well thanks again for your quick reply.
EDIT: Well yesterday Night I was too tired and already admited that I mixed up the SI Units and their Potency. But actually I didnt, and was perfectly aware of the units and converted them properly ;o) But, I quote since days another wrong number: Climbing Gear is not rated for 2.2kN but 22kN!Just to clear some things 367kg = 360DaN = 3.6Kn = 3600N So 500DaN is well above the minimum ISO breaking load (with the tested failing load up to 600DaN on my rig) unless there are riders weighing more than 170kg
And this is what I tried to ask you:
I like to have a 22kN, like for a Fall Factor 2, designed QR.
So to get back to my initial question:
Would you consider to upgrade your Buckle to match 22kN? Your CAD/FEM Software for sure easily enables you to change the material alloys to quickly check if the request requires alot of effort or maybe can be realized with some simple changes?
Sorry, my mistake I have skipped that.I did reply about the metal insert, you really think it will lower the friction even further?
Well, Polymers, exp. self lubricating with MoS2 integrated, for sure will be enough in terms of abrasion resistance.
But for a little tweaking of the surface resistance values, I would like to try it on my own.
If you could simply offer a second variant in the future whenever you have time for that, I think some enthusiast would love to try it.
On paper, when comparing the SK bars and yours, its some minor reason for me to spend the ridiculous amount of 399€ for the bar instead of 229€ for yours. It would maybe be just a purchase for the sake of having it and not worrying about it any further.
Besides that, I would even replace the PU tubing with a Teflon tubing like the KauperXT Pinxto Bar uses, to get the friction to the lowest value possible! So it would be a great meet with some Stainless Steel insert.
Well, Certifications can be damn expensive, I know that.Needed also a stronger leash to apply for the ISO certification
But there legally is a difference between "tested" and "certified".
I would already be happy enough with "tested" equipment, which requires some external institution to test them. Something like the german TÜV or the german PTB (Physikalische Technische Bundesanstalt), or even Universities with Material Science Departments, offer such service for 100-200€. For sure there is smth similar in the Netherlands. If not I can give you the contacts of my University Professor, we performed such tests as service in my Department for regular "civilians" or Companys back when I was studying there.
By this you can say, with an external proof by some certified institution, that the claims you make are backuped.
Because I do not trust any inhouse meter, neither to be calibrated, nor to be precise, nor to be the fitting equipment and offering the necessary refresh rates on the sensors, because I actually by myself studied material science (for metals, Im not too good with ceramics, conductors and polymers) which is why I am quite sensitive for the reason that many industrys conduct tests and publish their results based on bad equipment.
Greets