NorthwestDriver
Active member
First pass at my own soft shackle. 3/8” dyneema, with an 8” diameter. I intended to make two 4” shackles but I was short about 2’ of rope due to underestimating how much was needed for the knot and end splice.
Best soft shackles made in the USA?
- Thread starter TO_Socal
- Start date
Softshackleguy
New member
yuuup, I ran into that situation when making that grey 5/16. I more or less used the specs I have for 3/16 8" and it came out way smaller. That looks very nice!
HudsonZRoamer
Observer
For those that don't feel like making their own SS, Master Pull just came out with a new SS this past November. Its basically Dyneema everything and spliced at the HQ in Bellingham, WA.
www.masterpull.com
Superline Soft Shackle - 10mm (3/8") - 10"
Master Pull manufactures high performance vehicle recovery equipment and rigging for a wide range of applications, from recreational off-road to heavy duty military and industrial use.
www.masterpull.com
Attachments
Last edited:
Hillbilly Heaven
Explorer
Nice that they did offer those. I don't know how I feel about the sliding lock vs self locking.
I have a stupid question that I "think" I know the answer to but want to get folks take on it. As Dynema is the base material for these soft shackles and winch lines shouldn't the weight rating for lines of a set size be the same no matter who markets it? I see different weight ratings and I presume that the rating is the "answer" different corporate lawyers determined is okay for that company. Am I wrong? And along those lines if you are getting Dyneema and trust the knots being tied why pay a higher amount from Company A over Company B? They are ultimately the same product no? Curious what others thoughts are.
NorthwestDriver
Active member
Good question.
For identical materials (and rope manufacturer) the breaking strength will be the same. This is the “ultimate” load a given rope is expected to withstand before failing.
The differences between shackle suppliers (when using the same diameter and brand of dyneema) comes down to:
1) Knot and splice design
2) Factor of Safety to derive WLL (working load limit)
For #1, know that knots inherently are weaker than the rope. The tight bends and loops in a knot are stress risers and they cause the rope to fail at lower stresses. This is why ropes that are otherwise in damaged fail at or near the knot. Splices, when properly done, are stronger than the rope because they will not have twists or loops, and actually are a portion of two ropes interwoven.
For #2, Factor of Safety. There is no standard to this that I can tell, and there are too many variables to test. The FS is meant to account for the impact load (an impulse) imparted by a tow vehicle onto the stationary object. An impulse can be several times the weight of a static load. Said another way, the impulse generated by a 6,000lb tow vehicle using a kinetic recovery rope can be 12-18,000 lbs depending on how quickly the speed of the tow vehicle is arrested into the recovery rope. This is why you see factors of safety of 3-4x. This is very critical for kinetic recoveries, and less critical for slow recoveries like a winch.
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Vehicle winches are rated per SAE J706. I don't have access to that standard but I assume it refers to the winch lines or is at least implicit in that the line has to work without breaking under the conditions the winch is used.
Shackles and slings are often rated using the ASME B30 set of standards. These don't apply to vehicle recovery directly but are standards in some commercial and industrial settings that are just a starting point.
I was curious what you'd use for soft shackles. I'm not aware of a standard per se for them so I figured the comparable might be a loop sling.
In any case ASME defines the margin as:
"design factor: ratio between nominal or minimum breaking strength and rated load of the rigging hardware."
For shackles (e.g. hard shackles per B30.26) or slings per B30.9 the ASME design factor is 5:1.
ASR on their soft shackles follow this. I have one of their soft shackles, the 7/16" size for which they state a MBS of 47,000 lbs and working load of 9,400 lbs, e.g. exactly 5:1. Their tag doesn't state a standard for this, just the values. This follows a typical bow shackle, which might carry a WLL of 4.75 tons and testing shows they do typically break at ~23.75 tons or 47,500 lbs.
For a recovery rope ASR suggests MIL-DTL-24050 as the standard on their tag. This doesn't really mention splices other than a buried eye in reference to testing it seems since that standard just covers the rope itself. Mine is a 7/8" and gives a MTS of 28,600 lbs and WLL of 9,000 lbs, roughly 3:1. Obviously this is unique because the rope is intended to stretch more than would be acceptable under a B30.9 type elongation spec.
Last edited:
Alloy
Well-known member
Maybe......I had the splice pull out of a 5/8" then a 3/4". I took them to a rope shop to see it they can be repaired. They said it happens allot (Edit...on the larger diameter ropes) and showed me a 1" that had come apart. They repair/lock the spices with Dyneema thread crossing through the rope every 3 stands .
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
What kind of splice? Yeah, a lock stitch is mandatory with a bury since it will creep. Brummels are popular because they are self locking without the need for a lock stitch. Although a Brummel has less retained strength than a simple bury so it's a trade off.
Hello Alloy:
I'm curious about these two splice failures. Apologize in advance for pestering you with questions - I splice and use a lot of line so I'm interested in reports of failure so I can improve my technique and use.
What type of rope was the line?
Were the lines under load at the time?
If so, could you tell if there'd been creep (as mentioned by @DaveInDenver) prior to the loading that caused failure?
Thanks,
Howard
That is about what I suspected (knot and splice) and then whatever Factor of Safety which I suspect is where lawyers may get "involved". But ultimately you gave me what I thought to be true- the material is essentially the same so paying up for a bigger name may not make sense (obviously as long as you are satisfied with the ratings they've given which suggests the splice/knot design they used etc. ) Thanks!
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
The rope breaking strength spec is the starting point and that is given by the manufacturer. There aren't many of those. Dyneema fiber is made by DSM and woven into rope by a few companies like Marlow, Sampson, New England, Cortland. So from that perspective the starting point is all common.
But it's the end product that's getting the working load limit. It's lawyer or insurance dictating margins perhaps, but also production capability and tolerances, testing, QC, design selections that determine WLL.
Realize that not all bends, knots and splices are the same. You start with a rope's MBS, mean breaking strength, and reduce from there. That's measured in efficiency or retained strength, meaning a particular modification to the rope is said to "retain 90% of the original" rating or similar. So having two exact same ratings on a soft shackle in particular is very unlikely for a lot of reasons other than lawyers.
What it seems to tends to come down to is classes of soft shackles. There's companies who fabricate them and put a tag with ratings on them and there's people or companies that don't.
The ones with tags have an implied guarantee that if you use them like the manufacturer intends then they will do what they say they will do. That comes with a significant set of overhead costs. But it may give you a sense of security or could be required perhaps due to being a regulated industry or record keeping (capacity, manufacturer, date, serial number, etc) is necessary. Then ones without a tag have no implied liability. The company may give you a recommendation but the liability is on the end user to determine rigging suitability.
So reputation would factor into price, too. Some companies do carry a premium just based on history or name. Whether that's legitimate or not depends on your perspective. I will say that just having a tag or referring to a standard doesn't mean anything by itself. There's cases where fake test documentation has been discovered with some companies, as an example. So if you're paying a premium for that sort of thing maybe at least make sure it's legit.
Last edited:
Alloy
Well-known member
They were bought as Dynneema soft shackles. There was no tag but they were from a well know brand.
No Brummel and from what I could tell it didn't look like the tail of the spice wasn't locked in either.
I've had Brummel spices in Dynnema creep by leaving steel shackles hanging from the eye while off road.
Both were new and under (hanging overnight) load but it was very little load percentage wise. The rope was very plaint and they used a Diamond knots instead of a Button knots.
Alloy
Well-known member
I've noticed 3 types of soft shackles
Without tags
Tags with breaking strength
Tags with WLL and breaking strength
I don't think tags are a benifit for soft shackles given use/abuse is huge factor and 99.99% of the time the loads for vehicle recovery are a unknow.
Hello Alloy:
Thanks for the informative reply. The failure of soft shackles via creeping of bury splice without lock stitching you describe seems odd to me. In soft shackles that I’ve made the integrity of the structure is independent of the bury. For the soft shackle eye to fail (other than breaking the line) the knot (whichever type is used) would have to untie. If one uses a button knot then the ends of the line are buried back into the shackle to increase the diameter of the shackle where the eye cinches down when loaded. That increased diameter increased the loaded strength of the shackle by increasing the bend radius of the line in the eye so it won’t break until the loads get extreme. But if the bury of the ends of line creeps so the ends come out of the line, the knot remains and the eye would still function fine, but with less ultimate strength (although still stronger than a single length of the line used). With some other knots then ends “after“ the knot are trimmed and there is no end bury in the shackle.
I’m assuming that the structure of the shackles that failed on you must be one I’m not familiar with - definitely possible as I’m no expert. I’d like to learn that structure If possible. Any chance of a link to the vendor or image of the shackles? I don’t doubt at all that the failure happened, I’m just curious about the structure that allowed the failure.
Howard