Screamer in a bridge?

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

In this illustration, it’s much like a back up prusik for your mechanical ascender. Have a prusik above the primary with a shorty screamer. Keep it just slack enough that it isn’t under load but not so slack that it won’t catch after an inch of stretch is introduced… it’ll add secondary catch because it’s above the primary connection yet it is not truly loaded until the fall occurs. (Again who the heck leaves their linesman fully attached while resting on the platform and tethered off?

Also the red spot is the secondary prusik and the yellow is the screamer lol sorry @Red Beard but an artist I am not lol

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

Alright now you’re just trying to piss me off!!

Hey I do like your artistic ability though! Lol

 

[Red Beard]

In this illustration, it’s much like a back up prusik for your mechanical ascender. Have a prusik above the primary with a shorty screamer. Keep it just slack enough that it isn’t under load but not so slack that it won’t catch after an inch of stretch is introduced… it’ll add secondary catch because it’s above the primary connection yet it is not truly loaded until the fall occurs. (Again who the heck leaves their linesman fully attached while resting on the platform and tethered off?

Gotcha. Still though, your primary prusik would have to snap to engage the potential advantages of the implementing a screamer?

 

[_Dario]

Would a dynamic prusik be helpful in this rig, in your opinion? (As the secondary prusik that is, attached to the screamer)

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

Gotcha. Still though, your primary prusik would have to snap to engage the potential advantages of the implementing a screamer?

The more likely out come would be the primary prusik would slip some as the rope begins to stretch, the secondary most likely would be pulled tight at this point helping receive the shock load. Perhaps not in full force but in part. When these are used for rock climbing, there is slack in the system and the anchor point is advanced to help keep the fall factor down. Often times there’s a belay partner at the bottom. So when you fall initially its not weighted. But as per usual, our intended use is different than those industries. That’s why I don’t feel there is a magic cure all. In my eyes a tight system is the only restraint to falls that we truly have. Everything else is just reactive in nature

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

Would a dynamic prusik be helpful in this rig, in your opinion? (As the secondary prusik that is, attached to the screamer)

Anything dynamic will help reduce shock load. But they also wear out faster. And they stretch when weighted. From a safety stand point it reduces shock but just like in that video, a RCH with a dynamic lanyard would still generate forces beyond our body’s handling capabilities. That’s why elevated hunting is done at your own risk.

 

[_Dario]

So once again procedure over gear. Gear still being greatly important.

 

[Marmuzz]

They [screamers] are not meant to permanently hold the weight of the object. In fact if you are a 250 lbs man and you can also lift 250 lbs, you have enough strength and force to begin popping stitches by simply pushing hard off the tree (think DRT hip thrust). Is it likely you’d pop the stitches by doing this once or twice? No. But repetitive process of constant weight bearing, or extra forces from swinging, hip thrusting any of that, will weaken the stitches. So eventually those stitches will bust from weight alone … Screamers are made to catch shock one time in a fall not be continually weight loaded.

@Fl Canopy Stalker sorry I chopped up your post there like a research citation but I wanted to call out some particulars. So my take away from that is those of us using screamers while ascending when one-sticking and trusting all our weight on them while moving up the stick should be aware the screamer has a mileage limit and will need to be replaced at intervals? Obviously if it didn’t pop, it still holds the majority of its shock reduction capability. But if we’re really using these to lessen kNs felt in a fall, it’d be prudent to know that threshold is being effectually sanded down with every climb. That correct?

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

So once again procedure over gear. Gear still being greatly important.

Quick recap of how control measures work. First is engineered controls. Such as a saddle or stand that is incapable of falling. Since that’s not realistic (believe me trophyline back in the day tried their best to make it)…. We move on to administrative controls. That is following procedures that limit/minimize chances for an occurrence. That is our best bet. Keeping systems tight. Using head lamps in low light. Climbing with a linesman rope per manufacturer suggestions. Following safe practices!
then finally we move on to ppe. I know many of you will say the saddle is ppe but it really is not per ANSI which is why Full body harnesses count as PPE but work positioning harnesses have their own separate category (they aren’t considered true PPE)… using screamers, dynamic lines ect are PPE. They are your last defense in a situation and are truly only there for worst case scenario. Worst case (ideally) won’t happen if you follow the administrative controls.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

@Fl Canopy Stalker sorry I chopped up your post there like a research citation but I wanted to call out some particulars. So my take away from that is those of us using screamers while ascending when one-sticking and trusting all our weight on them while moving up the stick should be aware the screamer has a mileage limit and will need to be replaced at intervals? Obviously if it didn’t pop, it still holds the majority of its shock reduction capability. But if we’re really using these to lessen kNs felt in a fall, it’d be prudent to know that threshold is being effectually sanded down with every climb. That correct?

Yes sir. That would be correct. Not saying it won’t work or won’t help. Simply stating the amount of shock absorption would be reduced because the stitch fatigue would actually allow it to break away quicker than intended. It might take 10 climbs? It might take 2 years but degradation will definitely occur and when the break away strength is designed to begin at 550, that’s not much degradation to hit the forces many of us weigh

 

[Marmuzz]

Great. So I might’ve worn mine out just practicing this summer!! Hmm well that’s a good consideration. I might want to replace it then before hunting season. If its strength is being gradually reduced, that kN savings I’m counting on (but not really ever intending to deploy) will be rounded down.

 

[kyler1945]

Ok as I mentioned above I disagree with the idea of screamers as a bridge and it’s not because of @kyler1945 ’s double force or chaos reasoning (at least not partially). Screamers were created for rock climbers to reduce generated forces by stitching fold overs that are designed to break away individually. This is like a gradual deceleration as opposed to hard braking. These stitches are not created to continuously hold force. Most are designed to begin popping at 500-550 lbs. if you double it over to use as a bridge, you would in fact increase your break strength because the force is applied in basket configuration. That is true. However since the individual stitch section would easily see 500 lbs or more of initial force in a fall, they would break away, BUT most likely not evenly. Which would cause the chaos mentioned because you’d be likely to roll, as it hung in the carabiner. That is a concern. The mother concerns are (and this applies to the mentioned patent of Tethrd as well. These stitches are designed to break away and reduce force. They are not meant to permanently hold the weight of the object. In fact if you are a 250 lbs man and you can also lift 250 lbs, you have enough strength and force to begin popping stitches by simply pushing hard off the tree (think DRT hip thrust). Is it likely you’d pop the stitches by doing this once or twice? No. But repetitive process of constant weight bearing, or extra forces from swinging, hip thrusting any of that, will weaken the stitches. So eventually those stitches will bust from weight alone (and it doesn’t take as long as you might think. Add in friction of the screamer being rolled across a carabiner and yea the screamer as a bridge is terrible. Even the sewn folds on that patent would weaken severely over time and either break away, or fail to do their intended purpose. Screamers are made to catch shock one time in a fall not be continually weight loaded. Now before you say all saddles are stitched bla bla bla what’s the difference….
Saddles are life support. In any life supported device the minimum breaking strength must be 10x the rated weight limit. We saw on the fall video from the thread yesterday, that most impact forces generated in severe falls are still well shy of 3000 lbs let alone the 5000 the ropes and many harnesses are sewn to. Also regardless of condition it is suggested (read: required) that all saddles be inspected before use and all be retired in 5 years or less. Why do you think that is? Why are harnesses built to such a high strength and retired after 5 years? It’s because continuous load bearing AS well as elements (weather, use, sunlight) all wear down the material and especially the threads strength over time. So 550 lbs will be wore out much much faster than 5000 lbs.
Even straps we use for cam buckles are required to be sewn at 3 to 5 times the suggested weight rating of what they are tied to. It’s not just for shock load, it’s also for degradation. So sewing loops in the saddle or using a screamer as a continuous load bearing apparatus is a bad idea

Do you have any data to support your claim that a constantly weighted screamer will weaken and cause the stitching to start popping at both a force, and in a timeframe, that is not conducive to use as force reduction in this specific application? I agree with the premise. What I'm interested in is real world data showing that 150-250lbs of human, with the forces that they can generate through keeping the screamer under load in climbing situations, causing screamers to begin to deploy because of stitch weakening, to the point they don't serve their purpose. Obviously this exact data doesn't exist because this is not how they're typically used. But surely if you're confident that this phenomenon will occur at a rate that makes this conversation not worth having, you've got some real world evidence to point to.

I can think of multiple ways to execute this design, that takes into consideration all aspects besides the "under constant load" issue you raise. They aren't worth discussing until this one's addressed though.

I'm not asking this with any answer in mind. I'm genuinely curious. I'll admit I don't think there's strong evidence to support the claim, but I am open to having my mind changed.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

Do you have any data to support your claim that a constantly weighted screamer will weaken and cause the stitching to start popping at both a force, and in a timeframe, that is not conducive to use as force reduction in this specific application? I agree with the premise. What I'm interested in is real world data showing that 150-250lbs of human, with the forces that they can generate through keeping the screamer under load in climbing situations, causing screamers to begin to deploy because of stitch weakening, to the point they don't serve their purpose. Obviously this exact data doesn't exist because this is not how they're typically used. But surely if you're confident that this phenomenon will occur at a rate that makes this conversation not worth having, you've got some real world evidence to point to.

I can think of multiple ways to execute this design, that takes into consideration all aspects besides the "under constant load" issue you raise. They aren't worth discussing until this one's addressed though.

I'm not asking this with any answer in mind. I'm genuinely curious. I'll admit I don't think there's strong evidence to support the claim, but I am open to having my mind changed.

Disclaimer**** the response you are about to read is full of sarcasm. It’s not meant as disrespect but it does ask for basic logic to be applied…. Data specific to screamers being loaded doesn’t exist to my knowledge. Because they are designed to arrest a fall one time and then be disposed of, not to be continually loaded…. That is like me asking you to find me data on how good a car’s seatbelt will function if I crash WHILE driving underwater. That data doesn’t exist because you don’t drive cars under water. Can you do it? Sure. But where is the scientific data that tells me if my seatbelt sill hold me on the car when I hit an artificial reef because I was checking out the clown fish instead of looking straight ahead… lol I am being extra I know but if you know something wasn’t designed to be used the way you use it, how do you determine if it is serving it’s function or not? However ALL material and stitching degradation works the same when you are talking about nylon and polyester, and I am sure you can research that. Again many factors play into that degradation BUT if it’s only say weakened 5% per year, how many years do you think it would take before it’s breaking away, lower than designed? And I didn’t say it wouldn’t work at all, or that it wouldn’t still absorb shock, I said it would no longer work as intended meaning if it’s designed to lower arrest forces by 3kN with full break strength, and you’ve weighted it and used it enough times that the stitches start breaking apart at 475 lbs instead of 550 as designed, then will it still be able to absorb a full 3kN? I am not trying to change your mind I am simply stating that is not what they were made to do and using them in that manner will accelerate stitch degradation. I want people to be aware of that possibility/probability because they will see this and think that’s the answer to shock absorption while in a saddle…. You either understand stitching break strengths, how rules of force are applied (direction of pull) and how use, time and environment will effect thread, or you don’t.

 

[CooterBrown]

Disclaimer**** the response you are about to read is full of sarcasm. It’s not meant as disrespect but it does ask for basic logic to be applied…. Data specific to screamers being loaded doesn’t exist to my knowledge. Because they are designed to arrest a fall one time and then be disposed of, not to be continually loaded…. That is like me asking you to find me data on how good a car’s seatbelt will function if I crash WHILE driving underwater. That data doesn’t exist because you don’t drive cars under water. Can you do it? Sure. But where is the scientific data that tells me if my seatbelt sill hold me on the car when I hit an artificial reef because I was checking out the clown fish instead of looking straight ahead… lol I am being extra I know but if you know something wasn’t designed to be used the way you use it, how do you determine if it is serving it’s function or not? However ALL material and stitching degradation works the same when you are talking about nylon and polyester, and I am sure you can research that. Again many factors play into that degradation BUT if it’s only say weakened 5% per year, how many years do you think it would take before it’s breaking away, lower than designed? And I didn’t say it wouldn’t work at all, or that it wouldn’t still absorb shock, I said it would no longer work as intended meaning if it’s designed to lower arrest forces by 3kN with full break strength, and you’ve weighted it and used it enough times that the stitches start breaking apart at 475 lbs instead of 550 as designed, then will it still be able to absorb a full 3kN? I am not trying to change your mind I am simply stating that is not what they were made to do and using them in that manner will accelerate stitch degradation. I want people to be aware of that possibility/probability because they will see this and think that’s the answer to shock absorption while in a saddle…. You either understand stitching break strengths, how rules of force are applied (direction of pull) and how use, time and environment will effect thread, or you don’t.

I use a lot of thing in a way they were not designed for in my saddle hunting endeavor. Like nothing other than my saddle was designed to be used up a tree shooting deer.

 

[kyler1945]

Obviously this exact data doesn't exist because this is not how they're typically used. But surely if you're confident that this phenomenon will occur at a rate that makes this conversation not worth having, you've got some real world evidence to point to.

Disclaimer**** the response you are about to read is full of sarcasm. It’s not meant as disrespect but it does ask for basic logic to be applied…. Data specific to screamers being loaded doesn’t exist to my knowledge. Because they are designed to arrest a fall one time and then be disposed of, not to be continually loaded…. That is like me asking you to find me data on how good a car’s seatbelt will function if I crash WHILE driving underwater. That data doesn’t exist because you don’t drive cars under water. Can you do it? Sure. But where is the scientific data that tells me if my seatbelt sill hold me on the car when I hit an artificial reef because I was checking out the clown fish instead of looking straight ahead… lol I am being extra I know but if you know something wasn’t designed to be used the way you use it, how do you determine if it is serving it’s function or not? However ALL material and stitching degradation works the same when you are talking about nylon and polyester, and I am sure you can research that. Again many factors play into that degradation BUT if it’s only say weakened 5% per year, how many years do you think it would take before it’s breaking away, lower than designed? And I didn’t say it wouldn’t work at all, or that it wouldn’t still absorb shock, I said it would no longer work as intended meaning if it’s designed to lower arrest forces by 3kN with full break strength, and you’ve weighted it and used it enough times that the stitches start breaking apart at 475 lbs instead of 550 as designed, then will it still be able to absorb a full 3kN? I am not trying to change your mind I am simply stating that is not what they were made to do and using them in that manner will accelerate stitch degradation. I want people to be aware of that possibility/probability because they will see this and think that’s the answer to shock absorption while in a saddle…. You either understand stitching break strengths, how rules of force are applied (direction of pull) and how use, time and environment will effect thread, or you don’t.

I made it very clear I'm aware that the specific data doesn't exist, because why would it. I agree with you.

Moving on.

Do you have any actual data to support your claim that it would degrade the device to the point that it would not be useful, both from a lifespan, or force reduction standpoint. I was very careful to word that post very precisely.

I'm acknowledging that yes things degrade. I'm acknowledging that screamers are designed to generally be on slack line until called upon. What I'm also claiming is that you're making very clear statements of fact, based on data that you can't point to.

Again, I'm open to having my mind changed here. But I don't see ALL of a screamer's stitching degrading at either the same rate, or at a rate that renders it useless (as in, nowhere near the efficacy it was originally intended to have, not just complete failure) from being weighted a lot.


I reread my post and I can't really ask the question any other way. It does sound from your response that you have no data to back up the very specific claim that the screamer would degrade beyond the point of usefulness(in this case, reducing a significant enough amount of force so as to make someone deploy it), in a short enough timeframe (as in, say less than 5 years) that someone wouldn't use it for the span then toss and replace as a matter of procedure.


I agree with your skeptical approach to the problem. But you jumped to a conclusion without really giving us anything substantial to be there.

Open discussion and not throwing slings and arrows.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I use a lot of thing in a way they were not designed for in my saddle hunting endeavor. Like nothing other than my saddle was designed to be used up a tree shooting deer.

I get what you’re saying but things do cross over, carabiners weren’t created for hunting but they cross over because you use them in a similar manner. We get onto SRT guys for using a carabiner to hitch the rope around the tree and say use a delta link instead. Delta links weren’t made for tree either but the logic applies. Don’t cross load carabiners…. Again how come everyone on here quotes strap works for SPI and WLL when talking saddles or ropes but don’t apply that same rule to a screamer? You can’t pick and choose when to apply logic.

 

[CooterBrown]

I'm not following your logic I guess.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I made it very clear I'm aware that the specific data doesn't exist, because why would it. I agree with you.

Moving on.

Do you have any actual data to support your claim that it would degrade the device to the point that it would not be useful, both from a lifespan, or force reduction standpoint. I was very careful to word that post very precisely.

I'm acknowledging that yes things degrade. I'm acknowledging that screamers are designed to generally be on slack line until called upon. What I'm also claiming is that you're making very clear statements of fact, based on data that you can't point to.

Again, I'm open to having my mind changed here. But I don't see ALL of a screamer's stitching degrading at either the same rate, or at a rate that renders it useless (as in, nowhere near the efficacy it was originally intended to have, not just complete failure) from being weighted a lot.


I reread my post and I can't really ask the question any other way. It does sound from your response that you have no data to back up the very specific claim that the screamer would degrade beyond the point of usefulness(in this case, reducing a significant enough amount of force so as to make someone deploy it), in a short enough timeframe (as in, say less than 5 years) that someone wouldn't use it for the span then toss and replace as a matter of procedure.


I agree with your skeptical approach to the problem. But you jumped to a conclusion without really giving us anything substantial to be there.

Open discussion and not throwing slings and arrows.

Ok what is Working load limit and why is it applied to straps and ropes? I ask because it is relevant. I see that you want data. I love data. Can someone on here show me the data that using a carabiner to hitch your rope around a tree is dangerous? Someone will tell me it’s cross loaded right? I can then ask for data that shows me that when you climb SRT that your carabiner will fail because you’re cross loading it…… see it’s redundant. You either just accept that the rules for cross loading a carabiner apply even though you do not weigh the 7kN that it takes to break it or you don’t, right? Does that mean you can’t use the carabiner to connect to the tree for SRT? You can and some do. Doesn’t change that you’re using it in a manner it’s not intended for. But I want the data that is specific to SRT climbing. You can’t apply basic cross loading data.
that’s what this is. You either apply the rules of material degradation and the reasoning behind working load limit or you don’t. Let’s say the screamer is not life support, your working load limit would be 1/3 of its tensile rating. The tensile rating is the number at which stitches rip apart. For a screamer that’s 550 lbs. do they completely fail at that force? No! But they begin breaking the breakaway stitches at that weight. So with that logic, 550/ 3 is roughly 183 lbs. this is the amount of continuous force that can be applied without accelerating stitch degradation. How many of us with GEAR, boots and hunting clothing still weigh less than 183? Now when we swing or shift in a saddle, we generate more force. Again this is proven. I can provide documentation for that. But now you have to factor in the extra force you generate from swinging or shifting. That can be as little as 20 lbs or as great as twice your weight… Regardless it will still be more than 183 for most of us. Now for life supporting apparatus, the Working load limit must be 10 times the rated weight. So if you are a 150 lbs person that would be a minimum break strength 1500 lbs. Again screamers BEGIN breaking at 550 lbs. when figuring WLL the numbers are created to account for potential shock loads,gradual thread and material degradation, and other variables like shifting /swinging loads, wet conditions ect…. I did not say a screamer will not work if you continuously load it. I said it will weaken the stitches at an accelerated pace until eventually the breakaway stitches break away at forces much lower than designed. It will still catch you but it won’t absorb the extra force in relation to the increased fall distance once it degrades to a point. This is the same reason you’re told to retire your saddle immediately following a shock load. I didn’t produce any where near the 5000 lbs the saddle is sewn to but since it was loaded well beyond the WLL, there is a strong possibility that it will be degraded to an extent that it won’t catch me in the next fall.

 

[kyler1945]

Ok what is Working load limit and why is it applied to straps and ropes? I ask because it is relevant. I see that you want data. I love data. Can someone on here show me the data that using a carabiner to hitch your rope around a tree is dangerous? Someone will tell me it’s cross loaded right? I can then ask for data that shows me that when you climb SRT that your carabiner will fail because you’re cross loading it…… see it’s redundant. You either just accept that the rules for cross loading a carabiner apply even though you do not weigh the 7kN that it takes to break it right? Does that mean you can’t use the carabiner to connect to the tree? You can and some do. Doesn’t change that you’re using it in a manner it’s not intended for. But I want the data that is specific to SRT climbing. You can’t apply basic cross loading data.
that’s what this is. You either apply the rules of material degradation and the reasoning behind working load limit or you don’t. Let’s say the screamer is not life support, your working load limit would be 1/3 of its tensile rating. The tensile rating is the number at which stitches rip apart. For a screamer that’s 550 lbs. do they completely fail at that force? No! But they begin breaking the breakaway stitches at that weight. So with that logic, 550/ 3 is roughly 183 lbs. this is the amount of continuous force that can be applied without accelerating stitch degradation. How many of us with GEAR, boots and hunting clothing still weigh less than 183? Now when we swing or shift in a saddle, we generate more force. Again this is proven. I can provide documentation for that. But now you have to factor in the extra force you generate from swinging or shifting. That can be as little as 20 lbs or as great as twice your weight… Regardless it will still be more than 183 for most of us. Now for life supporting apparatus, the Working load limit must be 10 times the rated weight. So if you are a 150 lbs person that would be a minimum break strength 1500 lbs. Again screamers BEGIN breaking at 550 lbs. when figuring WLL the numbers are created to account for potential shock loads,gradual thread and material degradation, and other variables like shifting /swinging loads, wet conditions ect…. I did not say a screamer will not work if you continuously load it. I said it will weaken the stitches at an accelerated pace until eventually the breakaway stitches break away at forces much lower than designed. It will still catch you but it won’t absorb the extra force in relation to the increased fall distance once it degrades to a point. This is the same reason you’re told to retire your saddle immediately following a shock load. I didn’t produce any where near the 5000 lbs the saddle is sewn to but since it was loaded well beyond the WLL, there is a strong possibility that it will be degraded to an extent that it won’t catch me in the next fall.

What are the rules of material degradation?

How do they apply to screamers under normal accepted use?

Do all the stitches in a screamer degrade at the same rate, due to using the screamer under a load that doesn't exceed the break strength of the first row of stitches? If not, what rate do they degrade at?

What's the rate of degradation of the stitches normally? Surely we have a formula for % of strength year over year. And we've probably boiled that down to "replace it every year, or five years, or ten years" based on basic math related to that. I'm asking for that data.

I can get behind your point. Its a reasonable one. I don't buy the end conclusion though. We may be able to get to that point. I'm not ruling it out. I'm also not saying that screamers are "safe" or "useful" or "exactly as they were to start" after being loaded for some time.

What I'm trying to arrive at, is what data, specifically, are you basing a very specific claim on - that screamers will degrade beyond usefulness in a time frame that is unacceptable, by being subjected to the loads generated through normal climbing activities.

Again, I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced this is true. I'm saying you're making a big leap from one set of facts, skipping a lot of stuff, and arriving at that conclusion. I'm interested in very specific information from the middle.

 

[kyler1945]

What are the rules of material degradation?

How do they apply to screamers under normal accepted use?

Do all the stitches in a screamer degrade at the same rate, due to using the screamer under a load that doesn't exceed the break strength of the first row of stitches? If not, what rate do they degrade at?

What's the rate of degradation of the stitches normally? Surely we have a formula for % of strength year over year. And we've probably boiled that down to "replace it every year, or five years, or ten years" based on basic math related to that. I'm asking for that data.

I can get behind your point. Its a reasonable one. I don't buy the end conclusion though. We may be able to get to that point. I'm not ruling it out. I'm also not saying that screamers are "safe" or "useful" or "exactly as they were to start" after being loaded for some time.

What I'm trying to arrive at, is what data, specifically, are you basing a very specific claim on - that screamers will degrade beyond usefulness in a time frame that is unacceptable, by being subjected to the loads generated through normal climbing activities.

Again, I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced this is true. I'm saying you're making a big leap from one set of facts, skipping a lot of stuff, and arriving at that conclusion. I'm interested in very specific information from the middle.

Put another way:

We know that if you take a fall on some pieces of climbing equipment, it's recommended that they are retired.

What is that recommendation based on? I would assume it's based on the idea that the material has been subjected to some forces that compromise it's integrity. Well, they didn't just guess as these ideas. They tested the material after these forces were applied, and it didn't meet a standard that was set by people who supposedly know what they're doing.

But, there was a specific threshold they chose, for a specific material. If you don't exceed that threshold, there's really no good reason to retire the rope. The idea is to err on side of caution here with the recommendation, but the data is sound. If you subject the rope to X force, retire it. But because X is really a complicated batch of information, and people don't want that, and rope company doesn't want to get sued, they say, "if you fall retire it".

This is entirely separate from the material losing integrity over time due to elements and what not. That's happening either way to the screamer, or rope, or whatever, regardless of being loaded.

So I ask again, do we have testing, or data to show that the threads used for stitching up harnesses, screamers, rope sheaths, slings, load baskets, etc. will degrade when exposed to force? I bet we do. And I bet that the more force, and the more time they're exposed to it, the more they'll degrade. But there's a rate.

You're jumping from the above pieces of information, to the conclusion that the loads a screamer would be subjected to under our type of use, would cause those threads to degrade to the point that the screamer would offer so little protection as to be useless, and would degrade to this point in such a time frame as to make replacing it on a regular interval not feasible.

This is the jump I'm trying to clarify.