edge, in contrast to a curved object.

But the simplest explanation, and what I'll go with for now until I see something more official, is that this is being misremembered.
 
raisins said:
Maybe, but simplest explanation is that (especially since the documentation isn't available) it isn't true.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I also didn’t say the docs don’t exist. I got that info from somewhere. Probably poking around the sailing forums, this one, arb forums, manufacturers’ specs and such, of course the HN2 channel, and I’m also a chronic caller of manufacturers to ask if I could/would/should use their products for the purposes I’m intending. I realize I am not necessarily in the majority there.
 
DelaWhere_Arrow said:
Maybe. I also didn’t say the docs don’t exist. I got that info from somewhere. Probably poking around the sailing forums, this one, arb forums, manufacturers’ specs and such, of course the HN2 channel, and I’m also a chronic caller of manufacturers to ask if I could/would/should use their products for the purposes I’m intending. I realize I am not necessarily in the majority there.
Click to expand...

It could be something related to all ropes.

I'll try to remember/find it, but basically if you anchor a rope at too much of an angle then you greatly increase the mechanical advantage on it and you can snap a very strong rope.

EDIT: Found this which is related but not exactly what I was recalling.

www.ropebook.com

Vector Forces - ropebook

Vector forces become apparent whenever there is an internal angle greater than 0° between two or more rigging components or anchorage points. For ease of…
www.ropebook.com www.ropebook.com

I'm guessing a static rope might be worse.
 
DelaWhere_Arrow said:
Maybe. I also didn’t say the docs don’t exist. I got that info from somewhere. Probably poking around the sailing forums, this one, arb forums, manufacturers’ specs and such, of course the HN2 channel, and I’m also a chronic caller of manufacturers to ask if I could/would/should use their products for the purposes I’m intending. I realize I am not necessarily in the majority there.
Click to expand...

You quoted my original version where I thought I was being a bit of a d-bag, and then edited it. Sorry about that and your missed doe from another thread!
 
raisins said:
You quoted my original version where I thought I was being a bit of a d-bag, and then edited it. Sorry about that and your missed doe from another thread!
Click to expand...
No sweat, she probably would have seen me anyway. Saved by a squirrel. And I am numb to d-baggery for the most part.
 
raisins said:
It could be something related to all ropes.

I'll try to remember/find it, but basically if you anchor a rope at too much of an angle then you greatly increase the mechanical advantage on it and you can snap a very strong rope.

EDIT: Found this which is related but not exactly what I was recalling.

www.ropebook.com

Vector Forces - ropebook

Vector forces become apparent whenever there is an internal angle greater than 0° between two or more rigging components or anchorage points. For ease of…
www.ropebook.com www.ropebook.com

I'm guessing a static rope might be worse.
Click to expand...
If you follow the 10:1 safety rule for climbing lines (10% is the safe limit to use), it's a non issue for the most part. Think about it like this, if you were going to fling your rope over a lateral branch (to use as an anchor,) you wouldn't choose a branch that was an inch or two thick. You would want at least 4" in diameter.

10:1 for life safety already takes into consideration that you'll be bending it, tying knots etc. There's a large safety margin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top