Soft Shackle Testing Part 3
Brion Toss became interested in my unique soft shackle designs and offered to have them tested at New England Rope. He had NE Rope send me some of their Endura-12 in both 3/16 and 5/16 sizes. I made up three each of my improved soft shackles and double soft shackles in the 3/16 size and one each in the 5/16 size. I also made up one more double soft shackles which I will explain below. While I had hoped to have all of these tested, we tested only two each in the 3/16 size and one each in the larger size. I assume Brion kept one of each size as samples of the design.
The improved soft shackle testing is straight forward, pull until they break and record the strength. The double soft shackles are a bit more complicated because they are composed of two sections, the double shackle and the diamond stopper knot. I knew from my own testing that the shackle itself was stronger than a diamond stopper knot if the stopper knot was made from the same size line. I also knew that using the next size larger line for the stopper knot was a bit of a mismatch and probably not the desired solution unless it gave a significant increase in strength. But if I tested with the same size line, I would just be breaking the stopper knots. Because we also know that the soft shackles break at the knot, the testing of the single soft shackles will tell us all we need to know about the diamond knot. Thus the double soft shackles were tested with larger stopper knots so that we would be testing the shackle and not the knot. We would then have all the information we needed to determine the strength of various combinations.
|#||Shackle||Line size||Breaking force||Rated strength||strength % of line strength||% of theoretical|
|1||Single||3 / 16||7,082||6,100||116%||29%|
|2||Single||3 / 16||6,288||6,100||103%||26%|
|3||Single||5 / 16||15,995||14,500||110%||28%|
|4||Double||3 / 16||4,457||6,100||73%||37%|
|5||Double||3 / 16||4,029||6,100||66%||33%|
|6||Double||5 / 16||12,027||14,500||83%||41%|
Conclusions on Single Soft Shackle
The most striking thing about the test is how much of the soft shackle strength is lost in the diamond knot. Almost 3/4 of the strength is lost. That makes them stronger than the line they are made of, a fact uncovered in testing part 1, but not significantly stronger. I found this result surprising. I want to compared a 1/8 inch diamond knot with a 7/64 inch line. That would determine if the soft shackle is 28% stronger than the line it is made from. I have found that the soft shackle is not twice the strength of the line it is made of in test 2 but I really need to make more tests.
Conclusion on Double Soft Shackles
The double soft shackles did a bit better being at the lowest 33% of theoretical vs 26% for the straight soft shackle. This confirms that the knots in the double soft shackle are more efficient than a diamond knot. But the double soft shackle puts all its force on the diamond stopper knot rather than half the force that you get with a normal soft shackle because the force is split between the two sides of the shackle. The first conclusion then is that the base of the double soft shackle is stronger than a diamond knot so if the same size line is used for both the body and the stopper knot, the stopper knot will fail first and the overall strength will be about half the strength of the line it is made of.
If the stopper knot is made from the next larger line size, the body will fail first and the double soft shackle will be about 2/3 of the strength of the line it is made of. (65% is just under twice the 33% number which is the worst of the three tests. I use twice because there are two strands).
Is it worth using a larger stopper knot? Comparing the two strengths, the double soft shackle goes from 50% to 65% an increase of 30% in strength by going to a stronger stopper loop. That is equivalent to going about 1/2 a line size up. In summary, starting with the base of using the same size line for both the base and the stopper loop, you can get half way to the strength of the next size line up by changing just the stopper loop to the next size up. Depending on the application, that may or may not be desirable.
|Shackle Type||Approximate Breaking Strength||5/32 Amsteel (approx)||3/16 Amsteel (approx)||1/4 Amsteel (approx)|
|Soft Shackle||Line strength||4,000 pounds||5,400 pounds||8,600 pounds|
|Double Soft Shackle||Half line strength||2,000 pounds||2,700 pounds||4,300 pounds|
|Double Soft Shackle w/ larger stopper loop||65% of line strength||2,600 pounds||3,500 pounds||6,200 pounds|
|Stopper Knot||Half line strength||2,000||2,700||4,300|
* These numbers are based on limited number of samples. See CYA notice below. Use appropriate safety factors.
Statement of CYAThese are just my opinion. Your safety is your responsibility, not mine. You should do your own testing and use safety factors that are consistent with the application. If you are using these for life lines, use 11:1. If you are using them for a boom vang on a light boat, perhaps something close to 2:1. 5:1 is a typical safety number but even here, the choice of your safety factor is your responsibility, not mine. I am providing this information for your amusement, don't bet your life on it.
A Note of CautionThere is someone on eBay selling soft shackles with high strength ratings. He is basing his numbers on 70% of line strength from theoretical (Theoretical being strength of 400% of line strength due to the four strands sharing the load). These tests show 26% of line strength. He may be rounding down from the 70% number and I don't know what line he is using, but it is safe to say his shackles are not close to the strength he is advertising, probably not half as strong.
Ad by Google
I do not sell or share any user data or anything else for that matter. The only personal information I save is in the site log which has a line for each page view which includes the IP address your browser sends in the header as well as which page you requested. I use this to block hackers and other bad actors. I do not use this raw data to create profiles on users. I periodically delete the log files. If you are subject to CCPA, Google ads on this site will not be based on your past behavior so you will likely not see an ad for a lawn mower just because you looked for one at a big box website. I do not believe this site is subject to CCPA but I am doing what I can to follow the guidelines anyway.
The information on this web site has not been checked for accuracy. It is for entertainment purposes only and should be independently verified before using for any other reason. There are five sources. 1) Documents and manuals from a variety of sources. These have not been checked for accuracy and in many cases have not even been read by anyone associated with L-36.com. I have no idea of they are useful or accurate, I leave that to the reader. 2) Articles others have written and submitted. If you have questions on these, please contact the author. 3) Articles that represent my personal opinions. These are intended to promote thought and for entertainment. These are not intended to be fact, they are my opinions. 4) Small programs that generate result presented on a web page. Like any computer program, these may and in some cases do have errors. Almost all of these also make simplifying assumptions so they are not totally accurate even if there are no errors. Please verify all results. 5) Weather information is from numerous of sources and is presented automatically. It is not checked for accuracy either by anyone at L-36.com or by the source which is typically the US Government. See the NOAA web site for their disclaimer. Finally, tide and current data on this site is from 2007 and 2008 data bases, which may contain even older data. Changes in harbors due to building or dredging change tides and currents and for that reason many of the locations presented are no longer supported by newer data bases. For example, there is very little tidal current data in newer data bases so current data is likely wrong to some extent. This data is NOT FOR NAVIGATION. See the XTide disclaimer for details. In addition, tide and current are influenced by storms, river flow, and other factors beyond the ability of any predictive program.