Shackle bending

Refueler said:
I think PBO / YBW would err on side of caution and only conduct any test in accordance with manufacturers guidance. Can you honestly see any manufacturer agreeing to such malpractice with its product ?

Even if PBO / YBW were to conduct such - can you imagine them accepting responsibility when some clown exceeds the test results and product fails ?
Click to expand...
You're being a tad pessimistic there dear boy.

There's no problem testing such fittings to ensure they meet durability claims. On what grounds could a manufacturer complain if their product didn't perform?

They wouldn't need to name the manufacturer if testing for this supposed catastrophic failure of a slightly bent shackle.

Do it with graphs that show the fatigue cycle vs breaking strain and it would educate the clowns. (Noting that clowns can be over-cautious as well as under).
 
Refueler said:
I think PBO / YBW would err on side of caution and only conduct any test in accordance with manufacturers guidance. Can you honestly see any manufacturer agreeing to such malpractice with its product ?

Even if PBO / YBW were to conduct such - can you imagine them accepting responsibility when some clown exceeds the test results and product fails ?
Click to expand...

YBW are not going to conduct any tests, they are not in the business of testing.

PBO and YM do test or do report tests conducted by independent contributors. Tests on which PBO and YM have reported in the past sometimes follow accepted protocols but may also involve tests in which the object tested is subject to condition likely to be found in use and are far removed from any accepted test protocols. They may for example report on the use of antifouling(s) on a yacht.

Some products are tested incorrectly or less rigorously by manufacturers and tests by indpenedant investigators may throw up weaknesses that were not found by the manufacturer.

For a chilling eye-opener read this report

Safety Tethers Under Scrutiny | Practical Sailor

Your idea that YM or PBO (or other publisher) will pander to a supplier is basically wrong, if you can find a copy read the YM report on the bendy shank saga. . Suppliers may, or should be, privy to test results and have opportunity to challenge the results - but PBO and YM will take the decisions as to whether the results will be published, or not. Can you imagine the comments that would be made if the investigation of the link above were suppressed, to appease a manufacturer.

Fortunately most product is well tested, is fit for purpose and there is thus no opportunity for any disagreement between publisher and manufacturer.

In this specific case we have a manufacture who no longer produces. We have a shackle of unknown source, we don't actually know who made it nor do we know the specification of the original shackle. This original shackle is to be replaced - and there has never been any indication of the source for the new shackle (and just imagine the number of sources :( ). As far as I can ascertain the OP seems happy with a solution that has been agonised over - you are not seriously suggesting that this shackle should be bought in numbers, exhaustively tested under known protocols and better under simulated conditions - as a component of kit that no longer can be purchased.

I wholeheartedly support your idea of testing shackles and that it could or would be an excellent investigation - but for what application? Which shackles, the cheap ones of unknown source that many buy (because they are cheap) or only the ones from Witchard that make people shiver when they see the price. I'm all for an investigation on shackles - but its not easy. Now who is going to pay for the testing? Testing costs money - how many here subscribe to PBO or YM? How many here are interested in stainless shackles? would it suck in advertisers (who do not advertise anyway).

I have an article pending with YM now on chain hooks. It is very specific and focussed, metal hooks to attach a snubber to a chain. No investigation of knots, no investigation of soft shackles. Extend beyond the specific focus and cost grow geometrically.

It needs someone with a bit of passion to conduct the investigation you suggest and to persuade PBO or YM.

Jonathan
 
Neeves ... I am NOT advocating in any form testing of this matter !! I am just saying why such a publication would not test as Pablo suggests.

Blimey talk about overkill reply .. sorry but I think you have read into my post something that is not there.
 
I read into your post something that is demonstrably incorrect. I gave a link for you to read which illustrates a critical investigation into a product. The publisher did not shirk its responsibility. It is my opinion that PBO and YM would not shirk their responsibility and would not pander to a manufacturers complaints. Pablo's ideas have merit and would not be rejected on the grounds you suggest.

If you have evidence to support your contentions - please post the evidence

If I have misinterpreted your post please clarify.

Reading posts is entirely voluntary. If there are too many words - simply move on. I like to think Forum are places where we can politely and respectfully exchange information and build - in the full knowledge one's post may not be read at all - that's the price the author pays.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Gor Blimey Guv ......

"accordance with manufacturers guidance. " - that line is not saying that Tests must be conducted as per manufacturers wishes - but was meant to say that tests within the design specifications of the item. I apologise if wording could have been better.

"accepting responsibility when some clown exceeds the test results and product fails ? " - Lets say tests are made and it is seen to be safe to bend a shackle by say 5% .. but some clown as there are many out there ... few in here as well - but that's another matter ... decides to go 10% or more because they read in a mag at 5% ... or that clown assumes a cheapo item can be treated same as a quality item and it cracks / weakens / breaks ?

Rest - not interested.
 
There is NOTHING wrong with testing equipment beyond the recommended envelope or using non-ISO methods. Equipment is sometimes used outside the test envelop and standard tests are often quite narrow in scope.
  • Say what you did in sufficient detail that another investigator can replicate your work.
  • List manufacture specs and methods as applicable. Explain why your test methods were different.
That is how science works. Data is data, and conclusions often contain an element of opinion... which is why they are kept separate from the data.

In this case, the problem is long term fatigue, not strength, and as a practical matter, that's really expensive to test.

----

I have performed tests for magazines that resulted in recalls, dropping of product lines, and reformulations. Some manufactures took the news well, some did not, and some made threats. But if the statment is true and the documentation is accurate, there is no libel.
 
Refueler said:
Gor Blimey Guv ......

"accordance with manufacturers guidance. " - that line is not saying that Tests must be conducted as per manufacturers wishes - but was meant to say that tests within the design specifications of the item. I apologise if wording could have been better.

"accepting responsibility when some clown exceeds the test results and product fails ? " - Lets say tests are made and it is seen to be safe to bend a shackle by say 5% .. but some clown as there are many out there ... few in here as well - but that's another matter ... decides to go 10% or more because they read in a mag at 5% ... or that clown assumes a cheapo item can be treated same as a quality item and it cracks / weakens / breaks ?

Rest - not interested.
Click to expand...
What's a 5% bend?
 
I have an old tin of paint - I think I'll paint something, anything

And watch the paint dry

:(

Penfold - I have to take issue with you: (post 87)

Why on earth did you not post that earlier :)

Jonathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top