• 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

Tethered in Petersen's Bowhunting Equipment Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vtbow said:
Understood. But curious what the Amsteel strength is in the actual application. Samson specifically states the strength is significantly decreased if a certain ratio of diameter to bend is not met. The anchor appears to have at least a 3" diameter to it. Again, not saying it isn't strong or strong enough, but i doubt it has that strength in the actual application. It's at least the same as the biners, I get that.
Click to expand...

If I'm following what your point is... isnt the bend diameter really tight when it goes thru a carabiner? The Tethrd tests show the carabiner breaking before the Amsteel. If Amsteel is stronger than a climb rated 'beener, then I'm fine with it.
Am I misunderstanding your point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Allegheny Tom said:
If I'm following what your point is... isnt the bend diameter really tight when it goes thru a carabiner? The Tethrd tests show the carabiner breaking before the Amsteel. If Amsteel is stronger than a climb rated 'beener, then I'm fine with it.
Am I misunderstanding your point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My point is the Amsteel was tested in actual application until the biner broke, which is awesome, but at that point the anchor was changed to whatappears to be more manufacturer reccomended bend specs and tested to failure. IMO this is irrelevant, I trust the manufacturer specs. What would ve helpful is seeing the Amsteel fail with a less than reccomended bend being used, i.e. the biner. A steel biner or rapid link could probably have accomplished this. Does that make sense? Again, I'm not arguing it's super strong, just that the test to failure is misleading in the specific application. The biner/anchor point I use will never be as large as represented, or as reccomended by Samson...
 
Vtbow said:
Understood. But curious what the Amsteel strength is in the actual application. Samson specifically states the strength is significantly decreased if a certain ratio of diameter to bend is not met. The anchor appears to have at least a 3" diameter to it. Again, not saying it isn't strong or strong enough, but i doubt it has that strength in the actual application. It's at least the same as the biners, I get that.
Click to expand...
Yeah unfortunately they didn't have any hardware available that would match the the diameter of the carabiner after the carabiners broke. We tested it first with a carabiner on top and one on bottom. Unfortunately with the way the machine is set up, it's hard to see the second carabiner, but it's there. We wanted to see whether the small radius of the carabiner would cause problems. As you can see, the bridge outlasted the carabiner.

We were excited to have proven that the bridge could handle the smaller radius to stress levels that were way above anything that would ever be experienced in real life.

The second test to failure was simply out of curiosity using the material we had left. It should also be mentioned that the bridge and whoopie that were tested to failure were the same ones that broke the carabiner so they were already stressed once.

Next time I'm there I'll bring some steel links and see if the number changes






Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Erniepower said:
Yeah unfortunately they didn't have any hardware available that would match the the diameter of the carabiner after the carabiners broke. We tested it first with a carabiner on top and one on bottom. Unfortunately with the way the machine is set up, it's hard to see the second carabiner, but it's there. We wanted to see whether the small radius of the carabiner would cause problems. As you can see, the bridge outlasted the carabiner.

We were excited to have proven that the bridge could handle the smaller radius to stress levels that were way above anything that would ever be experienced in real life.

The second test to failure was simply out of curiosity using the material we had left. It should also be mentioned that the bridge and whoopie that were tested to failure were the same ones that broke the carabiner so they were already stressed once.

Next time I'm there I'll bring some steel links and see if the number changes






Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thanks @Erniepower . Glad you get where im coming from. I appreciate the response.
 
Just picked up the issue. Now I am famous. Didn’t even know I was mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hey @Erniepower and @g2outdoors . The video is titled "TMA Testing" Is this an actual TMA testing facility, for TMA certification? OR are you really just testing to UIAA/CE standards as you guys were originally focused on? As far as I know TMA still requires a 5pt so there really would be no way any saddle would receive TMA certification.....

ernie.jpg
 
We don't have a TMA Certification even though we can pass all the performance tests. TMA requires shoulder straps. We don't have shoulder straps. We wanted to document in a 3rd party independent lab (so we chose a certified TMA testing lab) how the Mantis would hold up even in completely unrealistic hunting scenarios (like a 6' face first swan dive...really? How can that even happen?). We had already done a lot of back yard "Bubba testing" by dropping heavy stuff, but we wanted something official.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
g2outdoors said:
We don't have a TMA Certification even though we can pass all the performance tests. TMA requires shoulder straps. We don't have shoulder straps. We wanted to document in a 3rd party independent lab (so we chose a certified TMA testing lab) how the Mantis would hold up even in completely unrealistic hunting scenarios (like a 6' face first swan dive...really? How can that even happen?). We had already done a lot of back yard "Bubba testing" by dropping heavy stuff, but we wanted something official.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Gotcha, makes sense--got a little confused since the video is titled "TMA Testing" and the results obviously show it blows the tests away and the commentary points that out. Seems like it could potentially be misleading for anyone who is new to saddles, but has hunted from Treestands and recognizes the name TMA and is aware of its' certification(but may not be familiar with 100% of the criteria)... Sure looks like you passed TMA certification in the video from their point of view.

I know there are no standards in the tree saddle world--and TMA certification as is will never apply. Just trying to help keep some clarity in the division between TMA and saddles in what is already such a murky area. Especially as Tethrd and Saddle Hunting becomes more mainstream. Hope that makes sense.
 
The title reflects exactly what the video shows. We tested our products according to the TMA specs at a certified, independent, 3rd party TMA testing lab.

"We tested our products and can pass the TMA performance tests, but we chose not to pursue a certification" is too long of a title for the YouTube software.

I don't think it's misleading at all. There are only two reasons we aren't certified: 1. The spec requires shoulder straps, 2. We didn't pay the TMA membership fees and submit our test results for certification.

Hopefully that's clear.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
g2outdoors said:
The title reflects exactly what the video shows. We tested our products according to the TMA specs at a certified, independent, 3rd party TMA testing lab.

"We tested our products and can pass the TMA performance tests, but we chose not to pursue a certification" is too long of a title for the YouTube software.

I don't think it's misleading at all. There are only two reasons we aren't certified: 1. The spec requires shoulder straps, 2. We didn't pay the TMA membership fees and submit our test results for certification.

Hopefully that's clear.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What is clear is that you want to advertise that you passed what YOU consider the important parts of the certification, and use recognition of the TMA name and safety associated with it to sell more saddles. You "chose not to pursue a certification" because as both you and Ernie stated without a 5pt restraint, you wont pass, period. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

The test was not setup or ordered by the TMA. Their name should not be associated with your testing.
 
Vtbow said:
What is clear is that you want to advertise that you passed what YOU consider the important parts of the certification, and use recognition of the TMA name and safety associated with it to sell more saddles. You "chose not to pursue a certification" because as both you and Ernie stated without a 5pt restraint, you wont pass, period. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Yup. You're right.

We wanted to tell saddle hunters that the gear they are using is safe, tested by an independent third party according to a recognized standard, and that we didn't need shoulder straps to pass the performance tests. We need shoulder straps to meet the 5 point harness requirement, not to pass the performance tests. Big difference.

That's also the reason we aren't pursuing a TMA Certification for the Predator. It blew away the 600 lb pull test (it broke around 1,200 lbs), and the mandatory deflection tests. However, to be certified we'd have to include a safety harness with each platform.

So once again, we can crush the performance tests, but we aren't going to include safety harnesses with a Predator or shoulder straps with the Mantis at this time.

That's all. Nothing more.

That's all I have to say about that. Good luck next season.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
g2outdoors said:
Yup. You're right.

We wanted to tell saddle hunters that the gear they are using is safe, tested by an independent third party according to a recognized standard, and that we didn't need shoulder straps to pass the performance tests. We need shoulder straps to meet the 5 point harness requirement, not to pass the performance tests. Big difference.

That's also the reason we aren't pursuing a TMA Certification for the Predator. It blew away the 600 lb pull test (it broke around 1,200 lbs), and the mandatory deflection tests. However, to be certified we'd have to include a safety harness with each platform.

So once again, we can crush the performance tests, but we aren't going to include safety harnesses with a Predator or shoulder straps with the Mantis at this time.

That's all. Nothing more.

That's all I have to say about that. Good luck next season.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hey, thats fine.


And actually there are 3: the Mantis does not technically have 3 points of restraint, since the leg loops aren't connected with a rated buckle, pretty sure the t-hooks wouldnt pass TMA either. If I remember correctly, there was an issue of some sort wit leg loops on the original TL design...

Thanks, and good luck to you on your season as well. Hope you have a great year.
 
g2outdoors said:
The title reflects exactly what the video shows. We tested our products according to the TMA specs at a certified, independent, 3rd party TMA testing lab.

"We tested our products and can pass the TMA performance tests, but we chose not to pursue a certification" is too long of a title for the YouTube software.

I don't think it's misleading at all. There are only two reasons we aren't certified: 1. The spec requires shoulder straps, 2. We didn't pay the TMA membership fees and submit our test results for certification.

Hopefully that's clear.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Personally don't find it miss leading if you watch the video. Who cares if you have a certificate saying your are certified. You ran the tests and passed with flying colors. It would be different if you took your backyard testing results and said that you would pass TMA test so we are going to use that to advertise. You went to a certified testing facility and passed. Congrats on a well made product.
 
I think the video shows good business acumen. Utilizing another entity's brand equity to promote yours without having to be subject to their fees and regulations is sharp.

So is protecting your business from competition via legal threats.

And preorders allow you to start making money and building capital immediately. It also helps you to beat competition to the punch.

Tethrd has proven itself to be quite capable.
 
Yep. TMA testing and membership is voluntary. If you want that label, you have to meet their specs.

We wanted to do the testing to see how we would stack up. We knew that without shoulder straps we couldn't be "certified".

There however are only a couple labs in the US. So in order to find the equipment and the people capable of performing those tests, we went to their lab.

The TMA testing is all based on performance. There is no requirement on which materials are used as long as they pass the test. We passed the drop testing with our T-hooks.

The shoulder straps however are a written requirement in the spec. This is because they don't have a set of standards for saddles only for fall arrest harnesses. If you look, the trophyline had elastic suspenders. Hardly fall rated. They are there simply to meet the written requirement. It's a prime example of innovation leading the specifications. Maybe someday they will create a set of standards that are closer to the arborist community for hunting saddles, but as of now, that isn't the case and we get stuffed into the fall arrest category.


Technically, a company could add paracord shoulder straps and if they pass all the drop tests, they would be "TMA certified". At this point however, we have decided not to pursue that.


At no point did we say we were TMA certified, but we are able to say we passed the performance tests. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.




Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Erniepower said:
Yep. TMA testing and membership is voluntary. If you want that label, you have to meet their specs.

We wanted to do the testing to see how we would stack up. We knew that without shoulder straps we couldn't be "certified".

There however are only a couple labs in the US. So in order to find the equipment and the people capable of performing those tests, we went to their lab.

The TMA testing is all based on performance. There is no requirement on which materials are used as long as they pass the test. We passed the drop testing with our T-hooks.

The shoulder straps however are a written requirement in the spec. This is because they don't have a set of standards for saddles only for fall arrest harnesses. If you look, the trophyline had elastic suspenders. Hardly fall rated. They are there simply to meet the written requirement. It's a prime example of innovation leading the specifications. Maybe someday they will create a set of standards that are closer to the arborist community for hunting saddles, but as of now, that isn't the case and we get stuffed into the fall arrest category.


Technically, a company could add paracord shoulder straps and if they pass all the drop tests, they would be "TMA certified". At this point however, we have decided not to pursue that.


At no point did we say we were TMA certified, but we are able to say we passed the performance tests. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.




Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Thanks Ernie for the well laid out and thoughtful response, appreciate it.

My point on the t-hooks was that if you added shoulder straps(of any type they deem OK, as you mentioned) I"m guessing the t-hooks would fall short of the 5pt requirements, even though they pass the performance test, kind of like the Mantis passed the performance test, but falls short of certification because of the 5pt. The t-hooks technically don't make a fully connected loop, as even p-cord would for the shoulder straps.
 
@Erniepower Here's another quick question for you. I can't tell from the video because of the plate across the top of the Predator, but is that a V1 or 2? did you test the V1? If its the V2, are you going to test the V1 in the same lab since it is in circulation still in the community?
 
Erniepower said:
We did test the v1 predator at a lab in mn but it wasn't a TMA lab. We tested three platforms to failure and the "weakest" one broke at 586#. So it would fall just short of a three hundred pound rating.

(You have to test at twice the advertised rating)




Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks. So I guess that's why you discontinued that version and beefed it up since it was originally advertised as a 300# rating correct? Just didnt see a whole lot of info on that switch over other than the platforms braking from toe-hooking. So would you say the V1's are effectively rated for 250#? I"m assure you I"m not asking to be a jerk, I'm asking because I"ve been seeing A LOT more on the market, and new saddle hunters may not even be aware of the V1 and V2. They should really know how to identify them and that there was a change in design because of testing. If it falls short of the 300# mark the new ones are rated for, any consumer has the right not know the difference.

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful and clear responses, conversation around all this is important as the saddle industry booms. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top