|
saint_john
Mar 7, 2012, 4:57 PM
Post #26 of 42
(2172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
I saw a fall in the gym last night that was a result of the rope being behind the climber's leg. She fell and flipped upside down. She was on steep overhand and her head narrowly avoided banging into a pointy volume as she swung. She got lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 7, 2012, 5:41 PM
Post #27 of 42
(2160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
lena_chita wrote: edge wrote: ensonik wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Hmm...Well, I think it's safe to say that he indeed fell with the rope behind his leg. That is his fault and does not fall under the umbrella of "shit happens." The rope getting wrapped around his ankle is kind of flukey, but once again, it wouldn't have happened if he didn't position his feet with the rope behind his leg. Fair enough. I guess we really all did miss the obvious ... just a thought: I wasn't belaying, just watching from afar with my kid. The belayer was wearing those weird belay glasses (can't remember the name). I wonder if the angle the glasses give you on the action would prevent the belayer from seeing leg&rope foul play ... (I know it's up to the climber to be careful, but as a belayer I'm always hyper aware of telling the climber when the rope is misplaced) Unless of course you are referring to some tumblers of water, gatorade, or scotch. Ha! I am guessing that you do not climb in places where you tilt your head higher until you can't do so anymore, as the climber goes up, and then eventually have to face away from the rock to keep an eye on your climber.
Actually, a large amount of my climbing is on routes where I can't see the climber at all. Nor do I need to in order to offer a safe and competent belay.
lena_chita wrote: While I personally don't use those belay glasses, I have tried them, and liked them -- though not well enough to shell the serious $$ required. They take some getting used to, it is disconcerting at first, because they are essentially prisms. But I see people using them fairly regularly, especially the folks with neck problems.
So like a periscope? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one; maybe someone who knows what they are called can link a pic. Just for curiosities sake, as I come from the "light is right" school of thought and hate lugging around single purpose esoteric gear. My neck works just fine for adjusting viewing angles.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Mar 7, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #28 of 42
(2153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
edge wrote: lena_chita wrote: edge wrote: ensonik wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Hmm...Well, I think it's safe to say that he indeed fell with the rope behind his leg. That is his fault and does not fall under the umbrella of "shit happens." The rope getting wrapped around his ankle is kind of flukey, but once again, it wouldn't have happened if he didn't position his feet with the rope behind his leg. Fair enough. I guess we really all did miss the obvious ... just a thought: I wasn't belaying, just watching from afar with my kid. The belayer was wearing those weird belay glasses (can't remember the name). I wonder if the angle the glasses give you on the action would prevent the belayer from seeing leg&rope foul play ... (I know it's up to the climber to be careful, but as a belayer I'm always hyper aware of telling the climber when the rope is misplaced) Unless of course you are referring to some tumblers of water, gatorade, or scotch. Ha! I am guessing that you do not climb in places where you tilt your head higher until you can't do so anymore, as the climber goes up, and then eventually have to face away from the rock to keep an eye on your climber. Actually, a large amount of my climbing is on routes where I can't see the climber at all. Nor do I need to in order to offer a safe and competent belay.
Completely different scenario. You are probably talking gear climbs, slow and steady, by the time the climber clips the gear he hardly needs two armloads of slack.
Yes, sure, I can belay just fine when the climber is out of sight, sport or trad. But on routes where I CAN see a climber, I prefer watching my climber in order to provide most optimal clipping slack and catch.
And the neck strain can be significant.
edge wrote: lena_chita wrote: While I personally don't use those belay glasses, I have tried them, and liked them -- though not well enough to shell the serious $$ required. They take some getting used to, it is disconcerting at first, because they are essentially prisms. But I see people using them fairly regularly, especially the folks with neck problems. So like a periscope? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one; maybe someone who knows what they are called can link a pic. Just for curiosities sake, as I come from the "light is right" school of thought and hate lugging around single purpose esoteric gear. My neck works just fine for adjusting viewing angles.
here they are:
http://powernplayusa.com/
"Light is right" is a very good attitude, and I would not call these glasses an "essential climbing item to pack on a multipitch climb" by any means. As I said, I don't own them, and don't use them.
But for a single-pitch sport cragging these glasses will hardly weigh you down, compared to all the comfort items people would typically bring for a day at the crag. And people who own them (at least the ones I personally know) are hardly your typical gear-junkie gumbies. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 7, 2012, 6:05 PM
Post #29 of 42
(2150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Thanks for the link, Lena.
You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport.
And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains...
Those glasses are definitely not for me.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 7, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #30 of 42
(2126 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me.
So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 7, 2012, 7:11 PM
Post #31 of 42
(2121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me. So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck. Jay
If I can possibly see my partner, then of course I watch him/her. It's just not always possible, even at Rumney. My thoughts are that if I can see them with the glasses, then I can also see them without, and probably better without distortion, dust, reduction in image size, whatever.
If these help people with sore necks, then that is awesome, but after all my years of climbing my neck still works fine and I have no personal use for them.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 7, 2012, 7:41 PM
Post #32 of 42
(2103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me. So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck. Jay If I can possibly see my partner, then of course I watch him/her. It's just not always possible, even at Rumney. My thoughts are that if I can see them with the glasses, then I can also see them without, and probably better without distortion, dust, reduction in image size, whatever.
Obviously, if you can see your partner without the glasses, then you can see them with the glasses. The differences is, with the glasses, you can see them all the way up the route while looking more or less straight ahead. As far as distortion, dust, reduction in images, and "whatever," you're speaking from ignorance. From what I could tell, the optics of the lenses were extremely good.
I spent a month at Maple a couple years ago, and was belaying on steep routes all day 5 days a week. After a month of that, I began to think about what the consequences to the health of neck would be over a period of years of belaying like that.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 7, 2012, 7:59 PM
Post #33 of 42
(2094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
jt512 wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me. So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck. Jay If I can possibly see my partner, then of course I watch him/her. It's just not always possible, even at Rumney. My thoughts are that if I can see them with the glasses, then I can also see them without, and probably better without distortion, dust, reduction in image size, whatever. Obviously, if you can see your partner without the glasses, then you can see them with the glasses. The differences is, with the glasses, you can see them all the way up the route while looking more or less straight ahead. As far as distortion, dust, reduction in images, and "whatever," you're speaking from ignorance. From what I could tell, the optics of the lenses were extremely good. I spent a month at Maple a couple years ago, and was belaying on steep routes all day 5 days a week. After a month of that, I began to think about what the consequences to the health of neck would be over a period of years of belaying like that. Jay
Jay, all I'm saying is that these glasses are not for me personally. I hold no opinion for or against anyone who sees merit in them; to each his own.
Since I have not tried the glasses, then I suppose I do speak out of ignorance for lack of first hand experience, but have been around long enough, and wearing prescription lenses of my own, that I can reasonably assume that the view will be diminished somewhat. Maybe it's negligible, but for me I enjoy looking at the mountains and cliffs with a conventional perspective.
Since I can guarantee you that I will never ever spend 5 days a week over the course of a month without break at Maple, or any other sport area, then I do not need to worry about long term consequences.
Once again, this is my personal opinion based on my climbing and what I enjoy right now; should I ever develop a debilitating neck injury, then I may find cause to look into them. Literally, figuratively, and hesitantly.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 7, 2012, 8:54 PM
Post #34 of 42
(2070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me. So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck. Jay If I can possibly see my partner, then of course I watch him/her. It's just not always possible, even at Rumney. My thoughts are that if I can see them with the glasses, then I can also see them without, and probably better without distortion, dust, reduction in image size, whatever. Obviously, if you can see your partner without the glasses, then you can see them with the glasses. The differences is, with the glasses, you can see them all the way up the route while looking more or less straight ahead. As far as distortion, dust, reduction in images, and "whatever," you're speaking from ignorance. From what I could tell, the optics of the lenses were extremely good. I spent a month at Maple a couple years ago, and was belaying on steep routes all day 5 days a week. After a month of that, I began to think about what the consequences to the health of neck would be over a period of years of belaying like that. Jay Jay, all I'm saying is that these glasses are not for me personally. I hold no opinion for or against anyone who sees merit in them; to each his own.
Well, I got that tired old "back in the day all we needed to climb was a swami belt and tube socks" vibe from your post. If I was mistaken, then I apologize.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Mar 7, 2012, 9:19 PM
Post #35 of 42
(2059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
jt512 wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: jt512 wrote: edge wrote: Thanks for the link, Lena. You are right, most of my climbing is trad, but I wouldn't say that it is always "slow and steady" by any means. In fact, it often progresses faster than sport. And I do clip the bolts as well, primarily at Rumney where it is often quite steep as you know. Of course those routes are so short that I can usually offer a shoulder stand if the climber needs help clipping the chains... Those glasses are definitely not for me. So, when you're belaying a steep route at Rumney, do you attempt to continually watch your partner. If your answer is no, you're not belaying well? If your answer is yes, it's hard to understand why you'd categorically write off belay glasses. If you're belaying steep routes regularly, they'll literally save your neck. Jay If I can possibly see my partner, then of course I watch him/her. It's just not always possible, even at Rumney. My thoughts are that if I can see them with the glasses, then I can also see them without, and probably better without distortion, dust, reduction in image size, whatever. Obviously, if you can see your partner without the glasses, then you can see them with the glasses. The differences is, with the glasses, you can see them all the way up the route while looking more or less straight ahead. As far as distortion, dust, reduction in images, and "whatever," you're speaking from ignorance. From what I could tell, the optics of the lenses were extremely good. I spent a month at Maple a couple years ago, and was belaying on steep routes all day 5 days a week. After a month of that, I began to think about what the consequences to the health of neck would be over a period of years of belaying like that. Jay Jay, all I'm saying is that these glasses are not for me personally. I hold no opinion for or against anyone who sees merit in them; to each his own. Well, I got that tired old "back in the day all we needed to climb was a swami belt and tube socks" vibe from your post. If I was mistaken, then I apologize. Jay
No worries. I sometimes hold that particular mentality (except the tube socks), but not in this case. These glasses are just a solution to a problem I don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 8, 2012, 12:04 AM
Post #36 of 42
(2016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
edge wrote: No worries. I sometimes hold that particular mentality (except the tube socks), but not in this case. These glasses are just a solution to a problem I don't have.
I have a pair and I love 'em. My wife and I got them on our honeymoon climbing in Kalymnos (Greece). They're a big Euro thing. A bit spendy, but think about belaying a lot of routes like this:
They were totally worth it! Besides, on your honeymoon, you try not to think about the money you're spending - you just want to bring back good memories, and sometimes good souvenirs. This was one of the latter.
I never bring them on multipitch outings, and there are other things where they're of limited benefit, so I don't bring them then either but... if you've ever suffered through a bad case of belayer neck (which it sounds like you have the good fortunate to have avoided) you'll realize why they can be so sweet.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 8, 2012, 12:06 AM
Post #37 of 42
(2015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and to bring the conversation back full circle, the reason I'm wearing a helmet in that pic is because with all the gymnastic positions I found myself in, it was sometimes hard to envision (in the middle of executing hard sequences) how I would fall. So the helmet was an insurance policy in case I wound up getting flipped by the rope.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ensonik
Mar 8, 2012, 2:42 AM
Post #38 of 42
(1986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2009
Posts: 134
|
As chance would have it, my RSS feeds showed me this today:
http://mammutathleteteam.blogspot.com/...of-debilitating.html
In this case, shit happens for real (as opposed to 'shit happens' cause I'm a n00b) ...
As well, someone upthread mentionned that experienced climbers do it instinctively. I was just watching Ken Nichols climb a route for the 10,000th time (that sounds so fuggin impossible ... I guess it can happen if you're banned everywhere but some FA you did ...) and at 10:30 he does some of this (I assume) instintive foot/rope management.
http://www.youtube.com/...&v=xY11VAm-nX4#!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 8, 2012, 3:33 AM
Post #39 of 42
(1971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
No. Shit happens when you make a mistake. Do you think that guy is going to go up on that route again without asking himself what he could differently in that spot so that he'd be more in control in a fall? I'd hope so. If not, then he's an idiot.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Mar 8, 2012, 5:13 AM
Post #40 of 42
(1960 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
ensonik wrote: As chance would have it, my RSS feeds showed me this today: http://mammutathleteteam.blogspot.com/...of-debilitating.html In this case, shit happens for real (as opposed to 'shit happens' cause I'm a n00b) ... As well, someone upthread mentionned that experienced climbers do it instinctively. I was just watching Ken Nichols climb a route for the 10,000th time (that sounds so fuggin impossible ... I guess it can happen if you're banned everywhere but some FA you did ...) and at 10:30 he does some of this (I assume) instintive foot/rope management. http://www.youtube.com/...&v=xY11VAm-nX4#!
as i said experienced climbers tend to do it instinctively whenever they can ... at least experienced trad climbers
there are 4 cases where its particularly dangerous and common in trad IME
- feet on either side of the rope in a crack .. yr inverting if you fall ...
- traverses where the climber keeps the rope between his legs or is on the wrong side ... gently traversing climbs are particularly sneaky as the climber may not notice they are on a traverse
- runnout slab ... as you fall you can easily be on the wrong side ... and as you slide down yr feet can catch the rope ... very bad juju to invert on runnout slab ...
-laybacks ... quite a few climbers put their feet on the wrong side of the rope ... and yr leaning back anyways ...
the trick is always to think about where yr last piece of pro is ... and focus on footwork ...
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Mar 8, 2012, 4:24 PM
Post #42 of 42
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
cracklover wrote: What did you mean by this: bearbreeder wrote: - feet on either side of the rope in a crack .. yr inverting if you fall ... I have no idea from the above where the crack is, where the rope is, or where the feet (or more importantly, legs) are relative to the rope. GO
both feet in the crack ... rope between the legs basically rapped around the rope ... happens quite often with newer crack climbers. ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
