SAMSON TECHNICAL REPORT

T.R. 089-2015-FDL

DATE: 8/12/15

Project:

RGA 1680 and RGA 1704

Subject:

1/2" Vortex Cool

Customer:

Metro Arborist

NCR:

073-2015

Overview

Metro Arborist reported on 3/30/2015 that the 1/2" Vortex they purchased was
not as firm as usual. Two USDA offices/end users reported issues as follows:
1. Ohio office: Marvin reported Problem on friction hitch, when

descending. This occurred after 4-5 climbs. After the

second day of use, the sheath separated from the core and
bunched up, getting caught in the hitch on descent.
Note: This occurred in two out of the three ropes the customer reviewed.
2. New York Office: Todd Scott reported I wasnt having a bunching

issue, my past 2 vortex ropes flattened to an extent that is

normally considered a sign of a compromised rope.
Normally, I use an eye to eye. I use Tenex and it runs fine.
Actually, on my first rope, which I didnt have the
flattening problem with, when it was new, the eye to eye
was sticky when I was ascending. The cover was really
slack and moved a lot, so I milked it out. After that it
performed much better. Just to be clear, I have had 3
ropes. The first one was great. I climbed on it for about 2
years before I retired it. The 2 replacements have been the
ones that I have noticed as having a problem.
Objective:

Identify Root Cause

Evaluate the returned rope samples.
Compare returns with current production/stock rope
Evaluate production controls

Procedure:

Investigation of Issue:
Seven-Step Problem Solving Process was initiated to identify the Root cause.
Containment was completed by sampling the products in stock,
verifying construction meets specs and using the Fold over
method to indicate the difference of good and bad rope, as
described by the end user (Figure 1)

THE STRONGEST NAME IN ROPE

2090 Thornton Street

Ferndale, WA USA 98248

(T) 360.384.4669
(F) 360.384.0572

www.samsonrope.com

Quality data for previous 3 years was reviewed to verify that there
are no recurring issues/trends for this product.
Manufacturing process was reviewed with Plant Manager and
area supervisor for potential causes.
Production process paperwork was reviewed and it was
concluded that adequate controls are in place and in use when
producing Vortex.
Samples were produced and tested in order to reproduce the
excessive cover slack throughout production steps :
o Braiding
o Steaming
o Splicing

Visual and physical inspection:

Strength testing and dissection as required in SRT Test Method

100-02. Compare returns to Samson standard production. This
testing includes an inspection of construction and comparison to
historic break strength.
Cover slack testing as outlined in EN:1891-1998
Preparation of test samples to verify current production process

3rd Party testing/evaluation:

Field testing of returned samples by professional Arborist Trainer
Summary:

The rope was returned in three shipments:

Shipment #1 (Ryan Haeseley USDA Ohio)
Sample 1: Was verified to be Vortex Cool and measured 200
long. The sample arrived with abrasion rating of 2. This sample
met specs with the exception of the cover slack, which is
excessive and supports the customers observation.
Note: One end of the returned rope was missing 1 fiber end from
5 different strands. This is equates to .4% of the ropes total fiber
and would not impact the customer issue related to the cover.
Rope strength, weigh, total volume all met the allowed tolerances
for each of those characteristics.
o Cover slack test result: 20% Exceeds EN specifications
Shipment #2 (Marvin USDA Ohio)
Sample 2: Construction was confirmed to meet product and
tolerance requirements for Vortex Cool. The rope measured
150 long with customer spliced eye on each end, with an
abrasion rating of 2. Returned rope was identified as not a
representative example of the issue.
o Cover slack test results: 1.7%

 Sample 3: Construction was confirmed to meet product and

tolerance requirements for Vortex Cool. The rope measured
150 long with customer spliced eye on each end, with an
abrasion rating of 2. Returned rope was identified as not a
representative example of the issue.
o Cover slack test result: 1.4%
Shipment #3 Metro Arborist (Todd Scott USDA NY)

Sample A: Construction was confirmed to meet product and

tolerance requirements for Vortex Cool. The rope received is
unused, un-spliced 1/2" Vortex Cool X 200ft.
o Cover slack test result: .2%

Sample B: Construction was confirmed to product and meet

tolerances for Vortex Cool. The rope received is unused 1/2"
Vortex Cool X 150ft. with a customer spliced eye each end.
o Cover slack test result: 1.4%

Sample C: Construction was confirmed to meet product and

tolerances for Vortex Cool. The rope received is unused 1/2"
Vortex Cool X 150ft. with a customer spliced eye each end.
o Cover slack test result: 1.6%

All returned samples were tested and measured to Samson specifications and compared to
unused rope samples taken from current inventory.
Through additional product testing, using the customer described fold test (Fig 1),
variation in firmness and feel was found (some samples could be folded flat and as a result
felt softer.) However, with the exception of sample 1 all ropes meet product specifications
including cover slack testing. Therefore the fold test, while indicating that there is variation
in the feel of the end product, cannot be used as an indication of rope out of specification.

Test Results/Conclusions:

Conclusion:
The review of product and process documentation shows:
o Construction and process for this rope configuration have not changed.
o The base material meets specifications
The material specifications have not changed
Production process steps are in-place and effective.

o
o
o
o

If the incorrect die or no die was used to milk the rope during production,
excessive cover slack could occur.
Excessive cover slack was not experienced when the current process was
followed.
Folding rope flat does not indicate out of spec condition and/or excessive
cover slack.
Variances in cover slack could be introduced by incorrect splicing, but not to
the extent seen by the customer and found in Sample 1. (Figure 2.)

While not entirely conclusive, the inability to reproduce the degree of cover slack
experienced by the customer does indicate the high likelihood that a manufacturing
process step was missed or incorrect. The use of the wrong braider die or no die
could cause this problem.

The 7-Step, Root cause Analysis, following a logical problem solving methodology,
did not result in identifying with 100% confidence, the root cause. However, this can
happen if the cause is not systemic, but an anomaly. Although we verified the
process is in place, we suspect that a production run did not follow the process and
therefore produced out of spec rope. All Vortex rope we've inspected does not show
the problem and meets spec. (product in inventory, etc.) I.E. When we follow the
process we make good rope.

3rd Party testing: Climbing Trainer Dave Stice evaluation concluded that the rope
usability was same as standard Vortex and no rope issues were found during use.
o 1 sample of customer returned rope and 1 sample of new Samson
production rope were provided to David Stice, for testing and evaluation.
David, assisted by two other trainers, tested these ropes using
climbing/descent hardware. David stated I ran both samples on the RR

(RoadRunner hardware) and found only minor differences. The customer

batch flattened out a bit more (very little) and milked of of the cover. The
other sample moved maybe a of cover and flattened out as all doublebraid lines do in that device. I see no issue with these lines. They do feel softer
than my other Vortex lines, but they are much older and have seen more
abuse. The feel is the same as the stuff we have in bags and on spools in the
shop. Safety issue Not at all in my opinion.

Customer supplied Picture sent to show difference found with received rope

Fig 1

Cover Slack Test Summary

Return Sample 1

Return
Shipment #1

% Cover
Slack
20%

Pass
(Y/N)
N

Return Sample 2

Shipment #2

1.70%

Return Sample 3

Shipment #2

1.40%

Sample A (unspliced)

Shipment #3

0.20%

Sample B (spliced eye each end)

Shipment #3

1.40%

Sample C (spliced Eye each end)

Shipment #3

1.60%

Sample G (Sample B spliced) Correct spliced eye each end

Shipment #3

2.00%

Sample H (Sample B spliced) Incorrect spliced eye each end

Shipment #3

5.20%

Standard Product Stock

Stock Sample

1.40%

Sample D1 Std Prod-no hot water bath (unspliced)

Stock Sample

0.20%

Sample D2 Std Prod-after hot water bath (unspliced)

Stock Sample

1.20%

Sample E Std Prod- hot water bath (incorrect Splice)

Stock Sample

2.80%

Sample F Std Prod- hot water bath (correct Splice)

Stock Sample

3.20%

Sample G New Production-folded flat

FIG 2

Stock Sample

0.00%

Sample

Prepared by: Jean Cogswell: Steve Milton

Cc: QC; MQ; RS; DW; NA