Collection Home
#631
#632
|
|
|
| #631 | #632 |
Yuan Hong Hing Co., Ltd. (元鴻興有限公司) is an ISO-certified Taiwanese firm. Their products' CE certifications are legitimate. The company did hot forging for Omega Pacific before Omega Pacific shut down. I Climb Safety is the brand name that Yuan Hong Hing Co. uses to appeal to Western markets.
[ Top | #632 | Return to Figure Eights ]
|
|
 |
| Front | Rear |
Kevin M. Mai ZhongJie helped me acquire this eight from I Climb in 2023.
The I Climb #631 is forged from 6061 aluminum alloy. Mine is 139 mm. tall, 72 mm. wide, and 12 mm. thick. The rope hole is 50 mm. high and 50 mm. wide. The top center thickness is 12 mm. The shaft length and width are 43 mm and 24 mm., respectively. The eye measures 24 mm. by 24 mm. My eight weighs 108 g.
The front of the shaft is stamped with "CE Ø 7-13," "EN 15151-2," "iclimb®" and "Made in Taiwan." The other side has a raised relief strength test icon (not a rigging illustration!) with "kN▲35" above and "▼" below.
The I Climb (元鴻興有限公司) #631 is a full-size forged eight with a flat shaft. The following eights are similar in design, but their markings vary:
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Each of these eights is 139-140 mm. tall and 72-73 mm. wide. Their weights fall in the 107±6 g. range. These are normal manufacturing variations that have no practical significance. They are smaller and lighter than Standard, Full Size, Forged Eights, but the difference is not enough to make large changes in their performance.
The shafts on these eights are rather flat, which helps reduce weight. The depressions help avoid the slight grabbiness I find on the Full Size, Forged Eights with Flat Shafts. It also reduces the contact area for dissipating heat, but in the range of drops that I use eights (usually not more than 15 m. caving), this is not noticeable.
Each of them has an irrelevant strength test icon with a strength rating forged into one side. This marketing gimmick is rather silly. The rigging shown for the strength rating is not how an eight is normally used, so it is misleading. It is not the accepted method for measutring strength of an eight. The accepted and more realistic strength test arrangement is shown in EN 15151-2:2012, figure 3. The strength listed on these eights greatly exceeds the 7 kN. requirement in the standard for what is needed for safe use. This leaves fair margin for reasonable wear. Paying any attention to the difference between 25 kN and 35 kN ratings for normal use is absurd.
None of these eights have slots for sticht-type belaying, and their round eyes are not designed for that purpose.
Although similar, these eights are not identical, and close inspection will reveal some minor differences in their shapes. None of these affect their performance to any noticeable degree.
[ Top | #631 | Return to Figure Eights ]
|
|
 |
| Front | Rear |
Kevin M. Mai ZhongJie helped me acquire this eight from I Climb in 2023.
The I Climb #632 is forged from 6061 aluminum alloy. Mine is 145 mm. tall, 76 mm. wide, and 15 mm. thick. The rope hole is 51 mm. high and 51 mm. wide. The top center thickness is 12 mm. The shaft length and width are 45 mm. and 26 mm., respectively. The eye measures 27 mm. by 27 mm. My eight weighs 123 g.
The front of the shaft is stamped with "CE Ø 7-13," "EN 15151-2," "iclimb®" and "Made in Taiwan." The other side has "kN35" in raised forged letters.
The I Climb (元鴻興有限公司) #632 is a typical example of a full-sized, forged, aluminum figure eight. These are by far the most common figure eights. Everybody, their sisters, and their brothers seem to make one, and half the world's population and businesses have issued a custom version with their own name on it. I certainly have not acquired and tested every version madel, but I show the following eights as examples:
Some of these eights are made in Europe, and some in Asia. Some are obviously rebranded eights, a good example being the Trillium Health + Fitness eight.
The S.E.Peak is larger than the others, an outlier. Each of the remaining eights is 145±2 mm. tall and 76±2 mm. wide, and has a weight in the 126±12 g. range. These variations have no practical significance.
Although similar, these eights are not identical, and close inspection will reveal some minor differences in their shapes. For example, the Fusion Tiny 8, Version A and Lucky Ecos are noticeably wider for their height than the others. None of these affect their performance to any noticeable degree.
The AMP Tiny 8, C.A.M.P. 548.00/01 (Otto Large), Fusion Tiny 8, Version A, Hugh Banner, Version D and SUT appear to have harder anodizing than the others, and may wear better. My experience with the high-quality hard anodizing on the similar CMI eights is that hard anodizing provides considerable protection on clean ropes, but the protection provided against cave mud is limited. In bad conditions the anodizing soon breaks through, and the protection is lost. For this reason, I don't place a lot of value on hard over soft anodizing for caving use, but I prefer hard anodizing for climbing applications.
None of these eights have slots for sticht-type belaying, and their round eyes are not really designed for that purpose. Some people will belay with an eight rigged for rappelling, but I don't like that practice since it does not provide the automatic locking assist and additional friction that a sticht plate or belay tube does.
Some caver friends refuse to use figure eights because they twist the rope. Eights are short drop devices, and rope twist concerns are absurd for short drops.
Many climbers think that eights are outdated, and prefer to rappel on belay tubes. I prefer belay tubes for belaying, but belay tubes get very hot when used for rappelling. Eights run much cooler. I would rather use an eight, but that may require carrying an extra device. On any given day, I make my choice about carrying a separate rappel device by considering several factors, and it is not unusual for me to carry an eight if I expect to be rappelling more than a very short distance.
For far more content, use a larger monitor and a full-width window.
Hundreds of cell phone users complained and asked me to for a simpler, mobile friendly site. In particular, they wanted me to limit each page to a small number of pictures and minimize my use of text. This new site provides what they asked for.
