Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 4 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 9 of 17 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#31342 - 07/19/07 02:35 AM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: dalguard]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Man how did this thread get up off the mat? I thought it got the 10 count while ago....

Top
#31352 - 07/19/07 04:35 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: dalguard]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2454
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Climer, your arguments have been made and responded to over and over already, so there is little point in rehashing arguments that have been laid out clearly and in detail. You don't buy those arguments, which are probabilistic in nature, although everything climbers do for safety is based on a (gut) estimate of probabilities.

Oddly enough, your characterization of laboratory results suggests that much much more can go wrong than the tests indicate. And the claim that controlled lab experiments are worthless because they exclude possible real-life effects would negate practically our entire body of scientific knowledge and all the results that have come with it. In any case, the prospect of many more possible ways for things to head south hardly supports a rejection of extremely simple procedures that are neither time-consuming nor gear intensive that will raise the probability of anchors performing as expected.

In any case, I was not recommending any thisolette or thatolette in my post. I'm not even a fan of olettes myself. I was only indicating that there are rational and entirely practical reasons to use a stretchy cordalette rather than a stiff one.

Top
#31364 - 07/19/07 07:48 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: dalguard]
Spiderman Offline
Site Supporter

Registered: 12/23/01
Posts: 178
Loc: Long Island N.Y.
 Originally Posted By: dalguard
 Quote:
Rigging a anchor with a thisolette instead of a thatolette really means squat in reality. Oh I would not argue that in a lab one may look superior to the other but the fact is, properly rigged, anyolette is bomber.

This should be the definitive answer to any further iterations of this question.


Can i just run with this quote.

Weather I use the rope or a cordelette this whole thread has been splitting hairs.
_________________________
I can't climb enough!
But I am climbing more!!

Top
#31367 - 07/19/07 07:59 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: dalguard]
Chas Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 1754
Loc: Flagstaff
Just going back a page. RG@, how often do you think a TRUE FF2 occurs. When I was climbing on Calavaras Dome a few years back, I had the unfortunate joy of falling just as I was placing my first possible piece of gear on a 4th pitch of a climb, and unfortunately the first place was 15ft above the anchor (meaning I did a 30fter, but in reality it was really a 35fter. I really doubt that was a real FF2 fall even though in theory it should have been

And yes, I'm probably the MOST dangerous person here, since I use a web-o-lette, since when I climb, I often lead all the pitches, or in places like Paradise Forks, o Cookie Cliff, leading to let others top-rope a route.

Top
#31374 - 07/19/07 10:31 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: Chas]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2454
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
Chas, if you fall before placing a piece, its a factor 2 fall. (Please do not quibble about the effects of taking in slack...)

Such falls are exceptionally rare, which accounts for the fallacy of the statement that we don't read about anchors failing so there's no reason to try to improve them.

As for being the most dangerous person here by virtue of using a webolette, that comment is part of an argumentation technique that attempts to disqualify a point of view by casting it as extreme. Now there are people out there proclaiming doom and desolation if we don't follow their preferred approaches, whether it be the wearing of hard hats, the use of rappel backups, the orientation of the belayer's palm, the placing of a multidirectional piece at the beginning of every pitch, the redundancy of every aspect of the belay anchor, the knowledge of the most arcane and far-fetched self-rescue techniques, the use of anything other than the figure-eight knot for tying in, and so on.

I'm not one of those extremists. The folks who climb with me will testify that I haven't commented even once about their anchors, whether constructed with the rope, stretchy cordalettes, stiff cordalettes, or a combination of some or all of these. I think that most anchors, viewed as distributed systems with a one-piece-at-a-time failure mode, are ok for the applications they are used for.

On the other hand, this discussion seems to me to present another aspect of the argument, with the real extremists on the other side. I didn't even recommend anything, I just explained why a person might choose to use a stretchy cordalette. That choice, coupled with a few seconds of adjustments in certain cases, will improve the reliability of one's anchors. Is this really an occasion for a diatribe on the inability of experimental science to ever provide results of practical value? Gimme a break, all I'm saying is that this is a way to reduce the probability of failure of your anchor with virtually no cost in terms of time, complexity, or gear.

But trust me, I won't tell your mama if you don't listen.

Top
#31383 - 07/20/07 02:14 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: rg@ofmc]
Climer Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/13/00
Posts: 348
I, as a member of the climbing community, do very much appreciate all the effort that the “geeks” put into the cordelette issue. I am no way jumping on Rg and completely respect the points that he has made here and went as far to point it out in an earlier post that none of his points are factually incorrect.

Rg- it is not my point that things going wrong makes the lab tests inaccurate, it is the fact that the lab test themselves are so woefully incomplete that their relevance at this point is at best, highly questionable.

I thought of starting another thread on the topic of “lab” testing for climbing gear but I figured that since it is directly applicable to this thread (much as I hate to continue this thread) and recovering the ground to get to this point would be painfully repetitive, here shall be the place for my thoughts on this.

Far from me pissing on the body of scientific knowledge, I have always agreed that lab data is a crucial and necessary component serving the climbing community. Testing the product and rigging technique strengths in a lab as opposed to in the field, where the lives of fellow climbers as the ante, is a no brainer to even the most anarchistic of thinkers. Lab data, to be accurate in any way, needs “controls” placed on it..Putting the blinders on to be as accurate as possible in a specific test..Elimination of variables to better compare sample-a to sample-b. It is how it is done and the reason that lab data can be considered acceptable science.

A problem does arise when someone looks at these results and makes recommendations based on specific test data. The same data that HAD to exclude the actual forces and variables applied to a climbing rigging technique for “accurate”scientific testing. This is the reason why these recommendations can be so hard to swallow by the climbing public. The conclusions drawn are based on something that actually does not happen, nor could it, at least not with the climbing systems we currently use. It is in this situation that the data, and especially the theory and recommendations derived from it, becomes so very much less relevant.

Maybe we should just find the guy who thought up SRENE and beat the crap outta him.
CLimer


Edited by Climer (07/20/07 02:28 PM)

Top
#31385 - 07/20/07 03:30 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: rg@ofmc]
Chas Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 1754
Loc: Flagstaff
RG@ Just giving you a rough time... (sorry; with postings inflections aren't transmitted and its hard to recognize kidding...)I appreciate your points of view, especially since they are not in any one extremist camps.

I am also mocking those that are in the safety extreme camps, since I love it when they tout that they are super safe, and do stupid things. Such as when they claim that the helmet they were wearing saved their life the last time they smacked their head on the wall after getting their feet messed up with the rope (but thats a separate issue and lets not get sidelined....)

My only point on my FF2 fall is that given the slip in the system, belay device, belayer being moved......, I doubt it was really that high (sorry for quibbling). If Shell (my belayer) was using a grigri, it might all be a different story.


Edited by Chas (07/20/07 03:30 PM)

Top
#31386 - 07/20/07 04:27 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: Chas]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: Chas
My only point on my FF2 fall is that given the slip in the system, belay device, belayer being moved......, I doubt it was really that high (sorry for quibbling).

To continue the quibbling .... you still had a FF2 fall - all that other stuff you mention was involved in dissipating the force of that factor 2 fall. So while the anchor may not have seen the full force of the fall (assuming you and your partner weren't dumb enough to belay directly off the anchor), those forces were still present at the time of the fall.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#31388 - 07/20/07 06:15 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: MarcC]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2354
Loc: Boston
To continue the quibbling - it's likely that *had* his partner belayed directly off the anchor, the forces on the anchor may actually have been smaller! (no pulley effect).

GO

Top
#31389 - 07/20/07 07:21 PM Re: cordelette-attention RG [Re: GOclimb]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
No pulley effect occurs if you don't belay directly off the anchor and don't clip the anchor as your first piece.

Top
Page 9 of 17 < 1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 17 >


Moderator:  daryl512 
Sponsored