at least part of it will be with you until the end ;) the other part will be flying off and supporting the nature with some Aluminum :)

which will be very soon should you use this bullshit

Love it!

cheap cigs cheap cigs - those cheap cigs make you irritable sonny? try marlboros and mydol, private ignorance...

Lifetime guarantee

I think the break strength isn’t the main issue, it’s the core material and resulting durability issue, just a guess lol I’d like to see it break too tho

Yes. I use it and want to know how in danger I am.

Yes, i have been using it. One for abseiling and one as a backup. It seems plenty strong enough, however i have noticed it stretching. I have just bought a Petzl one to replace it. I think i will change any rope after a couple of years anyway, just for piece of mind

@@EscarpmentClimbingmine has a metal cable going through it

YES. THIS!!

I though the CE stood for china export? Or at least that is what other stuff has it on there for.

@@haydenhiegel9849 Common saying xD CE stands for ' Conformité Européenne ' so that it is conform to Europe Standards, HOWEVER any manufacturer can just slap it on there without any test, that's why it is loved for chinese products as some type of 'approval-seal'. Tecnically every product sold in the EU should have CE, but usually that goes along with a lot more norms and test, at least with legit products.

And the numbers after EN indicates which norm they are conforming to. In this case EN 362 is for personal protection against falls and EN 12275 is personal protection equipment for mounterering, climbing and similar.

And certified CE - EN products has to be proofed by certification Institutes. They are numbered too, like ce0123, is proofed by that defined company. Somewhere in the Internet,you can find all the companies allowed testing, to get that certification document.So of course,the label CE ist printed by the manufacturer, but there is a real independent test before that too. Or should be. False Labels could bei possible, but it is controlled, and mostly, it can be trusted.

@@haydenhiegel9849 CE = China Export is an urban legend, which has been debunked by the European Commision itself, there are however companies which misuse the CE mark www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2007-5938&language=EN

Yeah also Kong produces everything in Italy, while camp I think not entirely, cause it has like subsidiaries in the USA, France and Russia, so I think they produce something out there, but they still produce in Italy too for sure.

And austria alpin, in stubai vally......

BD in USA, Metolius in Taiwan. If anything I'd say most reputable carabiners are *not* made in China.

Yeh fucked up a bit saying that haha

That is the fastest way to find out where stuff is made. Saying it's all made in china haha. Interesting! Do any american brands make their products in america?

It’s actually kind of a racket. It literally costs thousands of dollars to certify every individual product in a company’s lineup.

@gumwap1 I doubt it's cheap to do the testing with use of certified, precise tooling and knowledgeable staff to ensure that climbing gear is up to acceptable standards.

@@gumwap1I get that it’s expensive but it’s def not a racket for life saving equipment. You have to ensure your manufacturing process is validated and continues to be in spec through the years to make sure the products are ACTUALLY as strong as they say. The design strength is not all that matters. Machines and material can get it of spec and could put out products that are not super strong enough even if they look exactly the same.

If the certification is so important to the safety of the sport, UIAA should not be charging thousands of dollars for testing.

​@@don7294 "It'd be a shame if someone came by and damaged your business. We can protect you for a year if you pay us" "It'd be a shame if you couldn't claim to be certified anymore despite your product not changing in any way. You can use our logo for a year if you pay us" It's a racket

But honey, i was wearing a blindfold! haha

@@HowNOT2 you didn't see anything!? Well what did you do with the mortgage payment!?!

The have surpassed 250k now 😊

I have a bunch of Xinda stuff. It's all well built. But don't trust manufacturers, trust independent testing and certification.

If you regularly check Steep and Cheap as well as Backcountry they frequently have sales on carabiners. I bought 4 Positrons at under $6 each not to long ago

I'm pretty sure the Big Wall lockers are UIAA certified

Matthew Petroff I agree

Accusation based on presumption.

The Masks was because EU was buying from small Chinese companies, these small companies are not qualified, but EU still brought from them for cheap price, who is to blame? All the mask donated by Chinese officials are all good quality.

@@mytube2013 I think it's alright to make assumptions when you're potentially falling 20+ feet

TBH: I'd see those carabiners not for use in climbing. But rather putting up hammocks or something. Anything where those 08/15 carabiners from the localc stores don't cut it, but you also don't put your life on it.

Maybe we can do some break tests with trees? I hear they are strong though :)

Id watch that

Tree climber as well, first view but now I'm interested!

Exact same feeling. Didnt think it mattered but when I'm 15ft above them climbing in the back of my head I'm hearing does shit pass QA?

Same with me

An update if you're still using these, they were UIAA certified a month after this vid came out it looks like

same here, i got the favofit ones and ayamaya ones.

That's true, but even if the same company forging components for big name brand (BNB) is selling to the knockoff companies, i trust that BNB is doing the due diligence with testing and proper standards to keep me safe... Because ultimately their livelihood is on the line. These knockoff companies don't give a rip about the industry or the people using the products. If they have a bad batch, they close up shop and start selling something else under a different name.

?? No ropes were under any force again and again in this video??

Thanks! It helps. If I get enough $ I plan on putting it into a drop tower... that I will fit in :)

You can call an exception to the standard if you can prove "your way" is even more secure than the standard, and prove it. We do this lots of times

Where are you? I could send you some videos and descriptions of the old ways before half of this stuff was invented? Let me know :)

@Max Gurth i do climbing, so i need carabiners much more than anchors, but thanks for the tip!

Did you ever find out?

My local shop sells similar looking ones, they're probably more generic and industrial steel biners. Nice having one as a leaver biner but not nice for much else.

At 9:15 you can read the one on the right and they are Omega Brand and model 18. But I can only find model 16 available online.

@@ronnierowe6764 at 11:55 you can see the gate pop open on one of them

They look to be steel Omega Pacific D biners. Rated for 72Kn.

Yeah. It's the same in mexico. The Chinese Brand is like 1/5 or 1/4 of the price of the main brands. For those same reasons currency exchange rate play against us plus the importing taxes. Those two things alone makes de things in mexico 1.5 or 2 times as expensive than if I buy them in USA but then there is the issue of getting de good delivered

it makes sense

Aren’t pounds a measure of mass like the kilograms?

@@paolopilotto8603 yes... but also no. There are actually two measures of pounds. Pounds of mass (short form - lbm), and pounds of force (short form - lbf), and arguably a third, the British Pound Sterling (a currency). But frankly, both suck, there is a reason why 99% of the world uses the metric system (only the USA, Liberia, and Myanmar (Burma) still use imperial)... then there is the UK, where they use a mix of metric, imperial, and some medieval measures like stones.

I think I heard once that Newton's are to kilograms as pounds are to slugs. The kilograms and slugs are units of mass, and once you multiply them by gravity (acceleration), you get the force units of lb and N. F=ma whether you're in metric or avoirdupois.

Whats funny is I had a go around with this concept with an engineer. Lets say you build a carabiner out of 6061 and 7075 aluminum. 6061 is stretchier so can take high cyclic loading but it's MBS is around 12kn vs the other one at 22kn... is. So yes, at 30% you are going to get a TON more cycles out of 6061 but if the same two carabiners were both put at 8kn... that is 66% of MBS on the 6061 vs 36%. Cycles are based on %. So the theory is the benefit of 6061 and the weakness cancel each other out and it would break around the same cycles as the 7075. What do you think?

@@HowNOT2 Here's an answer based on VERY limited research. This is based on only the first thing I got when I googled "7075 6061 fatigue curve" (ridiculously long link at bottom -- I hope). I used slightly different numbers than your example to better fall in the range of data they show in Fig 1. They list the breaking strength of 6061-T6 as 468 MPa, and 7075-T6 as 764 MPa. At 200 MPa, 6061 would be at 43% of its breaking strength and 7075 would be at 26%. If you look at Fig 1, at 200 MPa 6061 appears to have a fatigue life at just under 100,000 cycles. Whereas, at the same 200 MPa, 7075 is about 1,000,000,000 cycles -- or 10,000 times as many cycles. Or, looking at the same data in a different way, look at 1000,000 (1.E+06) cycles. To fail at this number of cycles, 6061 needs to be loaded to around 150 MPa, or 32% MBS. 7075 takes around 235 MPa, or 31% MBS. From this single paper, I would NOT say that 6061 and 7075 will fail at the same number of cycles if loaded to the same percentage of their MBS (it's possible but for from conclusive). But, I would say it looks very unlikely that the extra stretchiness of 6061 (about 2 times as much according to the data in the paper) cancels out the lower strength as you suggested it might. As a side note, it appears that in their test, a cycle consisted of putting the sample in both tension and compression to the specified load. I believe this is common in fatigue testing. A carabiner is basically never going to see compressive loading, so the total range of loading is only 1/2 as much. This reduced range of loading will increase the cycles before failure, but it definitely won't double them. pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/278653/1-s2.0-S1877705810X00029/1-s2.0-S1877705810000081/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECsaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQCvOqk1HE6iEnsR3f91h%2FEiXpcQyzYlyaYqeF%2Bj07YmUwIhANvl2eoD2nL%2FGQ35tsrRTkUmJWykI274hWSm6DuJodzrKr0DCLP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQAxoMMDU5MDAzNTQ2ODY1Igy0N84upGZAKL1fGawqkQNzTqO0TtPNk7d2fYFV4KtxTIL%2FIffYf44WiXYDq1I8KwCJ3UKXB55FDCLTnEYO4UBqvrQf9QWekbGLBuk1ZEtZXRrApqycL6pYK%2FHgnnQxtJHDF8Y7zP%2B0m8RAUuV8DqUYBNYzAHPvi1qcpOj7CcdLnT9TBD2p60NSgcW4ENWiKFwpNY9p1icVpg0%2FdboM%2FYEvqaAvBCPSz96Bt8qYja2gtNvmukCa9CTCE2sJfzdVLB2jfRVhw8Q0zQEQU9XbW9p1Kw2DgWNjst9SjtLw0kFv7DBLiJDZGSewSJHCtrABrG5A58W3AgdAxgFglj11XkFb08H8CeX9cOuLxz%2BXT%2Ble0CMGHDis7qwse4T2zmXF4b2U7NIOrXl6qHSqF3kIs8nUnlZXn%2BoQke6ZKAntrwx4v1E7khj3n6bYu3UH41as0%2BSphb1rmRuCvpgMqlkOigNr80SvDx7g5Ut9ZqRoINXhyVDT7tuns3ePZ6QcSc7Xn%2BbxnRlcXFX%2F2eoUNZ3Q6CAGDP%2Bxh5jyi28THiY4W5lXOjDDstX3BTrqAX5o0xezZWe5tzA8JWlBQGVfX7BZJ7qTNoO8xdxsc99S1Y1HtYRyPNum4kImKg5a6hOX%2BDFT6iQwTReB8ZMXXII0%2F934Vonx6fUVB6mlAS5AWYNzuPY4IqjZ9Jv%2BLoUXAqw3bFHhb1y7RrgRXar%2B7SblUBSVPiQS3T6kZJ3h%2BbL%2B81sJAu5I4hz0uznUAhJHHJb3%2Fce4fKnShSrDru4blHsO1YrxYia4QTJeHrQ%2Ft3eWvk5t%2BHpyzJaX7g%2B3oDzoTdW6NBDcSb2W7%2BR9jBsipHn7VYzwEmVbngM8%2FFKpFf40fS9Ny6GKLqjJXA%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200626T033242Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTY46WIY2B3%2F20200626%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=52bb94d5130fcd71ff0f6ace25dab6207fbcb68290f3281074a54b4b1882d457&hash=fc9323b489f074c391cbb0d06bdeebb3cb83471c20cede47137ae7ee3c74cf5e&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1877705810000081&tid=spdf-f75adc30-1d63-4169-a56a-02f3e9b3582f&sid=c7aca4666b53c9415d68f81-d21aa6204e55gxrqa&type=client

@@HowNOT2 So I gathered a couple more references: www.researchgate.net/figure/SN-diagrams-for-7075-and-6061-aluminum-alloys-with-T6-temper-The-solid-curves-show-the_fig4_47510718 www.efatigue.com/training/Physics_of_Fatigue.pdf In the first reference, the graph shows that at 200 MPa, 6061 fails at about 10,000 cycles (log 10,000 = 4), and 7075 fails at about 330,000 (log 330,000 = 5.5). And at 100 MPa, 6061 fails at about 500,000 cycles and 7075 at about 23,000,000 cycles. At the higher load, 7075 last "only" 33 times as long as 6061, and at the lower load 46 times longer. WAY less than the difference shown in the reference in my earlier reply. Likewise, the second reference (on PDF page no. 43) shows that at the same 152 (probably MPa stress), 6061 has a life of 1,000,000 cycles, and 7075 is 100,000,000 cycles -- 100 times as long. I knew relying on a single reference was a bad idea, but my wife said it was bed time. What's a man to do? Anyway, I think it's clear that 7075 will withstand substantially more cycles than 6061 at any given loading.

@@HowNOT2 I just learned something I find very counterintuitive from this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9Vln8p3xKq2lYU.html That is, occasional applying a higher than normal load to a metal part will significantly INCREASE it's fatigue life. Note: he refers to this as an "overload", but by this I'm sure he just means a load that is significantly "over" the normal load, not a load that is greater than what the part is designed to take. So, maybe the next time you take a big fall, you can just say you are improving the fatigue life of the metal hardware. The applicable parts of the video are from 43:25 to 45:50 and a bit more at 52:15 to 53:50, or start at 53:50 if you prefer the explanation in Japanese. :)

newtons are a more dynamic load measure. pounds does not account for gravity. at least not without math. Kn does the math for you. It is roughly 100 Kg/m. i Have to fall 35m to generate a 30 kN force. i am not used to the math but it is actually easy.

I'm trying to cyclic load carabiners but don't know where to get this testing done