Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Handjam Belay
Gym climber
expat from the truth
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:44pm PT
|
noone has mentioned jumping off the other side of the ridge yet
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2008 - 10:51pm PT
|
Pat, don't be too impressed with the math and physics. As Karl keeps reminding us, it provides only a shadow, and possibly a misleading one, of the reality it tries to model.
On the other hand, models have something to tell us about the underlying nature of things in situations, like many that occur in climbing, in which human variation overwhelms underlying patterns. I sometimes think of what happens if you take a collection of weights of different sizes, held together by chains of different lengths. Throw the thing and it looks chaotic, with weights flying up and down and whipping around crazily. A person who threw such things regularly would probably come up with some rough notions of where they were headed and what path they would take. But it is extremely unlikely that they would ever, on the basis of observation, arrive at the idea that this whirling dervish of an object has something called a center of gravity, and that center follows a very simple, entirely predictable parabolic path as the cloud of connected objects moves, apparently chaotically, through space.
A practical man may say that this theoretical trajectory is of no use to him if, even though it misses him, some outlying orbiting weight clocks him on the chin. And he would be right. The trick is to figure out what the models have to say that is useful, if anything. The problem the geeks have (y'know, I don't really feel all that much like a geek), is that they enjoy the models a bit too much, and in so doing run the risk of mistaking them for the reality the models only approximate, at best.
And so there will always be a wide field for the human spirit and its mysterious intuitions, with lots of room for us science types to admire your wonderful gifts, even as you respect ours.
Death, at least of the spirit, begins as soon as we get it into our heads that we are not beginners at life, and so it is with climbing as well. Karl started a thread on what "really" causes accidents. Perhaps the answer is, "forgetting, after all these years, that we are still beginners."
|
|
Patrick Oliver
Boulder climber
Fruita, Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2008 - 11:43pm PT
|
Wow, that was very beautifully said. Thank you, Rich.
Pat
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
nice post Rich
"A practical man may say that this theoretical trajectory is of no use to him if, even though it misses him, some outlying orbiting weight clocks him on the chin. And he would be right. The trick is to figure out what the models have to say that is useful, if anything. The problem the geeks have (y'know, I don't really feel all that much like a geek), is that they enjoy the models a bit too much, and in so doing run the risk of mistaking them for the reality the models only approximate, at best. "
Peace
karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Rgold wrote
"By the way, although I don't necessarily agree with a harness designer's take on anchor construction, honesty and a respect for getting at the truth oblige me to also record that Tom said,
"The worst case fall is where the leader does not get any pieces in, then pitches
off and falls directly on the belay. Climbers are usually smart enough
to clip the lead rope into a draw on the anchors, so that the belayer
experiences an upward force, but this is not always the case.""
We have had a productive discussion and I think folks probably understand there are tradeoffs involved in the choices we make to redirect using the anchor.
So what I'd really like to comment about is the integrity and honesty with which you posted an educated opinion contrary to your own position. After our period of political threads, and politics in general, that sort of attitude is to be applauded and respected.
Thank you for setting a fine example
Karl
|
|
JohnRoe
Trad climber
State College, PA
|
|
healyje's rules sum it up for me
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
The majority of the belays I have used tended to be on ledges. Maybe because that was where there was a good stance. Maybe because trees grow better there. Most do not really offer the possibility of a factor 2 - you can't factor 2 bouncing off a ledge.
In fact, I have been wondering about rgold's story about being slammed onto his thighs with a factor 2 fall. Really skinny ledge and the climber did not hit the ledge on the way past?
Heck! Speaking of trees, they often are a single piece. Good for a belay of the follower. If it happens to be above you, which is not all that often, and you want a hanging belay, or must accept one, you can make the distance to the tree whatever you like with regards to the next pitch by just downclimbing/lowering to the next belay stance.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2008 - 02:05pm PT
|
"In fact, I have been wondering about rgold's story about being slammed onto his thighs with a factor 2 fall. Really skinny ledge and the climber did not hit the ledge on the way past?"
A flake handhold broke when we was in a layback position. He sailed right over the ledge, which wasn't really skinny---it was essentially big enough for me to fall to my knees and still be on the ledge.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
Whew, I finally got through reading this thread. Lot's of good analysis and ideas.
A couple things I've been thinking.
1. If there are 3 pieces of pro for the anchor (the only placements available) it seems it would be better to build your anchor from 2 pieces and have the 3rd piece independent of the anchor for the leader to clip into as the "jesus" pro.
2. If there are 2 bolts I'd rather have the leader clip the powerpoint than the highest bolt. Preferably with a sreamer.
Here's an image from the dike a few years ago. Possiblity of a nice 100+ footer factor 2. Anchor is a sliding-X with limiter knots, a rope tie in for the belayer, and a screamer used as a draw on the powerpoint.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
He wrote: "1. If there are 3 pieces of pro for the anchor (the only placements available) it seems it would be better to build your anchor from 2 pieces and have the 3rd piece independent of the anchor for the leader to clip into as the "jesus" pro."
If I was on three sort of sketchy pieces and a leader fall seemed possible directly off the belay (with no Jesus nut available), I'd probably equalize (sliding X) the two strongest placements, clip the lead rope through this pair and belay off the remaining piece.
Why? FIrst, there is no system that equalizes three pieces without introducing a lot of extension, which might be a bigger consideration than equalization - no one really knows for sure. Anyhow, since the "top piece" always absorbs the most force, by making the top piece the equalized pair, you stand the best chance of it holding should the leader ping for a Factor Two whipper.
If the placements were total sh#t I'd probably equalize everything as well as possible and skip the directional and try and catch the whipper off my waist.
JL
|
|
JohnRoe
Trad climber
State College, PA
|
|
Love the picture.
I remember a bolt on that pitch somewhere though.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Too worn out to read the whole thing, but just in the first page I too want to say, "Good idea, Clint.".
And I wonder if one day all bolted anchors will have three bolts, with one 5 feet above the other two, for climbs where there is no pro for a ways off the anchor, just so the ff 2 or even 1.77 will be pretty much impossible to accomplish, at least if you are of sound mind.
Hmmm I bet that sounds too commie-pinko namby-pamby to the real he-man climbers, so it'll probably never happen.
Guess we'll just have to do what Clint's friends did, which again sure seems like a good idea.
I'll have to read more of this one later. Seems like one of the few really good climbing threads to come along in a while.
|
|
Ryan Tetz
Trad climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
If the 3 placements were all sh#t, I'd try to belay somewhere else. You can argue with me this doesn't always work or sometimes you have to use this or that crappy belay.
I'll say 99% of the time you can avoid this. There's a lot of solutions, the leader could build his anchor on the ledge, then continue climbing up higher up the next pitch till the next bomber piece is in up above before coming back down to belay at the not so ready for factor 2 anchor.
Belaying in the middle of the a pitch, build a hanging belay, get 2 bomber cams in somewhere.
Build your anchor high, often the small cracks right above the great belay ledge, might not be so hot for taking pro/out of gear that size at the end of a long lead, the rock is poor quality etc, I'll climb up 10-20 feet and get some solid high gear in then tie it back in with the belay, if its really desperate the climbing rope can be used here, but often a cordalette untied as a long single strand can get a couple pieces together.
I most often run into mandatory bad anchors on old bolted routes with quarter inch or even older bolts star drives etc. Here I will belay directly off my harness as Largo mentions. Avoiding any possible force on the anchor if possible.
Heading in to a "potential" factor 2 situation. If the anchor is in one obvious given spot for say and the climbing looks devious above sometimes i'll have the belayer tie into the anchor but tie in about 10-15 feet down from the anchor, I'll tie them in low with a clove as they are seconding up. Then I'll clip the anchor as I lead out and it won't be quite the gut wrenching factor 2 if I blow the move, say on something like some of the potential situations on the DNB.
When we did the rebolting of the Virginia variation to Tangerine trip on El Cap, some of the fixed anchors were terrible up there. I'd equalize everything possible. On one particularly bad anchor I barely felt good enough leaning back on it let alone hauling two bags and having a guy jug the overhanging fixed line. I climbed 3 rivets up the next pitch and equalized them all into the anchor using the end of the haul line and tied one more rivet in from the side. It was a good thing, I linked it all together. As Eric came up the rope I watched one of the 2 bolt anchors hangers slowly crack and rip in half just from the weight of jugging.
There's some trick equalization techniques for using the climbing rope to anchor and still getting a master point and a few knots I like. Hard to explain without seeing pictures though.
-----side note----- I tie my cordalettes in a loop for regular use with a flat overhand "EDK" knot, 2 of of them for redundancy, this allows me to untie it quickly into one long strand. Throw a bite on an end or both and equalize spaced out anchors.
For the record I'm opposed to the idea of bolting all anchors on big routes up and down as some kind of safety. That seems ridiculous. I can see it a bit more part of the time in places like red rocks with sandstone etc, but just dumb in granite.
-----(OT) I do however agree with the bolts on say cathedral peak summit not particularly for myself or a lot of people up there, but with all the crazy clusterfrig on the mountain most days they increase safety up there by a large enough margin to get the approval stamp.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 12:49am PT
|
All very interesting. However, I've got quite a bit of first-hand experience holding hard falls, and two in particular rise to the top.
Having actually held two basically factor-2 falls (no real-world fall is ever genuinely factor-2) like the theoretical ones described, I can attest to a few things.
First, clipping an anchor placement (in the absence of a nearby non-anchor protection placement) does produce a massive pulley action. In both falls I was launched about six feet up out of my dangling hammock until my belay plate slammed into the 'biner of the anchor bolt. Belays of falls like the ones theoretically described WILL be dynamic. The belayer is gonna get launched. Period. And that's a good thing!
Second, both falls were held by 1/4" button-headed RAWL bolts, not exactly known for their amazing strength. The fact that the belayer WILL get launched goes FAR toward reducing the total load on the anchor placement (not to mention the belayer!). Again, the pulley action and launching effect are exactly what you want!
Finally, I simply can't imagine trying to control falls of that force and violence had they landed on my harness instead of that anchor bolt. I'm sure I would have managed somehow, but probably with injury (at least badly burnt hands). When I say "violence," I mean it. The two falls (one after the other) completely trashed a brand new lead rope. DEEP, flattened spirals were burned into the core, and for about forty feet from the tie-in knot the rope became very stiff and wiry. Talking about the theoretical forces does not translate in most people's minds into the REALITY of actually holding factor-2 falls. I'll put a placement between me and that falling leader ANY time. Even a placement that might pull will reduce the force some, and you have GOT to reduce the force hitting the belayer as much as possible.
The only caveat to my assertions is if you are at a death anchor of some sort, where each and every piece is essential and critical to the anchor's consistency. In that event, I believe that if the leader takes a factor-2 fall, all participants are probably dead anyway. The actual forces are simply immense! Not clipping an anchor placement is a very fine theoretical point in that event, and it's hard to translate that into anything real world.
So, except for that one caveat, when I'm leading I always clip an anchor placement, and I always ensure that my leader does as well.
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 12:57am PT
|
With 4 decades of belaying and catching falls from leaders trying to do harder stuff then I would ever conceive of getting on, and catching more falls then most could ever imagine,,, I'm going w/ P. Haan's recommendation , it's worked for me over a 100x.......
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 02:36am PT
|
Read a little more, like this statement a lot.
"Sometimes it is better to not commit the entire party to a poor station and try to work your way out of the situation while still on the sharp end."
I have to say the freedom of doing new routes allows one to pull out the old drill kit in these circumstances, and the egos of my valued partners are sufficiently tamed at this age that they don't really care about purity or one more death route to their credit, ROTFLMAO!!!
There is just one problem though, with NC ethics, and that is that traditionally, if a climb is under 5.8, it gets no bolts, period. You just run it out. Yeah that's a conflict with the statement right above it, oh well, sue me.
Having led one such pitch (140 feet, no pro, pretty much featureless friction slab) while it was mostly wet, and at the time I had no problem with it, never felt in real danger, I have to wonder, am I just plain stupid, or was my slab climbing pretty darned good at one point? HAHA, could be both!
I would say this whole discussion should bring up the question, "Should we be on this route in the first place?"
The begged question under the whole discussion is some version of, "Are we good enough for this climb?", or, "Should we come back on a better day?" or something like that.
After all, if you think the climb is trivial for your ability, you would not be having any qualms about the gear, the anchors, the fall factors, etc.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 10:56am PT
|
When testing ropes we do a couple of things. We assume the anchor of the test rig is bomber and we are willing to sustain really large loads so that the elasticity of the rope allows it to absorb the leader's energy. Out on the rock neither of these may be true. If we can't hold these large loads the total distance the leader has fallen becomes important again. Because that is the energy that has to get turned into heat someplace other than in the rope.
If the fall factor analysis somehow convinces us all that the total distance fallen is never important and we start climbing that way, I will be of the opinion Mammut should never have allowed their test procedures and analysis to leave the lab.
This is probably one of the very best threads ST has ever seen. Someone needs to print up hard copies of it which may be posted in climbing gyms all across the US.
As soon as possible.
FWIW
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 11:52am PT
|
"To translate that into anything real world" is the point here, is it not?!?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2008 - 09:08pm PT
|
I believe Mr. Grossman has hit the central point here. What are the real data?
Just as it was in the 70's we really need to know what is real and what is not. We fear that more teams of climbers will go bumpity bump down the hill but what to do about it?
What?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
If it's a [newish] well-bolted (3/8 or 1/2) anchor - clip away if you feel the need
Let us know!