[Dan Lehman]

Originally Posted by RonReese

It is claimed that splices retain up to 100% of the rope's strength. That kind of strength retention, as explained by Brion, SherrillTree, Samson Rope, One Rope 1, comes from the integrity of the splice rather than the whipping or stitching method. Most seem to readily admit that whipping/stitching only serves to keep the splice from slipping at very low or no loads or from mishandling.

If the splice itself maintains nearly 100% of the rope's strength then a good, strong, tight whipping or the best stitching isn't going to make it 110%.

In fact, such tight whipping could diminsh the strength of the splice by creating stress concentration at the whipping. This is a commonly known phenomenon in structural materials and design.

Lots of things are claimed, but often those claims are shown to not hold water. IIRC,
a recent arborist posting about a new "Grizzly" stitch-splice (eye) revealed a vendor claim
that it was stronger than a splice in the same material (so obviously that splice wasn't
100%). But I've not said that whipping was supposed to replace the splicing, only that it
seemed a better/surer method to guard against low-load (and otherwise) shifting. Yes, it
IS exposed--precisely my point about its inspectability, and also re use in an application
where the material is readily viewed--, but the adjacent turns of tight whipping resist
abrasion pretty well. Compared with something called "invisible" of much less material,
it seemed preferable.
Yeah, it might be that in a pure one-time break test that the point of whipping becomes
the point of weakness; on cyclical non-break loading, it might be that an unwhipped splice
yields, ultimately, whereas the whipped one endures. And which testing more accurately
models usage? You should be nowhere near the break strength in use!

In my field, engineering, I commonly see things being done a certain way because they've always been done that way and nobody knows any other reason for doing it that way.

And partly that's why I sometimes raise a question--to try to learn, to see the rationale/basis.

So until we put our splices and stitching and whipping opinions and/or practices to a real test on a tensile machine, we're just doing what we think makes sense to us with little support other than our experiences in the field that may not ever approach critical loads like a tensile machine would.

Again, the tensile machine is one measure of one aspect and not likely the most important
one. The Fisherman's knot is common in commercial-fishing/-marine use; on the tensile
machine, many other bends will test stronger, but after several months of usage, the other
knots might well suffer more damage from being knocked about, run though pot haulers,
whatever, and tested X months later, not fare so well. So, which knot was "stronger"?

----------
Nick, to your testing offer, we need more details:
1) what size specimen, & how constructed (e.g., eyes at each end, 4-7' span)?
2) where to send (etc.) (who's doing the testing?)

I don't expect to splice anything like above, but I might like to see how a seized eye tests.

Thanks,
--dl*
====