Moderator: Tim White
BrianC wrote:Thin stainless with punch for dates and installer?
NZcaver wrote:BrianC wrote:Thin stainless with punch for dates and installer?
I've seen the same thing with punched aluminum tags, also installed behind the bolt itself. Those PVC tags up on the ridge look pretty good after almost 20 years.
NZcaver wrote:I've seen the same thing with punched aluminum tags, also installed behind the bolt itself.
driggs wrote:I had considered arborists' aluminum tags, which can easily be "etched" with a punch. Do they not develop nasty galvanic corrosion if installed underneath stainless steel bolts and hangers?
Scott McCrea wrote:Anyone have a problem with it between the rock and hanger? My theory is that the material would spread out the force applied to the rock by the hanger a bit more possibly making it stronger.
jharman2 wrote:This is a very interesting topic and certainly something I never thought of. I do have to wonder why this would be necessary if all stainless hardware is used? What kind of confidence is the date trying to instill? Some people may see the date (8/92 in the example) and think "Holy cow that bolt is old wonder if I should use it?" while other people may see the date and think "Holy cow that bolt is old, must be a bomber placement I'll put my @$$ on it!".
Bolt users should be educated to identify bolts and hangers made from quality materials and torqued properly in sold rock; not just rely on a date written on a piece of PVC.
jharman2 wrote:I do have to wonder why this would be necessary if all stainless hardware is used? What kind of confidence is the date trying to instill?
Bolt users should be educated to identify bolts and hangers made from quality materials and torqued properly in sold rock; not just rely on a date written on a piece of PVC.
driggs wrote:Ah, but all stainless hardware is exactly the problem! There is no way to identify the age of a stainless anchor if it looks exactly the same three decades after being placed. Does its age matter? Maybe. I'm certainly going to give it a more thorough check, perhaps even attempt to tighten the nut with a wrench, if it is older than I am.
driggs wrote:How exactly does one identify that a bolt is "torqued properly" or that it is made of "quality materials"? I don't cave with a torque wrench, and whether it is a good idea or not, I don't tighten nuts down unless I see a spinning hanger or wobbly bolt. Is the fact that a bolt appears to be made of stainless steel enough of an indicator that it is "quality", or that it was set with a hammer drill rather than someone banging on a bit with a sledgehammer?
driggs wrote:`SS 3.5" RIGGS 2009` sure tells me more than "that looks solid."
jharman2 wrote:I don't know how or if a SS anchors age factors into its integrity. I guess this is a question for a material scientist.
jharman2 wrote:Does the method of drilling really matter if the placement is solid and the bolt is torqued down?
jharman2 wrote:I don't think that labeling bolts it is a bad practice but I certainly caution against trusting an anchor just because it has a label. Inspection of the anchor is the only way to definitively determine if it is safe to use.
jharman2 wrote:If I come across a 30 year old rig that is redundant and clean, I will happily use it.
driggs wrote:I personally feel that in caves like this, adding a label to a bolt helps the user evaluate that rig.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users