kammok not safe

[Tredge]

I was happy with Kammok's quick response - esp on a holiday weekend.
glad to see they are honoring the warrenty and replacing with better hardware.

Greg mentioned it may have failed due to the angle it was hung. They recommend 30° and I might have been less than that. Not sure exactly what angle. Even so I wouldnt have expected it to fail.

In any case, I appreciate the response and action.

[Teewee]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but the CE marking on your Kanga biners looks illegitimate.
http://www.kammok.com/Kammok-Kanga-C.../kc-010053.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CE_marks.jpg

Here is the actual european legal directive concerning personal protective equipment, annex IV shows the correct form of the CE marking. But as its an outdated (1989) document, the logo isn't displayed with a grid so here is a link to a more recent directive, the machinery directive from 2006. Zap to Annex III for the logo on mm grid.

The Kanga biners are "China Export". (or they have some uninformed engineers, wich is equally worrying)

[Teewee]

Also, the number 1019 refers to the notified body governing the quality control procedures. A quick google search led me to this. You might want to check if they have heard of these Kanga biners, and if the biners are legit, be a wiseguy and point out to the body that the CE marking has been applied incorrectly.

[angrysparrow]

The average customer doesn't understand the complexities of static and dynamic force so we simplified the rating system for the customer (other manufacturers have set that precedent in the market before us).

That's just stacking a poor practice on top of a bad precedent.

Accurate labeling and customer education is a safer, better, more open approach. JMO

[jbrescue]

Lightweight aluminum climbing carabiners can be in the 6000# range. The working strength is around 600# typically. Even when trying to save ounces, a good aluminum locking carabiner will be plenty strong. I would recommend oval screw links. But, when loaded they like to get stuck and need a wrench to undo them. Carabiners want to be loaded on the spine and in two directions. If you are three way loading them, you are using the wrong piece of gear.

[nothermark]

Lightweight aluminum climbing carabiners can be in the 6000# range. The working strength is around 600# typically. Even when trying to save ounces, a good aluminum locking carabiner will be plenty strong. I would recommend oval screw links. But, when loaded they like to get stuck and need a wrench to undo them. Carabiners want to be loaded on the spine and in two directions. If you are three way loading them, you are using the wrong piece of gear.

just curious. Do you see any difference between wire gate and solid bar gate for strength?

[Strung out]

It looks to me like the biner from Kammock
http://www.kammok.com/Kammok-Kanga-C.../kc-010053.htm

Does not have a proper hook for the wire gate to hold onto in the event that the biner is loaded heavily enough for it to come into play.

Although it is somewhat difficult to see in the photos available.

[jbrescue]

The solid bar gate is normally stronger. However, as pointed out earlier, the hook may not have been sufficient to hold the gate. Also, if the biner is loaded wrong, it can cause torsional forces that it is not designed for. Also, the forces can actually be magnified if the angles become to steep. A 250# load can end up creating more than 250# of force on the anchor. If the biner is laying flat on the tree, and the strap is running though it, the carabiner is being forced onto a round surface and that is not good for the carabiner at all. The carabiner would be much happier to be away from the tree, if this makes sense.

[Tredge]

In this case I was using two python straps between two trees.

The angle was small, I now know this causes greater stress than normal. The biners were not obstructed or abnormally hung (other than the angle). I actually heard the tip make a snapping sound when it gave. I assume this was a stress point.

Dont mean to say the kammok itself is unsafe, its perhaps the strongest hammock I own, just the older biners I posted I consider unsafe.
I will continue to use the hammock.

[Bubba]

I'm glad to see you will be getting replacements.

Only putting a 250 lb weight rating on something that has been tested to 2500 lbs doesn't make sense to me. I think the actual breaking strength should be listed and then a safe working load listed beside it. I think the average consumer can understand that independent of any understanding of static or dynamic forces. I think it would make people feel a little safer. If I'm 260 lbs am I going to worry about the biners holding if all I see is a 250 lbs limit? Maybe a little. But if I see a safe working load of 250 lbs as well as an actuall breaking strength of 2500 lbs then I'd feel more at ease. JMO.