Tom Dunlap
Addicted to ArboristSite
This email just came from David today:
Hello Jim,
Sorry for the delay in my reply, I've been trying to get something out of Komet but it's holiday time in France and I'm not getting any reply's to my mail.
I would like to comment on your rules, but I must make it clear that this is my opinion and not an official response from Komet. However, after past discussions, I am aware that their thinking is similar.
The Komet Butterfly harness conforms and is certified as doing so to the relevant CE standards. The slide strop does not come under these standards and is not a part which is tested. The removal, replacement or modification of the slide strop in no way affects the certification of the harness nor does it affect the integrity of the harness.
It is worth mentioning that in the UK and Europe we see one of the main advantages of the harness is the fact that it can be modified to suit individual climbing styles and techniques. This is also one of the reasons that so many competing climbers us the Butterfly. We see this as a great advantage and something which adds to the versatility of the harness.
It also means that the slide strop can easily be replaced extending the life of the harnesses giving value to the user.
Your statement that for a climber to use a modified harness, they must have a statement from the manufacturer approving the modification is unrealistic, impossible and unfair and it would have been easier to simply ban the harness outright as this is in effect what the rule does.
I believe that no manufacturer in the world can offer to approve modification made by the user. The manufacturer would have to have in depth technical information about every material likely to be used and every modified harness would have to returned to the factory for a full inspection. This is totally unrealistic.
I think the whole thing needs to be put into some kind of sensible context and I ask what happens under the following circumstances. If a competitor does not remove the existing strop but simply adds an additional method of attachment then this is not a modification but an addition. The climber could then either attach only to the addition or around the addition and the existing strop. His weight would then be taken on the addition and would give the required strop length.
This would technically get around your rules, facilitate the individual climbers requirements and be totally ridiculous.
In the UK, our law states that harnesses must comply with LOLER regulations. This is basically an inspection system which relies on inspection by a competent person. If everyone is realistic then I am sure that a pre competition inspection of modified harnesses by a competent person should resolve the whole issue.
I expect that quite a number of competitors from around the world wish to compete in their modified Butterfly's. To ban the harnesses at such a late stage detracts from the spirit if the event and offers the possibility of alienating competitors. This would not be good for them or the competition. Perhaps its time that pragmatism took over from dogma.
I hope you have a good and fair competition
Kind regards
David Cooper-Holmes
Hello Jim,
Sorry for the delay in my reply, I've been trying to get something out of Komet but it's holiday time in France and I'm not getting any reply's to my mail.
I would like to comment on your rules, but I must make it clear that this is my opinion and not an official response from Komet. However, after past discussions, I am aware that their thinking is similar.
The Komet Butterfly harness conforms and is certified as doing so to the relevant CE standards. The slide strop does not come under these standards and is not a part which is tested. The removal, replacement or modification of the slide strop in no way affects the certification of the harness nor does it affect the integrity of the harness.
It is worth mentioning that in the UK and Europe we see one of the main advantages of the harness is the fact that it can be modified to suit individual climbing styles and techniques. This is also one of the reasons that so many competing climbers us the Butterfly. We see this as a great advantage and something which adds to the versatility of the harness.
It also means that the slide strop can easily be replaced extending the life of the harnesses giving value to the user.
Your statement that for a climber to use a modified harness, they must have a statement from the manufacturer approving the modification is unrealistic, impossible and unfair and it would have been easier to simply ban the harness outright as this is in effect what the rule does.
I believe that no manufacturer in the world can offer to approve modification made by the user. The manufacturer would have to have in depth technical information about every material likely to be used and every modified harness would have to returned to the factory for a full inspection. This is totally unrealistic.
I think the whole thing needs to be put into some kind of sensible context and I ask what happens under the following circumstances. If a competitor does not remove the existing strop but simply adds an additional method of attachment then this is not a modification but an addition. The climber could then either attach only to the addition or around the addition and the existing strop. His weight would then be taken on the addition and would give the required strop length.
This would technically get around your rules, facilitate the individual climbers requirements and be totally ridiculous.
In the UK, our law states that harnesses must comply with LOLER regulations. This is basically an inspection system which relies on inspection by a competent person. If everyone is realistic then I am sure that a pre competition inspection of modified harnesses by a competent person should resolve the whole issue.
I expect that quite a number of competitors from around the world wish to compete in their modified Butterfly's. To ban the harnesses at such a late stage detracts from the spirit if the event and offers the possibility of alienating competitors. This would not be good for them or the competition. Perhaps its time that pragmatism took over from dogma.
I hope you have a good and fair competition
Kind regards
David Cooper-Holmes
