Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbulls
Only three of those listed have anything to do with the stand itself.
Ol Man was just simply updating pins to more secure pins that are more idiot proof than the original pins.
The rest of them are for the harness systems that all treestand manufacturers put in the boxes. None of which are manufactured by the treestand manufacturer.
No one get all freaked out.
|
Sure, but it's a good reference tool. I was just trying to find their testing data and came across that.
I did find one thing I didn't know, but I don't know how it applies to climbers. A ladders ratings is not how much it can hold before it collapse, it's how much a rung can hold. That is something there's no wiggle room about. You pretty much put all your weight on a rung although with a ladder stand, you might be pulling gear up after your already there. On a ladder most often your stepping on 2 rungs until........your at the top
Each piece of a climber could be regarded as a rung. Pushing down on it when it isn't square with the tree could result in a stress it wasn't tested at.
Seems to be a lot of things failing these days that never did. I think limits are being stretched in order to cut cost so trusting something shouldn't be just taken at face value.
No reason Summits should have been on the list. To big a company. By putting the harness in there they claimed ownership. Could be because their stands are built so well or were they didn't think the harness was all that important, I haven't had any experience with them for a few years. Their reinforcement in the center of their stands is darn near indestructible, or was.
I don't think it's anything to get freaked out about yet. Just good to keep an eye on and if a trend developes then maybe it's time get a little freaked.
TMA recalls
