Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 17 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#31424 - 07/23/07 02:32 PM Weekend Accident Report...
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Heard about two accidents this weekend...

First, on Saturday someone ripped two pieces out on 'Alfonse' and had a very swollen ankle but walked out.

Second, Sunday a climber fell on 'Beginners Delight' and had possibly broken a leg... Rangers were out with the backboard just in-case.

Anyone have more info on these two incidents? Why the pieces pulled... What happened on BG to cause an injury that serious?

Stay safe!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#31452 - 07/23/07 08:51 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
Elwood54 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 76
Loc: NYC

Top
#31459 - 07/24/07 12:20 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Elwood54]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
An accident in which the party administers their own first aid and their own evacuation, (not that it was an "evacuation"), is not really an incident at all. Kudos to them for not making a big deal out of it. One broken ankle means you still have one good one to hobble out on.

RR

Top
#31461 - 07/24/07 01:18 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: RangerRob]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
True... It doesn't count in the official books, but if somebody rips out two pieces and busts up their ankle... It would be nice to find out what happened.

And the second accident I posted... That person did not "hobble" out on their own, they were strapped to the backboard and carried out...

The report on RC.com seems to confuse and combine both accidents.
Saturday's "non-incident" had two peices pull... Did Sunday's also?

Anybody who was there have some info on the guy from BD?
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#31463 - 07/24/07 04:34 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: Dillbag
True... It doesn't count in the official books, but if somebody rips out two pieces and busts up their ankle... It would be nice to find out what happened.

Um, they effed up placing those two pieces - pilot error, nothing more. There's no point in "finding out what happened" other than morbid curiosity. There's actually remarkably little to "learn" from the vast majority of accidents that hasn't be rehashed thousands of times before.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#31465 - 07/24/07 12:30 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
....but morbid curiosity is an american tradition! From the sideshow three-headed snake with legs of the 19th century to reality television, we've a fascination with the Sesame Street-syle concept of "One of these Things doesn't belong here, See if you can guess which one..."
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#31467 - 07/24/07 12:38 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Terrie]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
This is more along the lines that I was looking for...

 Originally Posted By: gunked on RC.com
Yeah, I witnessed the fall. It was BIG!!! I was at the ledge between the first pitch anchor of Hawk and Peregrine. I didn't see where he fell from, although I was told it was from the Minty anchor. I will say that he finished falling, at most, 10 feet above the second pitch Minty anchor and off to the left of it. From my angle, it was quite obvious. My best guess on his fall was in the 50 ft. range. What's the distance between anchors 2 and 3 on Minty?

By the time I got down to help, he was wrapped up and strapped down to the litter. I assisted with the carry out as best I could. Still nursing my sprained ankle from a few weeks ago.

His right leg was busted. I'm just guessing on this one, but he might have done some back damage because of the way he fell. When he came to a stop on the rope, he was facing the sky and did a pretty severe back-bend(arms out and all) as best I could make out.

It was a pretty well executed carry-out especially considering the guy's size(maybe 225-250 lbs.?) and the steep terrain and sharp bends on the descent trail. It wen't off without a hitch. Bob, Jim and Dave we're guiding in the area and their groups were very helpful as well as everyone else around.

I heard somebody say (don't remember who) that he messed up clipping in to the anchor and his partner heard him say "Oops" before he fell.

That's all I know about this one.

-Jason

Link
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#31489 - 07/25/07 01:49 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
If that's really what you are looking for, then it seems you know right where to find it.

Top
#31780 - 08/01/07 05:37 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: pda]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Update on the accidents... Including the latest one this past Saturday (at approx. 7pm)...

Gunks Accident(s) this weekend?
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#31798 - 08/01/07 06:39 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
nerdom Offline
Pooh-Bah *

Registered: 09/07/01
Posts: 2483
Loc: Davis Sq., MA
 Originally Posted By: Dillbag
Update on the accidents... Including the latest one this past Saturday (at approx. 7pm)...

Gunks Accident(s) this weekend?



I spoke with a guy at the gym last night who said he's friends with the guy who fell on Minty; he confirmed the facts as stated on that site, i.e., that he clipped a single piece of webbing at the rap anchor, and it failed when he weighted it.

How the hell does a seconding climber fall on Arrow, hit a ledge and fracture a leg? I can't draw any conclusion other than that she had an inattentive belayer?

Speedy recovery to all.
_________________________
we're all living proof that nothing lasts

Top
#31806 - 08/01/07 07:53 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: nerdom]
dalguard Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
If you fall off the opening moves of the second pitch (which are harder if short) you could certainly hit the ledge on rope stretch. Breaking a leg is just bad luck.

Top
#31823 - 08/02/07 02:29 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: dalguard]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
I've seen a number of injuries from rope stretch on opening moves. I don't see why the constant quest for the thinnest rope possible, especially at an area like the gunks with so many ledges and trees to fall into. Overhanging cave routes might be a different matter, but I'm sticking to the thick stuff for that reason.

Top
#31825 - 08/02/07 04:16 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: chip]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: chip
I've seen a number of injuries from rope stretch on opening moves. I don't see why the constant quest for the thinnest rope possible, especially at an area like the gunks with so many ledges and trees to fall into.

Couple that with the fascination of doing 2 or 3 pitch routes in a single pitch (simply 'cause some folks have an absurdly long 70m ropte) and you get seconds hitting the ground. Some on this forum have even idiotically said they wouldn't do that if they thought their follower would fall...as if they could predict such a thing.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#31831 - 08/02/07 12:03 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: chip]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
 Originally Posted By: chip
.....why the constant quest for the thinnest rope possible, especially at.....



Consumer society/gotta-keep-up Jonesing mentality. Rope choice won't make a bit of difference for most people; same goes for the lighter biner, thinner cord, smaller draw. But don't it make you feel good to pull that skinny snake outa the bag and hear yer neighbor walking by stop and go "mmmmm...."
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#31833 - 08/02/07 01:15 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
nerdom Offline
Pooh-Bah *

Registered: 09/07/01
Posts: 2483
Loc: Davis Sq., MA
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: chip
I've seen a number of injuries from rope stretch on opening moves. I don't see why the constant quest for the thinnest rope possible, especially at an area like the gunks with so many ledges and trees to fall into.

Couple that with the fascination of doing 2 or 3 pitch routes in a single pitch (simply 'cause some folks have an absurdly long 70m ropte) and you get seconds hitting the ground. Some on this forum have even idiotically said they wouldn't do that if they thought their follower would fall...as if they could predict such a thing.


haha! yeah, I friend of mine hosed me one time on Maria Direct many years ago. I'd actually climbed the damn thing before with no problems, but on this day I just didn't have it. He had led the pitch all the way to the GT ledge, instead of to the short P1 sling nest anchor. Well, I came off at the crux, fell nearly all the way to the ground, and had to repeat all the opening moves again. Fell again, and again, and again . . . by the third or fourth time, I was absolutely smoked and was so frustrated (since I'd climbed the damn thing before without incident!), that I just untied, handed the rope to a friend, and proceeded post-haste to the Otter to drown my shame!

But P2 of Arrow (where I'm assuming the previously mentioned fall occurred) is not that long. What is it, maybe 80 feet? I just gotta figure a tight belay keeps all but the heaviest climbers off the ledge on the moves through the little hang. But I'm wrong as often as not, so who knows?

Anyway, sorry to hear about it, and hope the climber recovers quickly; and if she's a beginner, that this incident doesn't dampen her enthusiasm for climbing.
_________________________
we're all living proof that nothing lasts

Top
#31840 - 08/02/07 01:51 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: nerdom]
dalguard Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
She wasn't necessarily at the overhang. For short people, the first few moves off the ledge are hard.

Marc, if we do one of those routes together and you don't want me to lead it in one pitch, I promise I won't. Running pitches together is a team decision made because both partners enjoy a long stretch of relatively easy climbing.

Top
#31848 - 08/02/07 02:33 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: dalguard]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: dalguard
Running pitches together is a team decision...

It should be, but I've seen many instances where it isn't, and, unfortunately, many of those have been on routes where the crux is close to the ground. Drunkard's, Criss, Criss Cross, and the afore mentioned Maria Direct all come to mind, among others. Drunkard's once resulted in a broken ankle for the follower of the party climbing next to us.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#31850 - 08/02/07 03:02 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: dalguard
Running pitches together is a team decision...

It should be, but I've seen many instances where it isn't, and, unfortunately, many of those have been on routes where the crux is close to the ground. Drunkard's, Criss, Criss Cross, and the afore mentioned Maria Direct all come to mind, among others. Drunkard's once resulted in a broken ankle for the follower of the party climbing next to us.


People need to be more selective about who they'll climb with. I will generally ask my partner not to link pitches if I'm concerned about the opening moves of a route and if they didn't care about my concerns then that'll be the end of that day. That said, some new climbers wouldn't yet know enough to be able to evaluate that risk.

Top
#31851 - 08/02/07 03:47 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: learningtolead]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Typically (and Drunkard's is a perfect example) climbing both pitches in one shot exposes the second to much the same risk as the leader faces leading the first pitch: the first 10 or more feet are essentially unprotected.
This leads to a fairly reliable rule: don't run two pitches together on anything your second wouldn't be perfectly comfortable leading (or soloing) the first 10 or more feet of.
Of course, in rare instances (e.g., pendulum falls into a rock on a route that traverses sharply to one side), the second may face an even greater risk than the leader, so this rule is no substitute for good judgment.

Top
#31852 - 08/02/07 03:50 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: learningtolead]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2957
Loc: LI, NY
cant you do arrow in a big single pitch?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#31856 - 08/02/07 05:13 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: empicard]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: empicard
cant you do arrow in a big single pitch?

Probably with a 70m; a 60m might be just a little short. Oh, wait...are there rap bolts at the top of Arrow now - so that you don't have to go back to the tree? If so, then a 60 probably would work (and I've seen folks build a gear anchor on the ledge just below the top).
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#31857 - 08/02/07 05:15 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
I've seen people rap to the ground from the top bolts on two 60 m ropes.

Top
#31860 - 08/02/07 06:23 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: empicard]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Since each rap station gets you down on a doubled 60 meter, you can do a single pitch of Arrow to the top. I recently watched a party climb the first pitch and then above the overhang as one, set an anchor to bring up the second, and then a short 60 feet to the top. Very thoughtful way to cover a second who may struggle into the hang.

Top
#31866 - 08/02/07 07:36 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: chip]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
I've seen people rap to the ground from the top bolts on two 60 m ropes.

Since each rap station gets you down on a doubled 60 meter, you can do a single pitch of Arrow to the top.


I thought so too, but had to simulclimb up a bit (from the high belay ledge) before the leader was off belay.

It may be that those 60m ropes stretch when you're rapping on them, and the tie-in knots use up some of the available rope when leading.

70m ropes would work though.

Top
#31867 - 08/02/07 09:14 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: rg@ofmc]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
RG? Linking pitches at the Gunks? Wow, which universe is this?

;\)

GO

Top
#31871 - 08/03/07 02:48 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: GOclimb]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
People link pitches on Arrow a lot these days. not me, I have a self preservation instinct / am chickenshit.. but I see it done a lot, particularly by parties with half ropes..

Top
#31872 - 08/03/07 03:31 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: pedestrian]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
RG? Linking pitches at the Gunks? Wow, which universe is this?

The one in which climbers try to snatch one more climb from the jaws of approaching darkness. But yeah, the Arrow in one long pitch is kinda dumb. There is, after all, a giant ledge there.

Top
#31873 - 08/03/07 03:35 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: pedestrian]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
Rich are you calling me kinda dumb. I love climbing Arrow in one long pitch. I have 60M doulbes and it just reaches. The decision to climb it and other climbs in one long pitch is a group decision and one that is made based on our abilities and the desire to get in a nice long 200 foot pitch. Climbing Arrow in one long pitch would not be the cause of the accident be discussed as the injury did not occur on the first pitch, but the second pitch. Just about everyone climb from the GT up to the bolt anchors at the top so there really would be no difference with respect to the injured climber if this climb was done in one or two pitches. Regardless I hope the injured party is ok and makes a speedy recovery.

When climbing long pitches that have hard moves down low it is pretty easy to eliminate the risk of decking. Before climbing the second should crouch down and then as they stand up have the belayer take in the slack thereby removing some of the rope stretch. Do this several times and you significantly reduce your chance of a ledge fall by the second.


Edited by Coppertone (08/03/07 03:38 AM)

Top
#31882 - 08/03/07 11:40 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
The accident on Arrow DID occur at the start of pitch 2.

Does that 'take out the slack' squats thing really remove a few feet? Because I can tell you that I've begged my leader more than once to "Give me the Jenny Craig belay"(a/k/a taking a little weight off - credit: Raleigh Collins).

I don't know if I am humble enough to be seen doing what will look like exercises from the 1950's at the base or mid route at the Gunks.....(Much cooler to yell "Hey - Jenny!" since most my partners have heard the story).

_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#31911 - 08/04/07 01:15 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Terrie]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
Squating down a few times and taking in the slack absolutely takes a few feet out of the stretch. We do it all the time on hard TR's where there are tough moves right off of the deck.

Top
#31918 - 08/04/07 12:18 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
 Originally Posted By: Coppertone
Squating down a few times and taking in the slack absolutely takes a few feet out of the stretch. ...

Consider the simplest case:
  • The rope hangs straight down.
  • There is no friction from rock or gear.
  • Belay is directly off the harness above (or equivalently the "power point" above the harness is a frictionless pulley.

Under these conditions one can consider the rope to be an example of a spring. Using Hooke's Law, the stretch of the rope is proportional to the load (unsupported weight of the climber). So the amount of "stretch that can be removed" is limited by the force (weight applied by the climber). If the climber can hang without touching the ground, all of the stretch has been removed (at that length). If a scale under jenny registered only half of her weight, only half of the stretch has been removed. It should be obvious from this, that the belayer must do more than "remove the slack", but must actually be exerting a force equal to the unsupported (by the ground) weight. (With the frictionless pulley.) So belayer must actually weigh at least as much as jenny, or be able to rig something to an anchor below him that can effectively increase his weight.

That is just for starters. But we next must assume that the climber is actually going to climb up to the crux. As the rope shortens, the rope stretch to support jenny's weight decreases linearly. If the crux is 10 feet off the ground on 200 feet of rope, then the rope stretch is reduced by 5% from what it would be at the ground. 10 feet from 100 feet up the stretch is reduced by 10%. In order to keep from reintroducing the stretch, the force on the rope must stay at the climbers weight. So just jenny craiging at the start is insufficient to remove the stretch.

So jenny starts climbing. The belayer takes in no rope (since it is taut, after all). Climber falls at the crux. Rope stretches to drop climber back to the ground, where Hooke's Law predicts!

Taking out the frictionless pulley serves only to allow jenny's partner to be a little bit lighter.

Adding in a high friction path {sharp bends in the rope) above the crux can help jenny (at the expense of the leader's climbing). The closer to the crux, the more useful the bad rope line is.

All of the above said, adding force to the rope (not just removing slack), while it won't shorten the fall appreciably, will lower the speed at which jenny hits the deck, and thus reduces the likelihood and severity of an injury. \:\)

Top
#31920 - 08/04/07 05:31 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
 Originally Posted By: D75
 Originally Posted By: Coppertone
Squating down a few times and taking in the slack absolutely takes a few feet out of the stretch. ...

Consider the simplest case:
  • The rope hangs straight down.
  • There is no friction from rock or gear.
  • Belay is directly off the harness above (or equivalently the "power point" above the harness is a frictionless pulley.

Under these conditions one can consider the rope to be an example of a spring. Using Hooke's Law, the stretch of the rope is proportional to the load (unsupported weight of the climber). So the amount of "stretch that can be removed" is limited by the force (weight applied by the climber). If the climber can hang without touching the ground, all of the stretch has been removed (at that length). If a scale under jenny registered only half of her weight, only half of the stretch has been removed. It should be obvious from this, that the belayer must do more than "remove the slack", but must actually be exerting a force equal to the unsupported (by the ground) weight. (With the frictionless pulley.) So belayer must actually weigh at least as much as jenny, or be able to rig something to an anchor below him that can effectively increase his weight.

That is just for starters. But we next must assume that the climber is actually going to climb up to the crux. As the rope shortens, the rope stretch to support jenny's weight decreases linearly. If the crux is 10 feet off the ground on 200 feet of rope, then the rope stretch is reduced by 5% from what it would be at the ground. 10 feet from 100 feet up the stretch is reduced by 10%. In order to keep from reintroducing the stretch, the force on the rope must stay at the climbers weight. So just jenny craiging at the start is insufficient to remove the stretch.

So jenny starts climbing. The belayer takes in no rope (since it is taut, after all). Climber falls at the crux. Rope stretches to drop climber back to the ground, where Hooke's Law predicts!

Taking out the frictionless pulley serves only to allow jenny's partner to be a little bit lighter.

Adding in a high friction path {sharp bends in the rope) above the crux can help jenny (at the expense of the leader's climbing). The closer to the crux, the more useful the bad rope line is.

All of the above said, adding force to the rope (not just removing slack), while it won't shorten the fall appreciably, will lower the speed at which jenny hits the deck, and thus reduces the likelihood and severity of an injury. \:\)


Take all of the above and throw it out the window. If you are able to remove 4 feet of rope stretch before you leave the ground then if you fall from fairly low on a climb you are going to fall 4 feet less since the stretch has already been removed from the system. If you fall 8 feet off of the deck while following a pitch and that pitch is over 100 feet long there is a good chance that you will hit the ledge/ground, however by removing a good amount of the rope stretch your chances of contacting the ground/ledge are greatly reduced. Very simple, no lengthy mathmatic or techincal explaination is needed. We belay like this all the time and it works. Many times where stretch has not been removed and someone falls low down on the climb they contact or come close to the deck, where the stretch has been removed on the very same climb and setup this has never been an issue.


Edited by Coppertone (08/04/07 05:36 PM)

Top
#31925 - 08/05/07 02:57 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
If you are able to remove 4 feet of stretch...

Apparently you missed the whole point, because you did not understand any of the physics.

The point is that to remove "4 feet of stretch" requires yarding in the equivalent of four feet of stretch by applying half of the climbers weight to the rope (in the simplest case and your 8 foot stretch example). It is not be pulling in 4 feet of "slack". And only doing it on the ground without maintaining that same tension as the climber climbs means that the climber still reaches the ground, just with a smaller force of impact, if she falls from 8 feet and you have reduced the tension on the rope to near 0.

The explanation was offered for those willing to actually think about it and not those who were going to just rely on anecdotal evidence that was incomplete.

Top
#31927 - 08/05/07 08:21 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Theoretical physics "analysis" or practical experience from someone who's been doing it for 20 years? Hmmm.

Top
#31944 - 08/06/07 01:02 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: strat]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
 Quote:
Apparently you missed the whole point, because you did not understand any of the physics.


Well... We're all very impressed by your "physics" knowledge!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#31950 - 08/06/07 03:22 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
"Consider the simplest case:

The rope hangs straight down.
There is no friction from rock or gear.
Belay is directly off the harness above (or equivalently the "power point" above the harness is a frictionless pulley.

Under these conditions one can consider the rope to be an example of a spring."

What you have here is not the "simplest case," but a collection of simplifying assumptions that, taken together, present an idealized situation that never occurs in real life. As a consequence, the results you get from "applying the physics" are worthless, and fail to accurately model what occurs in the real world.

In real life, there's always some friction, the rope never hangs straight down, the belay point is not a frictionless pulley and, last but by no means least, the rope is not a perfect spring (ever wonder why it's a good idea to let the rope recover for a few minutes or more after a really hard fall?). Add all these up, and "taking the stretch out of the rope" offers concrete, easily verifiable advantages to the second facing a few hard moves off the deck with a hundred or more feet of rope between him and the belayer.

The most elegant hypothesis, backed by all the best equations, isn't worth a damn thing if the experiment doesn't verify the prediction.

Top
#31981 - 08/06/07 08:15 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
strat, I assume that you are not suggesting that the laws of physics take into account the experience of the climber.

Dillbag, frankly I do not give a damn whether you are impressed. I was trying to answer Terrie's original question accurately and in a way in which other similar situations could be analyzed - the answer which is counter-intuitive, at least to a couple of posters here, based on lack of careful experimentation and lack of fundamental physics knowledge (perhaps), or they simply do not wish to expend the intellectual energy to understand what is going on and why they are in error.

So, we have a couple folks trusting anecdotal information. They and their partners are not dead, so their advice is correct. No! It does not work that way.

That brings me to the more intelligent comments of retr. Retr I agree most strongly with your last paragraph. So perhaps you could provide a prescription for how to conduct a proper experiment. Or provide actual data and a description of the experiment (repeatable) that refutes the hypothesis. You could address the hysteresis effects in your experiment if you wish. That would be good to investigate. Or you could make that a constant, by using new rope each time, or "resting" the rope long enough to eliminate the effect.

Now as far as your "real life" graf is concerned... Physicists, and most other scientists make simplifying assumptions to understand the ramifications of the problem. In my case, I suggested the "frictionless pulley" for the power point. That is one extreme point in the spectrum. The other extreme is the infinite friction power point - the rope is tied off at the top. In that extreme we learn nothing about the answer because no amount of yarding will help jenny. No tension can be applied to her end of the rope by the belayer on the other side of the power point. In the frictionless extreme, exactly whatever the belayer can exert can be used to tension the rope. Obviously between the zero friction and the infinite friction cases, the amount of tension that the belayer can provide is reduced by the friction in the system, regardless of its location.

Hopefully that much is clear to all.

The next important thing to understand is that the weight of the climber matters. This may seem like common sense to most, but it is important to understand. Your 60 pound kid, and the all-state left offensive tackle are not going to stretch the rope by the same amount. If the offensive tackle weights 240, and the kid suspended will stretch the rope a foot from where there was no load on the rope, the tackle will stretch the rope 4 feet, unless he reaches the ground first.

Finally, the amount of stretch for either is proportional to the length of the belay. Cut the belay in the example by 50% and the kid will be suspended 6 inches and the tackle 2 feet.

This is all static analysis - a hanging "climber". If the climber falls on the rope, things get a bit more complicated to analyze. This is because the climber will be converting potential energy into kinetic energy. A falling climber will have a force resistive to the fall the instant that the rope is tensioned - slack goes to zero (ignoring friction again to make it simpler to understand). That kinetic energy will be absorbed by the rope, but in most cases there will be some "overshoot". I.e. the rope will be stretched past the equilibrium hanging point, bounce very slightly above...

In a nutshell
1) It is very difficult to apply a tension significant compared to climber weight to the rope at the climber.
2) The tension that the belayer can apply is limited by the minimum of two things. His strength or the weight of the climber - Usually his strength. You can yard up a chipmunk, but likely not a line backer absent a force multiplying system.
3) Maintaining that tension is difficult while the climber is climbing
4) The amount of rope stretch is proportional to the climber weight.
5) It is also proportional to the rope length.
6) To the extent that the tension is not maintained, the rope has not been shortened, so a fall drops the climber back to the equilibrium point (or the ground if it comes first).
7) So the climber who does knee bends before starting is still at risk of hitting the ground, but to the extent the rope was tensioned, the energy of the collision is reduced.
8) Finally, believing this is the more conservative strategy. Remember that and don't become the next case study.

Top
#31987 - 08/06/07 10:08 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
"Physicists, and most other scientists make simplifying assumptions to understand the ramifications of the problem. In my case, I suggested the "frictionless pulley" for the power point. That is one extreme point in the spectrum. The other extreme is the infinite friction power point - the rope is tied off at the top. . . . No tension can be applied to her end of the rope by the belayer on the other side of the power point. . . . Obviously between the zero friction and the infinite friction cases, the amount of tension that the belayer can provide is reduced by the friction in the system, regardless of its location."

That's why Coppertone's suggestion works: friction works with you, rather than against you. By having the climber squat down, you take advantage of his weight, and you can "pre-tension" the rope much more effectively than you can by yarding up from the belay. And by having the belayer take in the slack while the climber stands back up, the belayer can then lock off and sustain some of the tension in the rope with minimal effort, because all that friction is now helping to minimize the effort required to lock it off.

Those of you who have tried handdogging a tough spot on a climb already know how this works: if your belayer locks you off, and you let go, you're going to stretch the rope a fair amount, and fall below where you want to be. If you can then quickly stand up on something while your belayer yards in and locks off again, you'll be several feet higher, and your belayer can easily hold you at the new height. If, on the other hand, your belayer tries to yard in while you're hanging, you're not going to gain an inch.

For the non-nutshell version
"1) It is very difficult to apply a tension significant compared to climber weight to the rope at the climber." [That's why using the climber's weight instead of the belayer's biceps is a good idea]

"2) The tension that the belayer can apply is limited by the minimum of two things. His strength or the weight of the climber - Usually his strength. You can yard up a chipmunk, but likely not a line backer absent a force multiplying system." [See No. 1 above]

"3) Maintaining that tension is difficult while the climber is climbing." [Absolutely true. As the climber gets above a few feet, most of the stored tension gets released, slack creeps back into the system, and the advantage disappears quickly. But the whole point was to protect the second against falling back to the starting point; not to protect the entire climb. If necessary, you could use the same approach (climber deep knee bends, etc.) at other spots where hard moves immediately followed a good ledge that could be a hazard if you miss the moves (e.g., moving off the ledge at Frustration Syndrome).

"4) The amount of rope stretch is proportional to the climber weight." [But if you use the climber's weight instead of the belayer's biceps to pre-tension the rope, increases in the climber's weight tend to result in greater pre-tensioning as well; thus, this cancels out]

"5) It is also proportional to the rope length." [See no. 4]

"6) To the extent that the tension is not maintained, the rope has not been shortened, so a fall drops the climber back to the equilibrium point (or the ground if it comes first)." [See No. 3]

"7) So the climber who does knee bends before starting is still at risk of hitting the ground, but to the extent the rope was tensioned, the energy of the collision is reduced."

Wasn't that the whole point?

Top
#31993 - 08/06/07 11:55 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
"...By having the climber squat down, you take advantage of his weight, and you can "pre-tension" the rope much more effectively than you can by yarding up from the belay. And by having the belayer take in the slack while the climber stands back up, the belayer can then lock off and sustain some of the tension in the rope with minimal effort, because all that friction is now helping to minimize the effort required to lock it off. "

Again, here a simplifying assumption will help us to examine whether "all that friction is now helping to minimize the effort required to lock it off."

Let's assume just for the moment that we are back to the infinite friction power point. After all if some friction is going to minimize it, then more is better. Also the friction that is important is all of the friction between the climber and the belayer.

So jenny squats, and as you point out, the rope stretches due to her weight and the infinite friction at the power point. She calls up that she is standing up. Belayer yards, but the only slack is between the power point and the climber. The tension is lost. (And no additional rope is hauled in, which is of course as you point out, our objective.)

Now consider the friction free example. The belay device supplies a force multiplier so that the belayer, whose grip strength is about 50-80 pounds is able to hold the 200+ pound tension on the rope without slipping (if he weighs 200 pounds himself or is anchored to the ground). Unfortunately to get the rope to move through the BD he will be required to get the force to exceed the 200 pounds on jenny's side albeit just marginally. Or alternatively, have a camming device on the pulley that supplies "infinite tension" temporarily while he stands up himself, then flips the cam back to zero. (Say for example a tension hitch of some sort).

I think what we are seeing is that it may be possible for the belayer to do the squatting and yarding if he is sufficiently larger than jenny, which is pretty much what I started out saying.

Top
#31996 - 08/07/07 12:53 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
All I know is that we were climbing in Lost City this weekend. We had a rope up on Forbidden Zone. My partner who was climbing squated down at the start and I took in the slack. He slipped on one of the opening face moves about 6 feet up and and with over 150 feet of rope out he did not hit the ground.

Top
#31997 - 08/07/07 01:02 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
...and all I know is that when I saw the opening moves on Drunkard's Delight this weekend, and thought "I should have my partner yard rope while I do some squats"..... and looked to my left and saw all the he-men that abounded....there was no way in hell I was going to going to do it.

So, I did what I usually do, and reminded partner to keep me tight. Up a move or two, and if the rope didn't get taken up with enough tension, I yelled "keeep me tiiiight!"...(although what it should have translated to was a chicken sound..."buck, buck, buckawwwwk!"

Nonetheless, when I fell off the crux(twice) and took the penji, on doubles too, the good news was that enough rope had gone up that I didn't have to worry about the deck.
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#31998 - 08/07/07 01:03 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Terrie]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
Oh - and the physics equations are pretty much lost on me, but thatnks for trying.
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#31999 - 08/07/07 01:25 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: D75
So jenny squats, and as you point out, the rope stretches due to her weight and the infinite friction at the power point. She calls up that she is standing up. Belayer yards, but the only slack is between the power point and the climber. The tension is lost. (And no additional rope is hauled in, which is of course as you point out, our objective.)


*Only* if the rope acts as a perfect spring. The perfect spring contracts at the rate Jenny stands up, so there is no time for the belayer to haul in slack. Unless as you say, they can apply more power and actually haul more than Jenny weighs. You got that part right.

But a rope doesn't act as a perfect spring. As Jenny stands, the rope does begin to contract, but at a much slower rate than Jenny is rising. The difference is what allows the belayer, regardless of their weight (or strength) to haul up a couple feet of slack.
_________________________


Top
#32002 - 08/07/07 03:12 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
Quanto - thanks for the understanding. Can you quantify how perfect it isn't?

Frankly, it would surprise me that a couple feet of slack would exist, because it is unlikely that Jenny could squat more than 3 feet! If she could her WNBA contract would probably prohibit her participation in rock-climbing.

Sorry Terrie. I must admit that I knew that not only would you be lost by the physics and the math, but that you would not bother to try to figure it out anyway.

But I put in lots of examples just in case they might help, and left out the math.

For you, you might hit the deck marginally softer. Go for belayer with the biggest biceps you can find.

Or one who can set up a tension hitch a'la rescue, so that his weight can be used to shorten up your rope. :-)

Really short version. Just lead.

Top
#32006 - 08/07/07 11:56 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
 Originally Posted By: D75

Sorry Terrie. I must admit that I knew that not only would you be lost by the physics and the math, but that you would not bother to try to figure it out anyway.



...actually, I did read the examples, and I had no trouble whatsoever with the reading comprehension factor it them.

Each person has sets of unique abilities and traits; these are what make us who we are. For example, when I was in tech school, my reading levels were in the 93rd, 96th and 97th percentile. That's really very good.....

But when I work with mathematical formulas, something blocks them in my processing. I get a visceral feeling of them jumbling together, as if in a car crash.

Perhaps there is a way teachers would be able to guide students through when they encounter this situation. I never encountered it though, in my school years, and made alternative ways of figuring out answers(and did quite well on tests). Making put-down remarks probably isn't the way through the maze I referred to though(if you are in a position to teach, you might take that to heart).

Sorry that my comment derailed the original thread content.

How 'bout this last weekend? I didn't hear any news of accidents(although Aya posted a TR elsewhere that detailed one averted only by chance! hahaha).

Guess the Leg Special at the Gunks is over....Let's hope.



_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#32035 - 08/07/07 07:23 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Terrie]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
"Frankly, it would surprise me that a couple feet of slack would exist, because it is unlikely that Jenny could squat more than 3 feet."

Here's a hint: I'd be willing to bet she could do it more than once . . . .

(and yes, her belayer will still be able to pull some rope in, without any great effort, on the 2d or even 3d squat, zero friction or infinite friction models notwithstanding).

You're beginning to sound like the engineer who "proved" that bumblebees can't fly. (perhaps apocryphal; see http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
NB: "The word problems typically found in textbooks often serve as rudimentary models of reality. Their applicability to real life, however, depends on the validity of the assumptions that underlie the statement of the problem.")

Top
#32036 - 08/07/07 07:57 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
OK retr, what is your theory?

Quanto's - that the hysteresis is so prolonged that you should be able to watch the rope unweighted shrink back to its normal length over a second or two? Do you want to quantify the hysteresis effect to demonstrate that there is slack when unweighted? Or prove it by measurement? Anybody out there expert on dynamics of ropes? My guess is that the hysteresis is only important at high loads (significantly higher than typical body weights as in those generated by high FF falls with reasonably beefy climbers - I know kids who loved to take repeated FF 1 falls in the gym).

You have lots of assertions. I have conclusions based on analysis and the physics of springs which reasonably well approximate dynamic ropes. They could be wrong. How do we prove it quantitatively one way or the other? Until you disprove by an experiment, I am sticking by the analysis.

Top
#32037 - 08/07/07 08:19 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
D75, your original post on the subject is full of so many unstated assumptions that it's difficult to show where you're going wrong, because it's hard to see where you're starting from. Sorry.

GO

Top
#32038 - 08/07/07 08:27 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: GOclimb]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
Basically, if you maintain a fair amount of tension (but less than that of the weight of the climber), you can keep them from hitting the ground hard once they get more than a few feet off the ground. I'm unclear on why you find this difficult to accept.

For example, let's say that a certain rope has a 7% static stretch. Belayer takes out three feet of rope via "jenny craiging" (combination of the climber squatting and the belayer sitting back to pull rope in each time). Given the elastic model of rope, this would require far far less force than the weight of the climber to do. A quarter the weight, perhaps? Anyway, let's say you maintain that amount of tension on the rope as the climber starts up the climb. All they have to do is get *four* feet off the ground, and a fall will have them barely touching down!

Does this help? Do you still disagree? Am I missing your point?

GO

Top
#32042 - 08/07/07 11:21 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: D75
OK retr, what is your theory?

Quanto's - that the hysteresis is so prolonged that you should be able to watch the rope unweighted shrink back to its normal length over a second or two? Do you want to quantify the hysteresis effect to demonstrate that there is slack when unweighted? Or prove it by measurement? Anybody out there expert on dynamics of ropes? My guess is that the hysteresis is only important at high loads (significantly higher than typical body weights as in those generated by high FF falls with reasonably beefy climbers - I know kids who loved to take repeated FF 1 falls in the gym).

You have lots of assertions. I have conclusions based on analysis and the physics of springs which reasonably well approximate dynamic ropes. They could be wrong. How do we prove it quantitatively one way or the other? Until you disprove by an experiment, I am sticking by the analysis.


There's only one assertion; that it does not recover the same way as a real spring.

What kind of proof do you need? Coppertone has already given an example. Retr mentions the recommendations of rope manufacturers to allow the rope to recover after a big fall. When working overhangs, we take the stretch out otherwise you drop too far below the overhang.

Drop tests have shown that forces increase rapidly when the rope is not given time to recover. One test by Chris Harmston of Black Diamond showed that consecutive falls went from 7KN to 9Kn to 11KN or something like that. That doesn't happen with a spring because the spring recovers immediately.

You can google for more results, there seemed to be a lot of discussions about ropes and springs on r.c
_________________________


Top
#32046 - 08/08/07 01:19 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
fallenglass Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/01/03
Posts: 276
Loc: cornwall
reminds me of dr. venkman: "back off man. i'm a scientist ..."

Top
#32047 - 08/08/07 02:41 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Terrie]
Aya Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/18/04
Posts: 754
Loc: Climbing somewhere
 Originally Posted By: Terrie
How 'bout this last weekend? I didn't hear any news of accidents(although Aya posted a TR elsewhere that detailed one averted only by chance! hahaha).


Think I saw a cyclist(?) accident with mohonk rangers and an ambulance on scene on Sunday evening down just past the visitors center.
_________________________
Gunks T-Shirts!

Top
#32050 - 08/08/07 02:49 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: fallenglass]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
7 kilonewtons = 1,573.6626 pounds force. (or something like that)
LMAO.

I already alluded to this. Well out of the body weight regime, and perhaps out of the linear response regime as well. Well beyond what a belayer could do even with a 5:1 purchase system.

Not looking for "proof". Looking for what retr offered. An experiment that refuted the theoretical conclusions. So far you have joined the crowd offering more anecdotal evidence. I.e. warm fuzzy thoughts about how you think it works based on not remembering that maybe the guy did hit the ground, but not remembering from how high, or how hard.

Like the emergency room guys remembering only the crazies that came in during a "full mooon". You might be right. But so far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence that I am wrong in the fractional body weight force regime.

Anyway, I am outta here. I don't argue long with the faith-based crowd. I have explained that yarding slack probably does not work and why. Nobody has offered quantifiable evidence that I am wrong, but they have offered their alternative theories and anecdotal stories.

GO, you have basically restated what was originally offered. Sorry that you could not understand the explanation. I think it is because you believe that what you say is correct, and therefore are searching for why I am wrong.

Next time you are out, take up all the slack that you can. Mark 3 more feet. Take that out. Report back rope length, weight of belayer and climber and anchor setup. Also brand of rope, and what the belayer and jenny actually did. Then report back how high she had to climb without taking in anymore and drop and not hit the ground/ledge at the starting point. (Don't do this if she does not feel like most of her weight is supported by the rope. Also do not construe this as climbing advice. It might be dangerous. You assume all liability for any injuries that might occur as a result.) Even better bring along a bathroom scale. Measure the weight after yarding.

Top
#32051 - 08/08/07 03:12 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
I think it's just the fact that all you damn freaks insist on climbing when it's friggin 90 degrees out and 110% relative humidity. Of course accidents are going to go up....people are greasing off things they shouldn't be. Go get another hobby or something...go have sex with your significant other...I dunno....just don't climb in ridiculous weather. Duh!

RR

Top
#32058 - 08/08/07 01:08 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: RangerRob]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Well Rob, looks like you have picked up a new sport of digging fire lines out west like a dirty grunt... good luck.

Top
#32062 - 08/08/07 02:31 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
GOclimb Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/26/01
Posts: 2361
Loc: Boston
 Originally Posted By: D75
7 kilonewtons = 1,573.6626 pounds force. (or something like that)
LMAO.


Sorry, what's 7kN got to do with anything?

 Quote:
Anyway, I am outta here. I don't argue long with the faith-based crowd. I have explained that yarding slack probably does not work and why. Nobody has offered quantifiable evidence that I am wrong, but they have offered their alternative theories and anecdotal stories.


Faith based? What the hell are you talking about? If you yard in 3 feet of slack, the climber will fall three feet less. That doesn't require belief in a higher power to acknowledge.

 Quote:
GO, you have basically restated what was originally offered. Sorry that you could not understand the explanation. I think it is because you believe that what you say is correct, and therefore are searching for why I am wrong.


I understood your long rambling discourse just fine. It failed to explain anything, and, I'm pretty sure, not for my lack of understanding, but due to a number of unstated but clearly erroneous assumptions on your part.

 Quote:
Next time you are out, take up all the slack that you can. Mark 3 more feet. Take that out. Report back rope length, weight of belayer and climber and anchor setup. Also brand of rope, and what the belayer and jenny actually did. Then report back how high she had to climb without taking in anymore and drop and not hit the ground/ledge at the starting point.


Why would you fail to take in slack as she climbs? Of course if you don't take in slack, she'll hit the ground if she falls. What's the point of that?

GO

Top
#32063 - 08/08/07 02:37 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: GOclimb]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
 Originally Posted By: GO
Why would you fail to take in slack as she climbs? Of course if you don't take in slack, she'll hit the ground if she falls. What's the point of that?


Exactly! So, I guess the final word is... Doing "Jenny Craig's" works... Unless...



Unless D75 is belaying...
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#32065 - 08/08/07 03:00 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: D75
Next time you are out, take up all the slack that you can. Mark 3 more feet. Take that out. Report back rope length, weight of belayer and climber and anchor setup. Also brand of rope, and what the belayer and jenny actually did. Then report back how high she had to climb without taking in anymore and drop and not hit the ground/ledge at the starting point. (Don't do this if she does not feel like most of her weight is supported by the rope. Also do not construe this as climbing advice. It might be dangerous. You assume all liability for any injuries that might occur as a result.) Even better bring along a bathroom scale. Measure the weight after yarding.


You're the only one who doesn't believe, why not go do it yourself? WTTG is a good one, climb up under the roof and then jump down to stretch the rope. Then climb back up. By the way, I outweigh my belayer by 40lbs so by your theory there's no way she can haul in extra slack, but by some "miracle" she can haul up an extra 4' of rope. You won't deck there, but taking the stretch out of the rope means you won't have to lower back down if you can't pull the roof the first attempt.


Edited by quanto_the_mad (08/08/07 03:06 PM)
_________________________


Top
#32069 - 08/08/07 04:16 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
dalguard Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 1515
Loc: CT
Anyone who's ever worked a route on TR knows that stretch comes out of a rope. It's why we're supposed to let a rope "recover" between falls. How much effect can a few squats have? My guess is it's less than a few falls but more than nothing.

Top
#32070 - 08/08/07 05:43 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: dalguard]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
D75 - your case is pretty weak if you have to resort to personal attacks...

Kinda childish, don't you think?

Top
#32075 - 08/08/07 08:51 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: pedestrian]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
OK, GO. Most of your responses are about things I said in response to another remark. Look up thread for first 7 KN reference.


All of you refering to "slack"...

Dynamic ropes loaded are kind of like rubber bands. Stretch, unstretch.

I have never stood up to see "slack" (unless it was already there). You can squat once the slack (true slack = untensioned rope) has been removed. That will increase the tension, and as a direct result, stretch the rope. Then you can stand up. The tension on the rope decreases. [edit] Decreases to the starting point tension. The rope will not be appreciably longer, i.e. long enough that the tension has dropped significantly from the initial tension.

OK, there is a way that you could get slack (initially by jumping up to a point higher than the starting nearly zero tension rope). What is typical vertical jump. For me, now, definitely under 24 inches. NBA, maybe what 36 - 48 inches. Take all of that in and next time you jump? No slack at the top, unless you jump higher than the previous jump. OK, maybe you could since you are on a tensioned rope and just lost weight. At some point though you are going to be jumping from your toes, not bent legs.

So enjoy your rock jumping. Y'all were right. I was thinking only of deep knee bends, not springing climbers.


Edited by D75 (08/08/07 08:56 PM)

Top
#32076 - 08/08/07 10:13 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
"Dynamic ropes loaded are kind of like rubber bands. Stretch, unstretch."

I think that's your error in a nutshell. "kind of like," maybe, but enough alike to serve as a reliable predictor of behavior under the circumstances being discussed? No.

You don't believe me? If I take a 5 foot length of climbing rope, stretch it between my arms as hard as I can, point it at you, and let go, not much is going to happen. The rope will fall, and slowly contract back to its original size. Now repeat the experiment with a "rubber band" (think bungie cord). You better not be standing within a couple of feet.

The point is that recovery time (and elasticity, in the lay sense) differs, and it matters.

Now for your example:
"You can squat once the slack (true slack = untensioned rope) has been removed. That will increase the tension, and as a direct result, stretch the rope. Then you can stand up. The tension on the rope decreases." So far, I'd agree.

"Decreases to the starting point tension." No. Not immediately. Not so fast that your belayer cannot capture a few extra feet of (temporary) slack.

Now we get down to a testable situation, with no extra equipment necessary. Pick a climb. Set up a slingshot TR, climber and belayer both standing on the ground, legs straight. Have the belayer pull in as much slack as he can without either party bending legs at all – just arm strength. Now have the climber squat down and stand up once or twice, with the belayer pulling in rope as the climber stands up (again, arms only). Working hypothesis: the belayer will be able to pull in several feet (at least) of slack, with ease. And hold it, with equal ease.

According to your zero-friction/infinite-friction and "kind of like rubber band" model, this just can't happen. Care to bet?

A more complicated question is whether all of this does the climber facing a few hard moves off the deck any good. The answer to that depends on a lot of variables, the most critical of which is probably how effectively the belayer can take in slack and maintain this "pre-tensioning" of the rope as the climber ascends. That, in turn, would seem to depend largely on how slowly the rope recovers its "relaxed" state: if it acted like a rubber band, the belayer would be hard pressed to keep up. Since the rope's recovery is much slower than a rubber band, however, some degree of pre-tensioning can be maintained (even without any further squats), which will reduce the maximum distance and/or velocity at impact if the climber falls.

Top
#32077 - 08/08/07 10:58 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
retr - that is indeed a good test. Not sure when I will next get the chance to try it. One thing is certain though. To achieve the same tension on the climber, roughly twice as much rope will need to be pulled in versus the top belay.

It would seem that you are claiming that the rope reaches, (for at least a brief period of time) a "relaxed" state. That is a state in which the tension is zero. I would bet against that being true. As to whether the tension returns to a state lower than the limit of the belayer's strength, that is the key question, at least in my mind.

If you do this before I do, report the results. Like you, I agree that the theory is not useful, if it does not explain the results.

If it acts "like a rubber band" (follows Hooke's Law) the belayer will not be able to keep up (without the jumping mentioned above) because the rope will return from a state of higher tension to a state of the initial maximum belayer tension. Since the belayer has already reached his maximum force, he will not achieve any additional tensioning because the rope following Hooke's Law will have its tension drop from the additional weight value to the limit without ever dropping below that limit. (Force monotonically decreasing from maximum weight of climber to maximum "arm strength" of belayer.)

Regardless, achieving a tensioning of the rope, will help at least marginally to reduce an impact force of a fall, other things being equal. Of course, it could also cause the fall or even prevent the move, say for example on traverse or balancy moves.

Top
#32078 - 08/08/07 11:11 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

Top
#32087 - 08/09/07 02:42 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: strat]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
More like:


Top
#32090 - 08/09/07 04:43 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: D75
So enjoy your rock jumping. Y'all were right. I was thinking only of deep knee bends, not springing climbers.

Nice try, but that makes no difference.

 Originally Posted By: D75
So jenny squats, and as you point out, the rope stretches due to her weight and the infinite friction at the power point. She calls up that she is standing up. Belayer yards, but the only slack is between the power point and the climber. The tension is lost. (And no additional rope is hauled in, which is of course as you point out, our objective.)


You said the rope stretches. You said even earlier that it stretches differently for a kid, a linebacker, and even more during a fall. Your were arguing not that the rope stretches nor how it stretches, but that the rope immediately contracts

 Originally Posted By: D75

Dynamic ropes loaded are kind of like rubber bands. Stretch, unstretch.


That was your argument and that's where you're wrong as we keep pointing out. Don't try to weasel out claiming jumping is different from squatting; they do the same exact thing, the former just does it more efficiently if you're not a 250lb linebacker.

Edited to add:
Ok, here's your proof. I took a 10.5mm PMI rope. Tied two eights on a bight 5' apart. Marked off a 3' section (in the middle) with two twist ties. Pulling the knots apart, by HAND, then releasing, I quickly measured the separation at 37". One full inch. On a 30m toprope, that's 5.5 feet of stretch. It took about 45 seconds for the rope to recover back to 36".

Of course, you'll probably complain about stretching by hand not being the same as squatting, so next I did exactly that. I got the digital bathroom scale. I squatted on the rope, giving it around 125 lbs weight. I stood up, reached to the ground to pick up the tape measure, and measured 38". That's 11 feet of stretch for a 30m toprope, by merely squatting. It took more than a minute for the rope to recover, plenty of time to pull in the slack created by rope stretch.



Edited by quanto_the_mad (08/09/07 05:53 AM)
_________________________


Top
#32093 - 08/09/07 12:44 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Quote:
It would seem that you are claiming that the rope reaches, (for at least a brief period of time) a "relaxed" state. That is a state in which the tension is zero. I would bet against that being true. As to whether the tension returns to a state lower than the limit of the belayer's strength, that is the key question, at least in my mind.


If someone is employing this as a safety measure, then they ought to get though those first few moves “quickly” or the advantage will be lost.

Isn’t rope stretch primarily due to the way it is woven – and much of it’s behavior due to friction between strands? I suggest that that rope behavior is highly nonlinear at low body weight force, but better approximates a spring model for higher fall forces. This seems logical to me and would explain the differences that are being argued. Also I would not be surprised to learn that different ropes were significantly different with regard to return rate. Even a gumby like me has seen evidence of this when getting off rappel.

Also note that if the pitch starts with a traverse, say Drunkards, then at the start, the length of rope below the first piece will be longer than the distance needed to pendulum into the ground, and lateral motion will likely make a fall more dangerous in regards to braking ankles.

Top
#32100 - 08/09/07 02:35 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
D75 Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 293
Loc: Holiday Inn Express
 Originally Posted By: quanto_the_mad
That was your argument and that's where you're wrong as we keep pointing out. Don't try to weasel out claiming jumping is different from squatting; they do the same exact thing, the former just does it more efficiently if you're not a 250lb linebacker.

I guess you misunderstood. By jumping I mean the waist moves higher than starting point to get slack, which is different than squatting and standing.

 Originally Posted By: quanto_the_mad
Edited to add:
Ok, here's your proof. I took a 10.5mm PMI rope. Tied two eights on a bight 5' apart. Marked off a 3' section (in the middle) with two twist ties. Pulling the knots apart, by HAND, then releasing, I quickly measured the separation at 37". One full inch. On a 30m toprope, that's 5.5 feet of stretch. It took about 45 seconds for the rope to recover back to 36".

Of course, you'll probably complain about stretching by hand not being the same as squatting, so next I did exactly that. I got the digital bathroom scale. I squatted on the rope, giving it around 125 lbs weight. I stood up, reached to the ground to pick up the tape measure, and measured 38". That's 11 feet of stretch for a 30m toprope, by merely squatting. It took more than a minute for the rope to recover, plenty of time to pull in the slack created by rope stretch.


Thanks for the data. I am surprised that the recovery to original length is so slow.

It seems that you mean by a 30m top-rope a 60 meter sling-shot, since your calculations are double the 30 meter values. Rgold and plenty of others have suggested that the load on the belayer side is 60% of the climber side due to friction. So total stretch numbers should be about 80% of what you calculated.

I would be interested if the extrapolation from your scale experiment yielded 9 (or 11) feet of rope outdoors. That would be quite a few squats. It would also mean that you were able to tension the rope to double what you were able to do with your arms (about 62 pounds in this case) using a loop to pull on rather than gripping the rope as you would to belay.

Of course, at the end of the day, the number of feet you are able to collect is not directly relevant. What is relevant is the tension, and whether or not Hooke's law still is a good approximation for addtional stretch due to a fall and consequent increase in load. (I.e. with a long bungee cord, maybe you could pull up 50 feet of "fake slack" with 125 foot load.)

Another way of stating that is if you had 100 feet of stretch pulled in on a 100 foot pitch and you had a tension equal to climbers weight, his "fall" would be zero.

Top
#32101 - 08/09/07 02:35 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: pedestrian]
Chas Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 1754
Loc: Flagstaff
Now D75 talks about kid like taking FF1's in the gym all the time. I'd really like to see a FF1 in a gym (since in how many gyms can you fall PAST your belayer without clipping- now that would be one hell of a cratering)

Top
#32102 - 08/09/07 02:39 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
 Quote:
whether or not Hooke's law still is a good approximation


Hooke's Law was never a good or even slightly ok approximation of anything involving a dynamic climbing rope. A dynamic rope has a sheath and a core, which both stretch at different rates and both recover at different rates. This cannot be modeled with a simple explanation, i.e. hooke's law...
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#32103 - 08/09/07 02:48 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
Let alone that the polymer materials that make up the different components of the rope are viscoelastic.

You all have been trolled by the classic troll of gunks.com.

Top
#32107 - 08/09/07 03:36 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: strat]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Do you mean D75=drkodos
as in Neo-Grünfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O c5, 8.Nc3?

Top
#32108 - 08/09/07 03:38 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: D75]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
 Originally Posted By: D75
I guess you misunderstood. By jumping I mean the waist moves higher than starting point to get slack, which is different than squatting and standing.


No, that makes no difference. The belayer has the rope locked off at this point. Since the belayer is not hauling in any slack, jumping up is the same thing as just dropping down, you're dropping the same distance.

Jumping up and hauling in the slack at the top of the jump is a valid technique. You stretch the rope after the slack has been taken in, so the process is reverse that of the squat but the principles are the same. The timing is difficult, especially if you're 200' above the climber, which is why the squatting is more reliable.
_________________________


Top
#32112 - 08/09/07 05:16 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
Terrie Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 247
D75 is so NOT Richard DeCredico....

However, I will say that I thought, from the type of words he wrote to me, that his initials might be FM. Or TiG if you're a Supertopian. Am I correct, or incorrect, D?
_________________________
Links to my blog, and online t-shirt shop

Top
#32113 - 08/09/07 05:22 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: strat]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: strat
You all have been trolled by the classic troll of gunks.com.

I didn't think D75 so much a troll as one who likes to argue endlessly about minutiae to the point of pointlessness.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#32114 - 08/09/07 05:26 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
He or she debated me once about the Adirondacks- but later admitted to never having been there. That's a troll, in my book.

Top
#32116 - 08/09/07 07:34 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: strat]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2472
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
I've been trying to stay out of this...mostly it involves folks talking past each other, and there does seem to be something of an anti-science bias, or at least a misunderstanding of how modeling is done, on this site. What finally got me was Dillbag's insult to poor old Hooke,

Hooke's Law was never a good or even slightly ok approximation of anything involving a dynamic climbing rope.

This doesn't seem to be true, but in any case the fact that a climbing rope is constructed of a core and sheath provides no insight into whether or not Hooke's Law should be a good approximation.

Here is my current understanding.

1. Hooke's law provides an good model for the extension phase of a fixed length of dynamic climbing rope dynamically loaded. It does not seem to model a dynamic climbing rope under slow pulling, nor does it model the behavior of static ropes. These ropes have load-extension curves for slow pulling that have experimentally fitted quadratic equations. Whether or not the load-extension curve is "really" quadratic awaits an appropriate physical argument.

2. No one ever thought that Hooke's law should apply to the contraction phase, but the fact that a rope is neither a spring nor a rubber band does not mean that its load-extension curve might not be approximately linear. It follows that arguments whose only content is that a rope is not a spring are far from decisive.

3. Strat mentions the viscoelasticity of the polymer materials. This goes beyond anything I know about, but one has to remember that the physical construction of the rope has an enormous influence on its dynamic behavior, and the twisted core of a dynamic rope (as opposed to the straight core of a static rope) acts physically somewhat like a spring. So one cannot rule out Hooke's law entirely on the basis of a materials argument.


4. An ingredient that is not modeled by Hooke's law is the internal friction of the rope. There are, however, various ways to introduce this into the model. The Italian Alpine Club uses the classical model for a damped oscillator and claims to get very good agreement with experimental evidence. However, the damping term in the classical model is for so-called viscous damping, which is proportional to velocity, and there doesn't seem to be a physical justification for this assumption.

My guess (unfortunately, I don't have time to work this out now) is that frictional damping proportional to extension is a better bet, since as the sheath extends, it narrows in cross-section and so binds the core fibers more tightly.

5. Frictional resistance may explain the discrepancy in results for dynamic and slow-pull loading, since sliding friction is typically less than static friction. Indeed, it seems that a dynamically loaded rope whose tension is suddenly released does indeed spring back like a rubber band, although for slow pulling the recovery time is much slower.

If one forgot about internal friction, one would think that a stretched rope was somehow still under tension, even though the weight had been removed; an impossibility. What happens is that the tension force is nearly balanced by friction so that there is very little restorative force acting to contract the rope.


In view of all this, squatting or other fairly static methods of stretching the rope ought to provide the belayer with some slack to take in since recovery is slow. Once taken in, the rope's internal tension, though balanced by internal friction, will result in less stretch in subsequent falls. Of course, Dave already knows this and has known it for years, my only point being that this observation does not contradict theoretical considerations.

Top
#32119 - 08/09/07 09:23 PM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: rg@ofmc]
retr2327 Offline
member

Registered: 06/14/07
Posts: 108
Hey Rich:
We were having such a nice time, talking past each other, butchering the science, and generally wallowing in our ignorance and misunderstanding. Now you've gone and spoiled it, spreading truth and knowledge all over the place.

How are we supposed to keep this thread going for another ten pages now?

Party pooper -

Top
#32159 - 08/11/07 01:40 AM Re: Weekend Accident Report... [Re: retr2327]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
Wow, all this from my simple suggestion on how to take a little "slack/stretch" out of the rope. Rich even joined in when he swore to me the other night that he was staying out of it.

Top
#36046 - 03/21/08 05:32 PM Accident Report... [Re: Dillbag]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
is Strictly from Nowhere cursed?

someone mentioned to me there was another accident on this climb which didn't sound so good. best wishes for the climber.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#36052 - 03/22/08 05:08 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: talus]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
Hope everyone is ok. No accident is good one but I hate to see it starting this early in the season before many have even thought about going outside.

Top
#36053 - 03/22/08 06:24 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
I was there yesterday but didn't hear/see anything. The section of Strictly near the top of the first pitch before you get to the traverse can be tough to protect well, but I didn't see where you would get badly hurt there in a fall. Of course, pro can pull. Any info?

Top
#36054 - 03/23/08 05:36 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: chip]
Coppertone Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/17/00
Posts: 1055
Loc: Newtown, CT
 Originally Posted By: chip
I was there yesterday but didn't hear/see anything. The section of Strictly near the top of the first pitch before you get to the traverse can be tough to protect well, but I didn't see where you would get badly hurt there in a fall. Of course, pro can pull. Any info?


There is actually bomber gear at that spot just before you traverse right. There is a thin crack just above you before more up and into the corner that takes eight bomber slotted nuts or small cams(blue or green alien). The gear below and above this spot is also very good. People climbing at the grade just might get a little spooked here as it is a little steep/exposed, but nothing too bad.

Top
#36057 - 03/23/08 11:14 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Coppertone]
Allenperry Offline
member

Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 195
Loc: Reading, Pennsylvania
 Originally Posted By: Coppertone
I was there yesterday but didn't hear/see anything. The section of Strictly near the top of the first pitch before you get to the traverse can be tough to protect well, but I didn't see where you would get badly hurt there in a fall. Of course, pro can pull. Any info?




I'm pretty sure a poor soul got killed at that very spot about 3 or 4 years ago. He didn't get the gear needed and hit the big ledge. I believe it was early in the season.

Memory serves me of a "keyhole" type slot that is bomber but not necessarily obvious. I was stalled out there a few years ago for a minute or two fiddling with that slot when Rawdon(climbing with some woman on Shockley's, both apparently dressed)offered the keyhole beta to me.


Edited by Allenperry (03/23/08 11:18 PM)
_________________________
Perry

Top
#36059 - 03/24/08 02:22 AM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Allenperry]
CrackBoy Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 2435
Loc: Republic of Davis
 Originally Posted By: Allenperry
 Originally Posted By: Coppertone
I was there yesterday but didn't hear/see anything. The section of Strictly near the top of the first pitch before you get to the traverse can be tough to protect well, but I didn't see where you would get badly hurt there in a fall. Of course, pro can pull. Any info?




I'm pretty sure a poor soul got killed at that very spot about 3 or 4 years ago. He didn't get the gear needed and hit the big ledge. I believe it was early in the season.

Memory serves me of a "keyhole" type slot that is bomber but not necessarily obvious. I was stalled out there a few years ago for a minute or two fiddling with that slot when Rawdon(climbing with some woman on Shockley's, both apparently dressed)offered the keyhole beta to me.


i was there on the carry out for that guy. If i remember correctlyhe fell from the roofy traverse bit pulled a piece and slammed his head with an upside down pendulum or something like that. From my experience on that climb, the protection gets thin right before it gets pumpy and roofy and is quite easy to get lulled into a better hold is just ahead, but then the stance is too pumpy to hang out so you keep going, ultimately running it out too much
_________________________
Just Call me Mr. Enthusiasm

Top
#36067 - 03/24/08 09:33 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: CrackBoy]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
It's been awhile, but isn't there a fairly good stem/rest just below the roof before making the move right to better holds?

Top
#36076 - 03/25/08 01:58 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: AOR]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
I thought the stiff/scarier area was the 10-15 feet leading up to the horizontal that you then tranverse over on to the belay. The horizontal takes a bomber cam, so I can't imagine anyone getting hurt bad once they get to that. I don't remember it being real hard but it was a bit awkward for me.

Top
#36083 - 03/25/08 06:09 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: chip]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I recall (several years ago) getting a good but small cam in the roof before going into the slightly overhanging crux corner. If there was gear in or around the corner on the way up, it wasn't obvious and a 5.7 leader would be unlikely to stop there anyway.

The horizontal at the top of the corner takes bomber gear, but at that point it's only a few moves rightward to the bolts on good holds. Given that the traverse didn't seem to significantly increase the fall, I opted to go off to the bolts rather than hang out and place gear. I might have placed the gear first if there was a rest I missed, but I suspect many 5.7 leaders would be too tempted to get to the security of the bolts to spend time finding it.

For those who do go directly to the bolts, it's probably helpful to lean over and get a piece back in the horizontal to protect the second; otherwise the second can take a nasty swing out of the corner and onto the face.

Top
#36193 - 03/31/08 06:37 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: talus]
rodcid08 Offline
stranger

Registered: 01/09/08
Posts: 2
I was told he passed away after a couple of days.

Very tragic news indeed. My condolences to the families and friends...

Top
#36300 - 04/06/08 03:05 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Daniel]
core Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/25/07
Posts: 204
I'm a little confused about where people are talking about...


Are folks saying the top of the first pitch is the bolts, or the small corner on the ledge (just below my partner)? This might help me figure out where people are talking about moving right etc...

From where he is, there is a bomber hand size cam near his feet, and IIRC you can get a decent yellow alien under the roof in an undercling - you can just make out that crack on the bottom side of the roof. I can't remember what you can get between those two placements though. Once you're two moves into the roof, you can stop and place every cam left on your rack if you want...or just gun for the chains.

Top
#36301 - 04/06/08 05:09 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: core]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Prior to the bolts, I think people belayed at the lower ledge (as described in older Williams guidebooks). Most people these days would end the first pitch at the bolts (as described in the Gray Dick) rather than set a gear anchor.

So: there's a good small cam placement in the crack in the roof, as you described. My recollection is that once you're up into the left-facing corner, 5.7 leaders are unlikely to stop for gear until they get to the top of the corner under then next, smaller roof. There's a big horizontal under that roof where one traverses right to the the bolts (located where the other climber is in the photo, above the tree) with easy gear, but it's only a couple of straighforward moves to the bolts.

Good photo of that section.

Top
#36312 - 04/06/08 11:41 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Daniel]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Being no longer local, I'm certainly not up to date on all the latest. But there's a bolted anchor on Strictly now? Um, why?
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#36313 - 04/06/08 11:41 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Daniel]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Being no longer local, I'm certainly not up to date on all the latest. But there's a bolted anchor on Strictly now? Um, why?
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#36318 - 04/07/08 02:38 AM Re: Accident Report... [Re: MarcC]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Quote:
Strictly now? Um, why?

I dunno, maybe um, save that pitch pine?

Top
#36331 - 04/07/08 02:07 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: Smike]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2677
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
I think that Daniel has it right. After the big cam just below the climbers feet in the picture many chose to run it out until they are even with the bolts and traverse over the few feet remaining to the right. This is a little pumpy/awkward and is likely the way the injury occurred. I wasn't there and am only quessing.
I too like a good pitch pine rap anchor but these are dwindling if you compare pictures taken over the last century of the Trapps. I'm not sure if we are killing them or simply preventing saplings from growing maturing by our presence. Probably a little of both.

Top
#36335 - 04/07/08 03:07 PM Re: Accident Report... [Re: chip]
caver Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 260
Loc: High Falls
I think that tree is actually an Eastern White Pine, but climbers can kill just the same due to soil loss exposing and destroying roots, general stress due to rappelling, etc. The bolted anchor there allows one rap to the ground with 'modern' length ropes.

Top
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored