Hoisting grips are vital tools that enable you to lift a cable into position and provide support when in place. A high quality grip is essential to avoid damage to cables, handle heavy weights and ensure connections are properly made.
For this session of Head 2 Head, we took the Valmont Site Pro 1 Closed Weave Hoisting Grip (HG12C) and put it up against the equivalent product (PV‐HG12‐PL) from Perfect 10 to see how they both hold up through a variety of tests.
What We Found
The P10 hoisting grips consistently failed at less than their published safe load of 500 lbs while the Site Pro 1 hoisting grips surpassed 150% of the published P10 loading.
For reference before we begin, here are the details of each product we’re testing.
Round 1: Cable Installation
In this round, the hoisting groups were installed with clamps to test for cable damage. The results are shown below.
Figure 1a reflects Valmont Site Pro 1’s Hoisting Grip installed with an Oetiker Clamp on 1⁄2” Cable. Figure 1b below reflects P10’s Hoisting Grip installed with Generic Clamp on 1⁄2” Cable.
After removing each hoisting grip, there was minimal scoring on the cable jacket with Valmont Site Pro 1’s (Figure 1c) hoisting grip installed. However, the cable jacket with P10’s product installed (Figure 1d) showed signs of major scoring to the cable.
The same results were found with the other samples used. Figure 1e is the cable jacket that had Site Pro 1’s product installed. Figure 1f is the cable jacket that had P10’s product installed.
At this point, the jacket was removed from each cable to check for damage to the outer conductor. Figure 1g reflects the jacket removed from the cable with Site Pro 1’s product installed. As you can see there is no dents, scratches or markings of any kind. Figure 1h reflects the jacket removed from the cable with P10’s product installed. There are signs of dents to the outer conductor resulting in failure from the generic clamp compressing the wire into the cable.
The same results were found with the other samples used. Figure 1i is Site Pro 1’s sample and Figure 1j is P10’s. Again, there was damage done to the outer conductor on P10’s samples.
There were an additional 3 samples tested using Site Pro 1’s hoisting grip (C‐V, D‐V and E‐V) as well as P10’s (C‐P, D‐P and E‐P) and they all had the same results as listed above.
All in all we tested a total of 10 samples (5 for Site Pro 1 and 5 for P10). All of Site Pro 1’s samples passed and all of P10’s samples failed.
Round 2: Strength/Load Testing
In this round, the hoisting groups went through load testing. The results are shown below.
In Figure 2a we see that Site Pro 1’s HG12C Hoisting Grip exceeds P10’s published safe load by over 150% with no signs of grip failure! The test stopped before any further loading was applied.
Figure 2b shows that P10’s Hoisting Grip failed before meeting their published safe load requirement of 500 pounds. The wires below the metal crimps in the loop on the basket area separated at 464 pounds. The test stopped at this point.
Figure 2c shows another view of Site Pro 1’s Hoisting Grip with no signs of any material breakdown after exceeding more then 150% of P10’s published safe loading of 500 pounds. Figure 2d shows the material breakdown of P10’s product before meeting their published safe load of 500 pounds.
Again, the same exact results were shown for the additional samples. Figure 2e (Site Pro 1’s Product) shows no signs of any material breakdown at 854 pounds. This is more then 150% of P10’s published safe loading. Figure 2f (P10’s Product) shows the wires below the metal crimps in the loop on the basket area separated at 476 pounds. Failure before meeting their published safe load requirement of 500 pounds.
An alternate angle below of the results. Figure 2g is Site Pro 1’s product. Figure 2h is P10’s product.
As with round 1, all of Site Pro 1’s additional samples passed and all of P10’s additional samples failed.
The Winner: Valmont Site Pro 1’s Hoisting Grips
In conclusion, not only was major cable damage using P10’s Hoisting Grips, but there was material breakdown resulting in failure (before meeting the published safe load of 500 pounds) during strength/load testing. It’s very clear who the winner was during this session of “Head 2 Head”. Check back for more testing in the coming weeks!