What makes a hangboard(literally)?

I get a lot of questions about different aspects of our products and a lot of the time the answer is related to how it is made. I’ve decided to write an overview of the most common processes used for making hangboards and training devices and in the future I can build off of this to talk about design.

Processes

CNC Machining (What we use):

• Highest precision (tolerances ±0.01mm)
• Excellent surface finish
• Ideal for complex, custom geometries
• Low-volume production economically viable
• Parts start from a solid block of material that is well controlled to meet quality standards
• Superior mechanical properties

Aluminum Extrusion:

• Limited to uniform cross-section profiles
• Lower per-unit cost for high volumes
• Faster production rates
• Less design flexibility
• Moderate surface finish
• Good for long, consistent parts
• Higher initial costs to start production

Aluminum Casting:

• Complex shapes possible
• Lower material costs
• High production volume efficiency
• Rougher surface finish
• Less precise dimensional accuracy
• Potential porosity and structural inconsistencies
• Lower mechanical strength compared to machined parts

Polyurethane Casting:

• Best for prototype and low-volume production
• Relatively inexpensive tooling
• Quick turnaround
• Limited material selection
• Less durable
• Suitable for parts that don’t require much stiffness
• Lower dimensional precision

3D Printing:

• Excellent for rapid prototyping
• Complex internal geometries possible
• No tooling costs
• Layer lines affect surface finish
• Weaker mechanical properties in Z direction
• Limited material selection compared to other processes
• Slower production for solid parts
• Better suited for hollow/lightweight designs
• Lower dimensional accuracy than CNC
• Higher unit cost at volume production

Now that we’ve looked at a quick overview of the processes, let's take a look at some of the most common materials.

Material Strength Comparisons

There are many factors that go into choosing a material. We chose aluminum because it’s relatively cheap, strong, can be textured and easily washed. One feature we knew we needed to have was the integrated eyelet which also ruled out any of the materials that are not strong in both tension and compression in all directions(anisotropic). Being stronger also allows us to make a much smaller device that is still strong enough to handle any load that will be thrown at it!

Tensile Strength Comparison:

Aluminum 6061 T6(what we use):

• Tensile Strength: 310-380 MPa
• High strength-to-weight ratio
• Excellent for structural applications

Woods (Tensile Strength Parallel to Grain):

• Poplar: 33-50 MPa
• Oak: 80-100 MPa
• Maple: 90-110 MPa
• Pine: 40-60 MPa

Urethane (Climbing Holds):

• Tensile Strength: 40-70 MPa
• Varies based on specific formulation

3D Printed Materials:

• PLA: 50-70 MPa (What is typically used for 3D printed climbing products)
• ABS: 35-50 MPa
• PETG: 50-75 MPa
• Nylon: 70-90 MPa

Key Observations:

• Aluminum 6061 T6 significantly outperforms other materials
• Wood and urethane have relatively low tensile strengths

Additional thoughts on 3D printing and wood:

Both 3D printing and wood have similar disadvantages(albeit for slightly different reasons) which can make it more likely that you’re not getting a product that will stand the test of time.

Shared Factors:

1. Grain/Layer Orientation

• Wood: Strength varies drastically parallel vs perpendicular to grain
• 3D Prints: Layer orientation relative to load direction critical
• Both weakest when force applied perpendicular to grain/layers

2. Moisture Content

• Wood: Higher moisture weakens structure, causes swelling
• 3D Prints: Absorbed moisture weakens layer bonds, degrades polymers
• Both materials need moisture control during storage

3. Temperature Effects

• Wood: Becomes brittle when too dry/hot
• 3D Prints: Softens near glass transition temperature
• Both weaken with temperature extremes

4. Internal Defects

• Wood: Knots, splits, grain irregularities
• 3D Prints: Air gaps, under-extrusion, layer separation
• Both significantly weakened by internal discontinuities

5. Environmental Degradation

• Wood: Rot, UV damage, insect damage
• 3D Prints: UV degradation, chemical exposure
• Both require protection from elements

6. Direction of Load

• Wood: Much stronger along grain
• 3D Prints: Much stronger along layer lines
• Both show pronounced anisotropic properties

This is why proper material selection, orientation, and environmental protection are crucial for both materials in structural applications. Having something made from either 3D printed plastic or wood (we would happily use either and we currently use 3D printing for some of our non load bearing accessories) but we have seen several other products improperly account for these weaknesses and seen those break prematurely.

I would like to reiterate that there are no “bad” material choices. Only bad designs that improperly account for the strength/weaknesses of that material. Hopefully this short article gives some insight as to why we chose what we did and in future articles we will dive into more of our design philosophy for our products!