Printable View
Given you can run a very decent sized conventional shackle I would be looking to go that way. Soft shackles are cute, and yes may well reduce ballistic mass in the case of failure - however in this case the oversized steel shackle will more than compenasate for any foolishness during recovery.
I asked a similar question as the OP, and the feedback was that the built in recovery points are preferable to other options such as the tow hitch. So I have used a medium round file which easily removed the rough 'dags' on the inside of the rear point, then used a Dremel to very gently grind it smooth (don't want to remove material), and finally touched up with some anti-rust black paint. I plan to use a soft shackle directly in there. The front point is fine as is.
I heard an interesting point of view from a driver trainer today. "Old fashioned " recovery gear originates from the lifting game where it needs to comply with a set of accredited standards for safe working load. Soft shackles and such do not need to comply with any standard and can be labelled with what ever working load the manufacturer thinks is cool....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
Regards,
Tote
As a qualified rigger i would prefer to use a rated shackle.
Much more redundancy built in.
Recently on a major Victorian civil project a recovery soft sling was inadvertently inserted into a lifting arrangement for a soft sling due to mis labelling.
The recovery sling failed even before the load was lifted off the ground, this was despite the fact it was supposed to be rated for the intended load.
As previously said recovery equipment does not have the same redundancy built in as lifting equipment.
I’ll just stick to my old school monster shackles
In the end I did exactly what ScottL describes above: file (difficult to use effectively in the space available), Dremel (flexible drive shaft), black paint. It's now smooth enough.
With respect to all the advice, many thanks. I'm aware of the relative strengths of soft, hard etc etc etc. I just like the cost/benefit of the weight and space savings with soft stuff against the amount of use, and actually would prefer an 'unrated' soft shackle to give up rather than (as I have seen in the past) rated shackles being bent/stretched by over-enthusiastic recovery efforts....
I still remember watching a REME recovery vehicle pull a 140 tonne pair of challenger tanks, connected in tandem, out of a bog in Canada. Now that was truly interesting. I got a bloody long way clear before they started pulling. Driver closed down the hatches, and the noise was something to hear...
Lifting gear has a fairly large safety margin on the WLL or SWL (what ever you want to call it), where as I believe a lot of recovery stuff is rated as a breaking point - ie an 8t snatch strap breaks around 8t of load. Shackles from memory have a margin of around 6 times the rated SWL - 4.75t shackle should fail up around 30t of loadQuote:
Originally Posted by Tote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck
Chuck would have more of an idea on the margins - I done my dogging course probably 18-20 years ago and havent done any lifting (at work) for probably 10 years or more now
There’s a kicker with soft shackles that is not taken into account.
Angles….
Rope tightly around a strap loop reduces the rated capacity.
Radius around a pin etc gives rope its strength.
It’s why winch rope should have a ferrule or be mounted to a hook with such radius built in.
Same in the strap loop, the thin shackle point loads that loop, whereas the pin or body of a large shackle gives radius and load spreads.
Soft shackles are almost a gimmick looking for a market to sell to. If weight in vehicle is that borderline then you have other issues to contend with.
A 4.75t shackle will fail long after the sling has parted.