Build My Own FeedQC LAB: Gear Doesn't Last Forever, PART I — ICE TOOL PICKS
Before any piece of Black Diamond gear makes it on to the shelves, it spends months, sometimes years getting put through the wringer by our team of Quality Assurance engineers. Through extensive and meticulous testing, both in the lab and in the field, our Director of Quality, Kolin Powick, and his team help ensure that you can count on your BD gear to be as durable, reliable and as strong as possible every time you head into the mountains or out to the crags. Our QC Lab posts aim to answer some of climbing and skiing's most common gear-related questions.
This month marks the first part of a series the QA engineers will be doing on realistic gear lifespan, essentially exploring the concept that gear, no matter how well designed and constructed, doesn't last forever. First off, they'll focus on ice tool picks. Stay tuned for the next installment on crampons in a couple of weeks.
Here at Black Diamond, I answer more emails about the longevity and durability of climbing gear than anything else. Contrary to popular belief, climbing gear doesn't last forever. For instance, I recently received a #2 Camalot in the mail that was manufactured in 2002. The thing was destroyed—it looked like it had been up El Cap 300 times. The customer wanted a new one because it was worn out. News flash: climbing gear doesn't last forever.
If I took a set of tires with 60,000 miles on them back to the tire shop to get replaced, I'd get laughed at—same is true for climbing gear. Perhaps it's a legacy thing. Yes, back in the day some climbing gear did last longer, because it was designed and manufactured to be more robust and consequently was heavier and ultimately didn't perform as well. But even back in the day, climbing gear had a useable lifespan. Also, as the climbing standards increase, we're torquing our picks and crampons, whipping on sketchy pins and cams and just generally being way harder on our gear.
But just as you can buy beefy, all-terrain radials that last longer than high-performance race tires, you can buy rugged climbing gear that'll last longer, but at a cost of weight and performance. You can also purchase more specialized, lighter gear, but it generally won't be quite as burly. It's up to each individual climber to make the choice and understand the possible ramifications of these decisions.
One last thing: my job at BD is to manage a team of engineers that test and break gear all day, every day. We test all gear (not just BD, but all our competitor's gear, too) and do so scientifically and objectively. Yes, we monitor the blogs and chat rooms for trends, information and what is being discussed, and are constantly surprised by both the nature of the commentary (sometimes factual and sometimes not) and the tendency of most blog/forum readers to accept everything as true. As a caveat, don't believe everything you read online—if you do, I have a friend in Nigeria who will wire you $100,000 and all you have to do is send him your bank account information.
Read on for some objective test data on the realities regarding the fatigue life of some of the products that continually pop up. We'll start off with ice gear, then in subsequent posts I'll discuss rock climbing and mountain gear. First up, ice tool picks.
ICE TOOL PICKS
There are basically three types of ice-tool picks: beefy mixed climbing picks, mountain picks, and high-performance, ice-specific picks. Mixed picks and all-mountain picks usually have a larger cross section (i.e., thicker with more material at critical stress areas), and therefore can take more abuse. High performing, ice-specific picks with smaller cross sections are designed for easier penetration and less ice displacement. But does this ice-specific performance characteristic come at a cost of durability? YES!
What most people don't realize is that picks don't typically weaken by being slammed into the ice, rather they weaken from being removed. If you're a guy who buries his picks with each swing (like me), it's the levering motion of REMOVING the pick from the ice that puts a three-point bend load on the ice pick; the ice acting as a fulcrum. This repeated motion and loading can eventually cause a fatigue failure in the metal.
Several years ago, with the desire to obtain real comparative cyclic data on ice-tool picks, we created a test machine that simulates that loading scenario. We call it the 4-Banger—it's awesome.
We load the 4-Banger up, set to the appropriate load, and let it do its thing until the pick breaks, keeping track of the number of cycles. One thing to keep in mind is this is all relative testing—the test setup is consistent, but not necessarily correlating directly to real-world usage, so the data should be considered comparative within itself. Of course picks are also greatly weakened by torquing (but rarely break in this mode). To test this, we have torqued picks, followed by our cycle tests in the 4-Banger and found the fatigue life can be reduced by upwards of 50%.
We've tested and broken so many picks it would make a grown man with a gear fetish cry. We test all of our picks during design and development, and we test other manufacturer's picks as well. We test hot-forged picks, laser-cut picks, water-jet cut picks, machined picks, Aermet picks, and many prototypes using special materials or manufacturing processes.
OUR DATA
As you can see in the graph, the thinner cross-section, high-performance ice-specific picks break earlier than the thicker cross-section mixed and mountain picks. Makes sense. This is true for every company's ice tool picks that we have ever tested. No company has a magic material or process that produces an unbreakable pick. Could we design and manufacture an indestructible pick? Yup. But it likely wouldn't perform well and no one would use it. So climbers are left with having to make a ice tool pick choice between A) high performance and compromised durability, or B) slightly more durable with a sacrifice of performance or weight—just like tires.
We sell thousands of ice tool picks (on ice tools and sold separately) each year (the majority of these are our ice-specific Laser pick). We see a handful back. All companies have ice tool picks that break in the field—no exceptions. I even know of some companies that have finally given up and discontinued their high-performing, ice-specific picks because they were tired of hearing complaints of them breaking.
CE REQUIREMENTS
Most reputable climbing gear manufacturers will CE-certify their gear. One interesting thing is that in general, there are no durability requirements for climbing gear—almost all standards are based on single-pull ultimate strength. So a company could, in theory, design and sell a carabiner that meets all the CE requirements when loaded once and then turns to glass, and it would pass all the current requirements. My point is, the CE standards don't count for fatigue. Up until recently there actually WAS a fatigue requirement for ice climbing picks, but it was removed from the standard because the data was so variable (as all cyclic data is), it didn't really tell you anything, and the test wasn't actually relevant to real world use. So it really is up to the manufacturer to find the balance between ultimate strength, durability and performance.
Many manufactures supply various pick options, and CE has categories for these picks. Burly picks, which used to be called T picks for TECHNICAL, are now are called Type 2 and are for climbing rock, snow or ice. More ice-specific picks that may not necessarily be as robust are formerly called Type B picks for BASIC and are now called Type 1 picks. These classifications are stamped on the pick for easy identification.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Here are instruction excerpts from four different manufacturers (including Black Diamond):
LIFESPAN
Under normal use (20 to 50 days per year), the lifespan of a pick on a Type T ice axe is 1 year. More frequent use or extreme climbing can reduce the lifespan of your ice tool. Some activities that would reduce its lifespan are hitting rocks, twisting the axe and pick, and drytool climbing on rock.
WARNING, certain extreme techniques using ice axes and crampons (e.g.dry-tooling...) are very stressful on the equipment. Levering or torquing the pick or the shaft can cause accelerated wear and/or failure of the equipment during use. This equipment may be used for dry tooling, but only on well protected routes. Ice axes used for dry-tooling should be used exclusively for this activity and must be carefully inspected before each use. Do not use your dry-tooling gear on adventure climbs. The material fatigue caused by dry-tooling could result in a catastrophic tool failure on a poorly protected route. This product must not be loaded beyond its strength rating, nor be used for any purpose other than that for which it is designed.
LIFE OF ICE AXE:
• Sporadic use with a seasonal concentration = between 5 and 10 years.
• Regular use throughout the year on difficult routes and some ice falls = between 3 and 5 years.
• Frequent, professional use on new routes and ice falls = between 3 and 6 seasons.
• Dry tooling, modern mixed, competitions = between 1 and 2 seasons.
WARNING: The materials do not last forever. Check the tool before using it every time and do not hesitate to replace it.
SUMMARY
So what does all of this actually mean? It means that not all gear is created equal: some ice picks will last longer than others, but it depends on the type and frequency of use. It ultimately also means that gear doesn't last forever, and if you try hard enough or use it for long enough, you can break anything. It's up to you, the climber to check your gear, understand its limitations, and replace if it's getting worn or you're unsure about its integrity.
As it pertains to ice tool picks specifically, when I'm in the mountains I usually run a burlier pick. I'm usually not climbing as technically hard of ice and am more likely to be scraping around on rock, so I go with the Titan pick, a beefy, more durable all-mountain rig. But when I'm climbing pure ice routes and need all the help I can get to get up the thing, I use the ice-specific Laser pick. The Lasers penetrate the ice better, and are easier to clean, leaving my flailing arms with a little more gas to finish the pitch. If I'm on a long route, I'll usually carry a spare pick, although in 20 years of ice climbing I've still never broken a pick.
There you have it. Next up in a couple of weeks: crampons.
Stay safe out there,
KP
United States / English 
7 Mar 2013, 2:16AM
I would like to ask a question not about pick but related to ice climbing.
When I ice climb, I sometimes put screw in a hole left by earlier screw placement. Is it kosher to do that? Have you done any tests to see the difference in holding power?
Thanks!
Jane
13 Apr 2012, 5:08PM
What is striking me is the variability of your "Fusion" picks! It's number of cycle is roughly between slighly better than the Titan (24000) to almost twice that (36000). The other manufacturers have data that show much less variability, meaning that their process is under much better control. What I get from the graph shown here is that you can either be lucky or not with BD gear... which is not very reassuring.
From your numbers, it also seems that if you get an "unlucky Titan", you might not do get more cycles than with a "lucky Laser" (their range of cycles are overlapping)...
10 Apr 2012, 4:40PM
Hmmm, I've broken two BD picks on a single pitch, and average 1 - 3 per season. I've taken to carrying two spares as a result.
I have yet to see a non-BD pick break. The surely must, but it seems a lot less common. As James Jenden points out, there's certainly a strong perception in the user community that these picks break with unusual frequency--and always at the same place, the 4th tooth.
Nice to see the analysis, and it all makes sense--but there's still this breakage perception to be dealt with, and we await further information...a market wide test might help...
5 Apr 2012, 2:38PM
Just because you may not have heard of Petzl picks breaking doesn't mean that they don't. That is the exact reason that they discontinued the cascade picks.
Most of the broken BD picks you hear about are laser picks, look at the graph, they break earlier because they are thinner, but they climb better on ice too, so pick what is more important to you. Another thing to consider is that BD holds the majority of the sales in the US so how is it surprising that you hear more things about BD in the US than Euro companies?
As far as the force used to bend each pick; who cares? As long as they use the same settings for each pick you will get a representative comparison. Using a larger force (within reason) is only going to lower the number of cycles as compared to a lower force.
20 Mar 2012, 12:55AM
Basically what you're saying is that people have been having problems with BD gear, and instead of trying to fix the problems, you're explaining that everything has the same problems. You're not Apple with the iPhone 4. I don't think I've ever heard of a Petzl ICE or DRY pick breaking, but I have heard quite a bit about BD Crampon failures recently, as well as a few broken picks. You say you test everyone else's picks as well, but they're certainly not labelled. You have only two T-rated picks on your graph, yet both the Petzl ICE and DRY are T-rated, as well as the Grivel Monster, and the DMM Fly, that's four right there, and there are plenty more out there. Simply put, I don't see enough data here, and I would like to see names. According to your graph, the Fusion has the highest amount of cycles before failure, so showing who the other companies are shouldn't be a problem. I love your tents, and I trust my life to your Camalots, but I find myself sorely dissapointed by your Ice Tools. This article only exacerbates that dissapointment.
I do appreciate the tests you did on daisy chains, it's changed how I protect myself when climbing.
19 Mar 2012, 2:39PM
Most climbers that I have talked to wished the laser pick was more durable. Most climbers throw them out when they break, you may not realize how many break at the same spot. Or should there be a new style pick that was superior to all else out there. After all...... It about reputation, it is up to you to set the bar, not just analize it to death to prove a point. Armet pick did exist once.
19 Mar 2012, 9:22AM
It seems the only connection between this testing and real-world pick failures is the first picture. The testing presented here only proves what was already known: thicker metal cross sections resist fatigue failure better. The article does not discuss the number of failures, types of failure modes, failure locations, tool use when it failed, pick use history, etc. from real world pick failures observed by or returned to BD.
The video of the test device in use shows it bends the pick quite a bit with each cycle. The article claims the testing simulates levering out a stuck tool. However, there was no explaination of the typical forces generated by a climber performing this maneuver. (It's not the maximum force that a person can apply, but rather the MINIMUM needed to free the tool while trying not to have the other tool or front points blow!) The amount of force applied with each cycle was not stated, but I doubt that I've ever caused a pick to bend that much while levering a tool out.
I found this article less than satisfying.
18 Mar 2012, 8:55AM
This was a great read!
One thing though, in the article you kept saying that we should check our gear for stress, fatigue, and general wear but you never said what we are looking for. It would be great if there was an article on what to look for and how to identify when one's gear should be changed. Thanks.
17 Mar 2012, 10:29AM
At which point in the pick did you measure cross sectional area?
16 Mar 2012, 11:42AM
Great article! I don't ice climb and probably never will(hate the cold) but love climbing gear test articles.
One question though, do you have any theories as to why the fusion had a much larger standard deviation than any of the other black diamond picks? and assuming that a given cross sectional area from a competitor is the same model most of the other ones have a smaller sd as well except for the ultra thin version.
also, the anti spam thing can't be done on an iPad.
15 Mar 2012, 10:58AM
The x-axis on the chart above refers to "cross sectional area." The Fusion pick has the biggest cross section and is the strongest. Is the Fusion pick thicker than the Titan, taller than the Titan, or a combination? I was always under the impression the only difference between the two were in the ridges on the top and the bevel. Is there more to it than that? I would assume so given the strength difference. I haven't been able to find any BD literature that compares the technical specifications. The website only lists weights, not dimensions. Thanks.
QC Lab articles always rock, by the way.