...is it a matter of how it is placed, or gear failure, or...

Is it just me, or does it seem that even lots of very experienced climbers have their pro zipper. I hear about it all the time; is it a matter of how it is placed, or gear failure, or...I don't seem to have a very clear picture on this yet. Any thoughts?

To quote the quote "Gear doesn't fail, placements fail"

bottom piece pulling...then the next piece up

...isn't zippering pro a problem of the bottom piece pulling...then the next piece up, and the next piece up, etc.?

^^Yeah, but Curt, isn't zippering pro a problem of the bottom piece pulling...then the next piece up, and the next piece up, etc.?

This is why, as I understand it, one might want to consider placing two pieces in opposition at the start of the pitch. Or at least making damn sure the belayer isn't standing at the base of the pitch 15 feet out from the rock so that the first piece is pulled outward instead of downward, thus initiating the dreaded zipper.

[Edit to b---- about the people who got there first...]

Listen to Brian, he knows the way. I learned about the problems of zippering the hard way.

I suspect many people zipper because, like me, they knew about certain techniques but never employed them.

I sure as hell do now, though.

Is it just me, or does it seem that even lots of very experienced climbers have their pro zipper. I hear about it all the time; is it a matter of how it is placed, or gear failure, or...I don't seem to have a very clear picture on this yet. Any thoughts?

I've rarely had even a single piece come out, much less had my pro zipper. Zippering is most commonly caused by failing to put in a multidirectional first piece. Placing a first piece that is multidirectional -- either a cam or opposed nuts -- is usually all you have to do to solve the problem.

-Jay

Beg to differ JT but you're incorrect, I've done unsuccesfull CPR on a fella that zippered 4 pieces from the top, all his bottom pieces held just fine.

What's the solution for incompetence?

-Jay

If your belayer is away from the wall there will be an outward pull on the first piece. Just have your belayer stand close to the wall, that will eliminate in 99.999% of cases any chance of the first piece pulling due to an outward force.

I disagree. Even if your belayer is very close to the wall, the rope still pulls the first piece up. I've posted about this before. I've witnessed it on more than one occasion, most recently on a climb to which my belayer was anchored closely into the wall. I looked down after falling, and the first piece (a cam) had rotated and was pointing straight up at me. You can see this same phenomenon on sport climbs. Even with your belayer staying right up against the wall below the first bolt, the draw gets pulled up when the rope comes tight in a fall. Make that first piece multidirectional regardless of how close your belayer is to the wall.

-Jay

Use longer slings

jt512
When falling on trad the only piece that should see any stress is the last one the leader placed, period. If that means a greater chance of twisting an ancle in a fall 5 feet of the deck so be it. I'd rather that than zippering all my gear 25 feet up.

Of the handful of cases where zippering from the ground up happened and caused severe injury or death, almost all involved passive placements, bad gear, and/or belayer too far from the wall and jerking the rope up and outward upon a fall. A properly placed cam limits this, but rarely have I or my friends seen the need for a multi-directional when there was proper gear placement and a proper belay.

Nonsense. Just use a freakin' cam instead of a nut for your first placement, and the problem is solved. If putting a long runner on the first piece means that if you fall you'll deck, then the purpose of putting in the piece in the first place is defeated.

-Jay

NEWS FLASH! a cam is not multidirectional. It all depends on how you place it. Which means on a parallel crack you will have to place the cam facing outward if your belayer is standing away from the wall, so if you fall on that first piece you will rotate the cam into a downward angle thus making it walk and pull. Then you deck!

It all depends on the rock not the piece of gear when your taking multidirectional.
You can zipper from ground up or second placement up or third or whatever depending on the nature of the route. Lets say the route starts off as a 15' slab then to a 20' vertical section leading to a 8' overhang. If you fall on the overhang it will not matter if you placed your first piece of gear in a multidirectional orientation. It will zipper from the slab to vertical or vertical to overhanging transition up. The leader should be thinking as he/she makes upward progress how a fall will effect the placements both below and above. In some instances the leader will need to place gear in an outward orientation to protect against zippering and not a fall if a multidirectional placement cannot be found.

jt512 please comment on things you fully understand...

The only time I've seen firsthand gear zip bottom-up was in Josh on Double Cross. Some luddite tried to protect the route with passive gear only. He fell at the wide part at the top, and all his gear pulled except his top piece, saving his life.

-Jay

Utoh! A lot of different opinions even here about what the risks are, and what the solutions are. Even solutions to the same risk. When you think about it, everyone only knows what the person who taught them knows, and whatever everyone else has taught them along the way. Do you place more credibility in the person who taught you, simply because that was the role they are filling? Just curious-how do you sift through contradicting beta?

When you think about it, everyone only knows what the person who taught them knows, and whatever everyone else has taught them along the way. Do you place more credibility in the person who taught you, simply because that was the role they are filling? Just curious-how do you sift through contradicting beta?

The only time I've seen firsthand gear zip bottom-up was in Josh on Double Cross. Some luddite tried to protect the route with passive gear only. He fell at the wide part at the top, and all his gear pulled except his top piece, saving his life.

-Jay

You have contradicted your own very good post above. Active versus passive pro has absolutely nothing to do with the multi-directional capability of a placement. As you said above, opposed nuts can accomplish the same thing. Double Cross (5.7) can be led just fine on nuts, as was the first ascent of Supercrack (5.13) in the Gunks.

I think that is somewhat of an overstatement.
A cam is always somewhat more multi-directional than a passive piece. Pieces lifting out from a zipper effect are almost always passive.
One cam is easier to place then two opposed nuts.

An expert can safely lead on passive gear. A beginner/most climbers on the other hand would best be advised to toss a cam in every now and then, as far as I am concerned anyway.

I almost always place a cam for the first piece.

Dan,

I think there is no real contradiction between your post and mine. I would hope that you realize I was talking about the quality of the directional placement and not necessarily how easily the pro is placed. Of course it may take more skill to place opposed nuts, or even a network of opposing nuts. However, the resulting network of passive pro can be just as good as, or better than a cam, for a first piece, IMO.

Curt

Jay,

You have contradicted your own very good post above. Active versus passive pro has absolutely nothing to do with the multi-directional capability of a placement. As you said above, opposed nuts can accomplish the same thing. Double Cross (5.7) can be led just fine on nuts, as was the first ascent of Supercrack (5.13) in the Gunks.

Curt

jt512
When falling on trad the only piece that should see any stress is the last one the leader placed, period. If that means a greater chance of twisting an ancle in a fall 5 feet of the deck so be it. I'd rather that than zippering all my gear 25 feet up.

this statement is incorrect, and goes contrary to the physics pertinent to climbing. assuming you have a clean fall with no intervening ledges, every piece that blows from the top dissipates that much more energy that would have been transfered to the subsequent piece. in effect, every piece that blows has a shock-absorbing effect within the protection system (which includes the dynamic properties of the rope, etc.). in fact, sometimes it is desireable to have gear blow from the top -- that is why it has been a long standing trick of the trade to, whenever possible, back up a marginal piece with a couple of even crappier pieces up the line. the idea being that, on its own, the marginal piece likely will not hold; but, in the case of a fall, if the two crappy pieces can scrub off sufficient energy, then "likely will not hold" might be changed to "probably will hold". nowadays we have devices called "zippers" or "screamers" which are placed between the rope and the questionable pro to act as shock absorbers, or energy absorbers.

thus, the statement that "each piece that pulls makes it more likely that the next piece will pull" is very much incorrect.

thus, the statement that "each piece that pulls makes it more likely that the next piece will pull" is very much incorrect.

It's not at all clear that the energy dissipated by the top piece pulling offsets the loss of elasticity in the rope.

But I can tell you truthfully that that piece [an] slowed
me down. I felt it. The rope came tight, I thought I would
stop, and POP! So I almost came to a stop. Is that trivial
in a 10 ft fall, soon to become a 25 footer? I don't think so.

... this includes zippering out more pieces than i care to remember, and constructing the load-limiting "crappy piece" scenario i described in my original post (it's worked for me).

btw, I read the google thread and it convinced me that they don’t know one way or the other either. This would be a great physics problem to test out in a real world setting, and that is about the only way anyone is going to arrive at a definitive answer.

I agree that it is not entirely clear.

John believes that he was helped by being slowed to nearly a stop by the RP. I'm not so sure.

-Jay

In the above scenario, if the climber does wind up decking at the end of a 25 foot fall, it is as if he decked from 15 feet, not 25 - a huge difference as far as his body is concerned when you think about ft/second/second acceleration.

But I can tell you truthfully that that piece [an] slowed
me down. I felt it. The rope came tight, I thought I would
stop, and POP! So I almost came to a stop. Is that trivial
in a 10 ft fall, soon to become a 25 footer? I don't think so.

In my estimation, this statement is true. From a physics standpoint, remember that the acceleration due to gravity is around 9.8m/s^2. If you fall ten feet and then come to a momentary rest, before falling an additional 15 feet, The clock starts over. An unbroken 25 foot fall will require the dissipation of much more kinetic energy (from the much higher climber velocity) than the 10 foot fall, with a pause, and then a 15 foot fall would.

Curt

this statement is incorrect, and goes contrary to the physics pertinent to climbing. assuming you have a clean fall with no intervening ledges, every piece that blows from the top dissipates that much more energy that would have been transfered to the subsequent piece. in effect, every piece that blows has a shock-absorbing effect within the protection system (which includes the dynamic properties of the rope, etc.). in fact, sometimes it is desireable to have gear blow from the top -- that is why it has been a long standing trick of the trade to, whenever possible, back up a marginal piece with a couple of even crappier pieces up the line. the idea being that, on its own, the marginal piece likely will not hold; but, in the case of a fall, if the two crappy pieces can scrub off sufficient energy, then "likely will not hold" might be changed to "probably will hold". nowadays we have devices called "zippers" or "screamers" which are placed between the rope and the questionable pro to act as shock absorbers, or energy absorbers.

thus, the statement that "each piece that pulls makes it more likely that the next piece will pull" is very much incorrect.

Yes, but you'd have a dynamic rope to absorb the 25 foot fall; you might not in the case of the 15 foot fall. In the worst case scenario, it is plausible that you could be taking a 15' factor-2 fall onto a belay anchor with an essentially static rope. Other factors could come into play, such as the fall factor; how long the piece held; and how quickly the rope recovered, which is partly a function of the rope's age. In other words, It Might Depend (TM).

-Jay

The rope recovery time is a non sequitur, as this is almost immediate.

This thread has got me thinking. Aren't there situations up on the route that you would want a multidirectional placement due to the way a rope would could pull pro in a fall due to changes in direction, like a roof for instance? It's my understanding that one of the reasons to use different length slings is to reduce rope drag, and decrease the chances of zippering passive pro. Is that true? I mean if the rope has the room to straighten out, then there is little chance of it pulling hard enough on the pro. That is why slings come in single, double, and triple length sewn, and as big as you want if you tie your own, no? If I remember correctly, the use of short quickdraws had a part in the fatal accident on Air Guitar. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. :oops:

What are you basing that on?

Ever thought that expiernce may be a factor? Most of these people are speaking from expiernce, not just blindly following what was taught to them. Their credibility comes from the fact that they have done it before and know what they are talking about.

Have you ever rappelled? Have you ever lowered someone off a climb? If you have, you probably noticed that as soon as you release the rope from your belay device the tension in the rope dissipated in a fraction of a second.

Curt

Ever notice, after a good hangdogging session, that when you rap off, the middle mark is off? The end of the rope you've been working stays longer for often as much as an hour...

The fact that the rope weakens with each successive UIAA test drop implies that even after five minutes, the rope has not fully recovered. How much will it have recovered in the tiny amount of time between the first piece blowing and the impact on the next piece?

The origonal question was this: "Is it just me, or does it seem that even lots of very experienced climbers have their pro zipper. I hear about it all the time; is it a matter of how it is placed, or gear failure, or...I don't seem to have a very clear picture on this yet. Any thoughts?"

The correct answer is:...... it's just you sir.

Zippered falls (zippers can move up or down, check your crotch to verify if in doubt about that) are uncommon, but tend not to be from experinced climbers when they occur.

If you check out the stats from accidents of North am climbing: you will see there are many factors which cause death: lightning, exposure, stupidity, acts of nature like rockfall, and even falling. But statistically it is uncommon.

Sorry to change the subject to the origonal question, I'm out for now.

regards:

Bill

However, to whatever extent the rope does release its tension and "spring back," it does so very quickly.

Curt

Jay,
This is because some elasticity is permanently lost with each fall. In other words, a rope is not a perfectly elastic spring. After each UIAA fall, the rope is increasingly stretched. However, to whatever extent the rope does release its tension and "spring back," it does so very quickly.

Curt

http://www.chockstone.org/Grampians/Members/NeilM/tower_fall_big.mpeg

Not zippered, but man place some gear. In my opinion if one is good, two is great.

4. 5 minutes is not enough for ropes tested under UIAA conditions (ff=1.78,etc...) to recover fully as shown by increasing energy transmitted to the climber during each additional fall, ending with ropes breaking up.
5. the fact that there appears to be a slight bounce of the rope after the maximal extension doesn't contradict this : the instant "spring back" you refer to does not indicate that the rope has gained back its energy-absorbion capability.

Can you document that substantial elasticity is not temporarily lost in the brief time that would elapse between two pieces of pro being impacted after the first one blew?

-Jay

No. I am basing my opinion solely on my understanding of basic physics and materials science. Can you document that elasticity IS temporarily lost in the brief time that would elapse between two pieces of pro being impacted after the first one blew?

Curt

UIAA drop tests show that the impact force increases with successive drops made 5 minutes apart, implying elasticity is lost. If the rope doesn't fully recover after 5 min, I don't see how it could fully recover in the instant between impacting two pieces after the first one blew.

In spite of my best efforts, you are still interpreting what I am saying incorrectly. So, I will try again.

1) The rope doesn't fully recover (in your UIAA scenario above) in 5 minutes--and it never will. There are two components to the rope stretching and subsequently contracting. The first part is permanent stretch or elongation to the rope. If you measured the length of the rope after each UIAA test drop--you would see that the rope is actually longer after each drop. Five minutes has nothing to do with this type of elongation. If the thing sits there forever, that stretch will remain.

2) The "elastic" or non-permanent portion of the rope stretch (that is: the extent to which the rope WILL spring back) is the part that happens quickly.

Curt

http://www.chockstone.org/Grampians/Members/NeilM/tower_fall_big.mpeg

Not zippered, but man place some gear. In my opinion if one is good, two is great.