Saddle Expiration Date

[MattMan81]

I am unsure how the new standard reads but the old ANSI standard stated that unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer, all harnesses should be retired upon completion of 5 years of service. The standard was A10 that dealt with construction and demolition of a fall arrest harness. I’ve heard newer additions have been updated to say harnesses can be used as long as they are inspected by a qualified person and deemed fit for use. As recreational use harnesses manufacturers will not be able to make you take it to a certified harness and sling inspection company so regardless as recreational use goes, all manufacturers will say 5 years or less. It doesn’t mean you have to get rid of it at the 5 year mark. It means if you use it beyond that point and something happens, the liability is off of the manufacturer. Insurance companies will require it. TMA requires it and I have a feeling it will be included in the finished version of saddle standards that is coming out very soon.

I totally see how insurance and liability is going to drive this boat. But like @kyler1945 said. There is so many things that can go wrong once you leave the ground. How many components are you counting on to keep yourself safe off the ground. Your rope, your saddle, you prussic or other device holding you up, your strap around the tree for your platform or steps. The saddle only needs to take the real abuse should one of those fail. At that point your counting on it to do it's job.
Your only as strong as your weakest link. Which probably more than not is the body its self. Human error will result in probably 99.9% of the accidents. Not faulty equipment, or over aged equipment. Dont wait until year 5 to inspect your saddle for any signs of failure. Check your other gear as well, and don't let your self get in the fall situation. If anything is questionable. Replace it.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I totally see how insurance and liability is going to drive this boat. But like @kyler1945 said. There is so many things that can go wrong once you leave the ground. How many components are you counting on to keep yourself safe off the ground. Your rope, your saddle, you prussic or other device holding you up, your strap around the tree for your platform or steps. The saddle only needs to take the real abuse should one of those fail. At that point your counting on it to do it's job.
Your only as strong as your weakest link. Which probably more than not is the body its self. Human error will result in probably 99.9% of the accidents. Not faulty equipment, or over aged equipment. Dont wait until year 5 to inspect your saddle for any signs of failure. Check your other gear as well, and don't let your self get in the fall situation. If anything is questionable. Replace it.

You are correct sir. It is a double edged sword. Most companies also will state that if used to arrest a fall in any capacity to retire it immediately. Even if you just bought the saddle and wore it one time, if you fall in it, it should be replaced. Does that mean stitches broke or the saddle won’t work as intended? No but when we are taking those chances, why risk it? $250 to $350 is a lot for a harness but compared to falling and not being able to walk or work again, I’d say $250 is chump change.

 

[Plebe]

View attachment 65675
Replace expiration date with any other certification, test result, or rating.

I’m not saying they aren’t useful for performing calculations(as in math). I’m saying they’re useless, and downright dangerous when included in risk assessment as a mental exercise. They are arbitrary values, generated from related, but not exact processes to what you may encounter personally.

Humans suck at big numbers, probabilities, and statistics. Reliably. The only way to make them worse at it, is to give them actual numbers to play with in their back of envelope thinking.

What I’m saying is Unless you’re really good at the math involved in calculating risk, which likely involves significant training, “doing what everyone else is doing” is no more risky than you guessing, based on some numbers on the side of a carabiner, what to do. In fact, you’re probably at less risk of a significant failure or injury by doing what most other people are doing, rather than thinking you guess your way through it because of a stamped date or value.

My point all along with this concept has not been “do what everyone else is doing.” Or “ignore warnings, ratings, and guidelines.” I’m saying doing that is less dangerous than pretending you’re good at math.

The best thing to do is to recognize that the risk of leaving the ground, compared to not leaving the ground, is so much higher, that any precautions you take in doing so are statistically irrelevant. Once you accept that, it grounds your expectations properly, and you can work through the math with the proper framework.

Idk.

Risk assessment is step 1

When deciding to take on risk

Risk management is step 2

I'll take the data.

I do understand what you're saying though, I think.

But while I recognize that data can be misunderstood and misused, data can also be an essential point of reference that when applied correctly can reduce poor outcomes, I think.

 

[kyler1945]

Idk.

Risk assessment is step 1

When deciding to take on risk

Risk management is step 2

I'll take the data.

I do understand what you're saying though, I think.

But while I recognize that data can be misunderstood and misused, data can also be an essential point of reference that when applied correctly can reduce poor outcomes, I think.

having more data (test results, failure rates, ratings, certificates, etc) is good right?

If by good, we mean the data can be used to make more informed decisions (calculations), then yes, it's good.

The same logic applies to how to make decisions (having more or better training, and/or a better understanding of probabilities, statistics, big numbers). If we can get more information on how to perform these calculations, we're likely to have better outcomes across time.

Both things are valuable.

I'm just saying that investing in learning how to assess risk properly (statistical training, developing a system to assess risk independent of your intuition) is more powerful in changing outcomes than investing in acquiring data points (reading carabiners, and expiration dates).

You know - teach a man to fish/give him a fish...


I'm not advocating hiding information - that's the devil's work.

Example (don't get political folks, it's just an easy salient example): Institutional concern about the "messaging" around masking and vaccines for covid mitigation. Public health officials/Government/Media were so concerned with the public's ability to make choices surrounding these topics, that steps were taken to omit/reduce importance of certain data to help influence decisions. These concerns are valid. The intervention is not effective. It backfired spectacularly, and unsurprisingly.

These types of decisions are made, both consciously and subconsciously, by people who are woefully unequipped to understand the implications.

A more powerful intervention is informing people fully, adopting a skeptical and humble stance on the information being gathered and shared, and then teaching/training/giving the public the tools necessary to process the information and make decisions.



I just see the twin religions of blind acceptance of data, and blind denial of data, as being incredibly dangerous. "trust the science" might as well be "praise zeus".

 

[GeoFish]

Just an FYI.
My Recon, Dryad and my Transformer do not have a expiration date.
Does that mean they are made out of better material, LOL.

 

[Kenbama]

Field Study on the Efficiency of a Methane Degradation Layer. The effect to to many Great Northern Beans and manafactured saddles.

 

[gcr0003]

So rope and biner ratings are of no value?

They are not of no value but their testing is not revealed to the public and often time the rating is obscure. How the rope or carabiner is tested plays a critical role in how or when it will break so only knowing a laboratory mbs is of little value.

The YouTube channel How Not 2, tests all kinds of climbing gear and gets into a lot of detail about the efficacy of the ratings and testing.

 

[raisins]

They are not of no value but their testing is not revealed to the public and often time the rating is obscure. How the rope or carabiner is tested plays a critical role in how or when it will break so only knowing a laboratory mbs is of little value.

The YouTube channel How Not 2, tests all kinds of climbing gear and gets into a lot of detail about the efficacy of the ratings and testing.

one interesting thing on that channel....quick links are way under rated.....those things break at over twice their rating, they had trouble finding things to attach to them in order to break them because the quick link was stronger than those things

 

[MattMan81]

Just an FYI.
My Recon, Dryad and my Transformer do not have a expiration date.
Does that mean they are made out of better material, LOL.

This is how overwatch gets around it. Better stick to the ground with it.

 

[Plebe]

This is how overwatch gets around it. Better stick to the ground with it.
View attachment 65694

 

[kyler1945]

A funny thing to me is the "saddles are the safest way to hunt" marketing nonsense.

It's funny for three reasons:

- It's completely baseless, lacks any substantive evidence.

- People not only believe it, they parrot it. Heck, I'm sure you can dig back in my posts and find one where I reflexively say things like that.

- It's completely unnecessary - who's the target demographic? Mostly dudes. What's a good way to get dudes to do something or buy something? Tell them it's dangerous and they shouldn't do it. Money printer.........

 

[NMSbowhunter]

The first thing I thought of was one of the interviews with Eberhart where he said he had been using the same saddle for 35 years...or some crazy number, can't remember exactly what he had said. And then here is my new saddle saying she's quitting after 5

I'll have to check my Phantom to see if it has a similar expiration date. I don't recall having seen one when I purchased it.

Ha, I remember an interview where he said something about that and made the point that if you have a 10 or 15 year old car do you feel the need to have the seatbelts replaced, saying that the saddle is made of seatbelt material.

Seatbelts in a car are probably exposed to more UV exposure in a year than a saddle will see in it's life.

I noticed the expiration date on the Cruzr XC I have. It didn't worry me too much since I inspect any and all gear I climb with pretty often and replace anything that looks suspicious. If I have serious doubts about a saddle I will toss it. Buying a new one is cheaper than a funeral.

 

[MattMan81]

A funny thing to me is the "saddles are the safest way to hunt" marketing nonsense.

It's funny for three reasons:

- It's completely baseless, lacks any substantive evidence.

I guess the debate is am I being safer now, than I was 6 years ago hanging off the side of a tree in the dark early morning climbing a set of sticks that I haven't laid eyes on since a year ago when I climbed down out of that tree stand. Then transitioned to my tree stand that again I had not checked anything on since a year ago. All while using zero safety equipment....
Versus now.. counting on a piece of rope to stop me from falling, doing some method I watched some guy on YouTube do and tell me it's safe....

Am I being safer????? I'll have to evaluate that some more...

 

[raisins]

Ha, I remember an interview where he said something about that and made the point that if you have a 10 or 15 year old car do you feel the need to have the seatbelts replaced, saying that the saddle is made of seatbelt material.

Seatbelts in a car are probably exposed to more UV exposure in a year than a saddle will see in it's life.

I noticed the expiration date on the Cruzr XC I have. It didn't worry me too much since I inspect any and all gear I climb with pretty often and replace anything that looks suspicious. If I have serious doubts about a saddle I will toss it. Buying a new one is cheaper than a funeral.

could be nylon versus polyester webbing thing

also, his seatbelt analogy might be one of those things that sound good and are convincing but actually, if you know more, makes no sense

i've read his books and watched his videos, and eberhart is also kind of a legend in his own mind (i can learn from guys like that, but don't really like them)....that thinks he knows more than he does/is smarter in areas that he is not

for instance, seatbelts are behind glass, are not exposed to dirt and water, and when in use are not under continual tension.....people could have faulty seatbelts and never know it because they never have a wreck (maybe automakers are doing a money analysis.....how much they will get sued versus how much to replace seatbelts....and if we wanted to be really safe then we would replace seat belts)

edit: he also does stuff that i consider unsafe.....like climb huge trees and then screw a step into them and then attach his tether to the screw in step and hang from it....i think he has a different risk analysis compared to me

 

[kyler1945]

I guess the debate is am I being safer now, than I was 6 years ago hanging off the side of a tree in the dark early morning climbing a set of sticks that I haven't laid eyes on since a year ago when I climbed down out of that tree stand. Then transitioned to my tree stand that again I had not checked anything on since a year ago. All while using zero safety equipment....
Versus now.. counting on a piece of rope to stop me from falling, doing some method I watched some guy on YouTube do and tell me it's safe....

Am I being safer????? I'll have to evaluate that some more...

My point is, if you polled the members of this site, I'm willing to bet that people think they're between 10% and 99% safer than they were before, in your example. In reality, they've probably reduced their risk of injury or death by something more like .1% to .99%. If they didn't actually increase their risk by introducing new methods, gear, and false confidence in said methods and gear.

It's most definitely worth evaluating what you're doing out there. I just don't understand the logic behind spending hours obsessing with which rope to go with between one with 4500lbs MBS and another with 5000lbs MBS. The difference in your risk of injury, keeping all other variables the same, between those two inputs, is most likely statistically irrelevant. Especially when ignoring more obvious, glaring, and significantly larger risks.

A good counter argument to what I'm saying would be "I'm going to climb a tree regardless, so I'll do what I can within that framework." That's reasonable. But I bet if people really understood just how risky that proposition is, and what the true costs are of an accident at height will be long term, They'd give that decision more time and consideration than which rope to use.

 

[kyler1945]

could be nylon versus polyester webbing thing

also, his seatbelt analogy might be one of those things that sound good and are convincing but actually, if you know more, makes no sense

i've read his books and watched his videos, and eberhart is also kind of a legend in his own mind (i can learn from guys like that, but don't really like them)....that thinks he knows more than he does/is smarter in areas that he is not

for instance, seatbelts are behind glass, are not exposed to dirt and water, and when in use are not under continual tension.....people could have faulty seatbelts and never know it because they never have a wreck

edit: he also does stuff that i consider unsafe.....like climb huge trees and then screw a step into them and then attach his tether to the screw in step and hang from it....i think he has a different risk analysis compared to me

And he's hasn't given serious consideration to just how much impact saying those things could have when leveraging the internet to spread the ideas.

The upside to saying things like that is nonexistent. The downside to it is potentially unlimited. The internet never forgets...

 

[gcr0003]

My point is, if you polled the members of this site, I'm willing to bet that people think they're between 10% and 99% safer than they were before, in your example. In reality, they've probably reduced their risk of injury or death by something more like .1% to .99%. If they didn't actually increase their risk by introducing new methods, gear, and false confidence in said methods and gear.

It's most definitely worth evaluating what you're doing out there. I just don't understand the logic behind spending hours obsessing with which rope to go with between one with 4500lbs MBS and another with 5000lbs MBS. The difference in your risk of injury, keeping all other variables the same, between those two inputs, is most likely statistically irrelevant. Especially when ignoring more obvious, glaring, and significantly larger risks.

A good counter argument to what I'm saying would be "I'm going to climb a tree regardless, so I'll do what I can within that framework." That's reasonable. But I bet if people really understood just how risky that proposition is, and what the true costs are of an accident at height will be long term, They'd give that decision more time and consideration than which rope to use.

 

[raisins]

could be nylon versus polyester webbing thing

also, his seatbelt analogy might be one of those things that sound good and are convincing but actually, if you know more, makes no sense

i've read his books and watched his videos, and eberhart is also kind of a legend in his own mind (i can learn from guys like that, but don't really like them)....that thinks he knows more than he does/is smarter in areas that he is not

for instance, seatbelts are behind glass, are not exposed to dirt and water, and when in use are not under continual tension.....people could have faulty seatbelts and never know it because they never have a wreck (maybe automakers are doing a money analysis.....how much they will get sued versus how much to replace seatbelts....and if we wanted to be really safe then we would replace seat belts)

edit: he also does stuff that i consider unsafe.....like climb huge trees and then screw a step into them and then attach his tether to the screw in step and hang from it....i think he has a different risk analysis compared to me

do seatbelts weaken over time - Google Search

turns out a lot of sites claim they do, i'll have to read more.....seems like maybe eberhart just threw out an analogy without googling it

 

[raisins]

And he's hasn't given serious consideration to just how much impact saying those things could have when leveraging the internet to spread the ideas.

The upside to saying things like that is nonexistent. The downside to it is potentially unlimited. The internet never forgets...

the possible upside, to him, is that he said something that seemed clever during an interview

 

[Plebe]

And he's hasn't given serious consideration to just how much impact saying those things could have when leveraging the internet to spread the ideas.

The upside to saying things like that is nonexistent. The downside to it is potentially unlimited. The internet never forgets...

He's way more credible on scent control than saddle safety

On the latter point, he probably weighs 100lb less than me so I've never legitimized a comparative thought. He is the first I had heard mention saddles are safer...quite awhile ago. Accessibility has really blown up recently, so, for good or bad, we'll learn a bit more soon enough.