|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 22, 2005, 5:29 PM
Post #51 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: http://climbing.com/techtips/ttsport225/ That's a much better job of explaining it, and was out years before this R&I article. Why did they draw the belay device upside down though? Either way, this is a lot closer to what I do, and what I teach. Still sucks. The rope should not be locked off by default. I repeat: the brake side of the rope should be kept at most 90 degrees from the leader's side of the rope. This allows the belayer to instantly payout slack, take in slack, or lock off to catch a fall. If the rope is already locked off, the belayer can't respond fast enough to the climber. I do not let people belay me on anything I might actually fall on if they use this technique. This method is easier to teach than the classical pinch-and-slide method, but is too slow and inflexible for lead belaying someone on a hard route. The student, if initially taught this method, will have to eventually learn a more advanced technique. Thus, the only person who really benefits from this belay method is the instructor, whose workload, especially in a group setting, is reduced. Jay I disagree, I've belayed plenty of people up hard climbs, and it works just fine. I've taken arms lengths of slack out during a fall with no problem using this technique.
Then you had time to take in arms lengths of slack. That's not the issue. The issue (one issue, anyway) is when you don't have time; say, when the leader unexpectedly falls while clipping the second bolt of a sport climb. You have a split second to react. The best you can hope to do is to fall onto your ass and yard in a foot or two of slack. But, if your rope is locked off, you don't have time to unlock it first to pull out slack. All you can do is sit, and your leader will fall an extra couple of feet, which can be the difference between him decking and not.
In reply to: Everyone I climb with perfers this technique, and I expect my belayers to do the same for me.
The only explanation I can have for that is that everyone you climb with is a relative beginner, or at least not very advanced in their belay technique. For instance, please explain how you would provide a dynamic belay in repsonse to an unexpected lead fall while at a hanging belay with the rope locked off.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mikemachineco
Nov 22, 2005, 7:09 PM
Post #52 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2002
Posts: 73
|
I hate these stupid arguments but even more I hate people demeaning others, especially because of their climbing skill, experience, etc. Grow up!
The belay method described in the article is the method the AMGA teaches and is a very effective belay method. I teach it to my students and I use it myself (and I climb harder than 5.8 in case Jay needs to know). It works totally fine in all situations(and I do more than toprope, in case Jay needs to know). People new to it find it awkward at first, as did myself, but it grows on you and I now belay as effectively with this method as with any other.
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Nov 22, 2005, 7:38 PM
Post #53 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i do a similar thing when TR belaying in that the climber is always locked off but i do a hand over hand type thing. where i am controlling with either hand at any one time. here's what i do: i use a reverso which orients vertically under tension. my brake hand is below the device (by about 6-8 inches) ready for the load from a fall. as the climber climbs - to take slack i'll raise the brake hand enough to pull rope while also pulling with my free hand from above the device. then right back down with the brake hand. this takes about a second to do. now the brake hand is say 14 inches below the device. then using the free hand to hold down the brake side - i'll reposition my brake hand above the free hand to the 6 inch area and i'm back to the beginning. i do this very rapidly and i always have a hand on the brake side. but i do change hands. does that make sense? any opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 22, 2005, 7:59 PM
Post #54 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: It works totally fine in all situations(and I do more than toprope, in case Jay needs to know).
Ah yes, the "it works fine" fallacy. The fallacy is that you haven't defined what "works fine" means. I have stated a half dozen reasons why it doesn't "work fine," and you haven't presented a single counterargument to any of them. I am forced to conclude that the only reason you think this method "works fine" is that your standards are low; that is, you, like most climbers, don't understand what constitutes really good belaying.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
clayman
Nov 23, 2005, 2:02 AM
Post #55 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 296
|
Maybe part of the problem here is people arguing these points absolutely. IMHO the best belay technique is the one that is going to minimize the possibility of the leader hitting a horizontal surface (or a vertical surface during a pendulum). For me to implement this requires using the most logical and sensible combination of whatever tricks and techniques I've learned to date. Are they the best? Probably not. But I am a prisoner of my own experience and all I can do is trust in what I (think I) know at the moment, but also to be open to new ideas and techniques when I come across them. Would I "always" keep the brake in the locked position, no way. However, sometimes I may want it that way if I think that is best way to protect my leader.
I actually use a similar technique (to the R&I one) very often when top roping my follower, but I would say when I belay a leader I use a traditional pinch method more often than not, and that I keep my brake hand in a gun-slinger-relaxed-semi-locked off position.
"5.7 noobs...."
I believe there's no relationship between climbing ability and climbing experience. At least, that's what I tell myself (only climb around 5.8 after about 6 years of leading)
(apologies if I'm interpreting that wrong)
cl
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 23, 2005, 6:22 PM
Post #56 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: IMHO the best belay technique is the one that is going to minimize the possibility of the leader hitting a horizontal surface (or a vertical surface during a pendulum).
And to do that you need to be able to adjust the amount of slack in the rope, sometimes very quickly, which leads, in one step, to the rejection of any belay method in which the rope is kept locked off all, or even most, of the time.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Nov 23, 2005, 8:20 PM
Post #57 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: It works totally fine in all situations(and I do more than toprope, in case Jay needs to know). Ah yes, the "it works fine" fallacy. The fallacy is that you haven't defined what "works fine" means. I have stated a half dozen reasons why it doesn't "work fine," and you haven't presented a single counterargument to any of them. I am forced to conclude that the only reason you think this method "works fine" is that your standards are low; that is, you, like most climbers, don't understand what constitutes really good belaying. Jay |
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 23, 2005, 8:53 PM
Post #58 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It works totally fine in all situations(and I do more than toprope, in case Jay needs to know). Ah yes, the "it works fine" fallacy. The fallacy is that you haven't defined what "works fine" means. I have stated a half dozen reasons why it doesn't "work fine," and you haven't presented a single counterargument to any of them. I am forced to conclude that the only reason you think this method "works fine" is that your standards are low; that is, you, like most climbers, don't understand what constitutes really good belaying. Jay I agree with Jay on this one. Many reasons have been given why this method sucks, but the best the defenders of this method can do is say things like "it works fine", "I have been doing it this way for years", and "there is more than one way to do things". I have shown five full guides this method (as described in Rock and Ice) they all think it is a terrible article, full of flaws, but it doesn't take a pro to see that. I have lost all respect for Rock and Ice. Jay you present some good points but I think that if most climbers as you stated "do not understand what constitutes good belaying" there would be many more accidents in climbing.
Most belayers belay well enough to keep their partners from hitting the deck, but that's where it usually stops: [*:ecec0acd11]Only a minority of belayers understand the importance of dynamic belaying.
[*:ecec0acd11]Among the group above, only a minority can actually execute a dynamic belay reliably.
[*:ecec0acd11]The number of belayers who keep too much slack in the rope at the start of a pitch is astounding.
[*:ecec0acd11]When toproping, few belayers keep enough tension in the rope to protect the climber as he leaves the ground, and nearly all keep too much tension in the rope as he nears the anchor. Shall I go on?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Nov 23, 2005, 9:23 PM
Post #59 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It works totally fine in all situations(and I do more than toprope, in case Jay needs to know). Ah yes, the "it works fine" fallacy. The fallacy is that you haven't defined what "works fine" means. I have stated a half dozen reasons why it doesn't "work fine," and you haven't presented a single counterargument to any of them. I am forced to conclude that the only reason you think this method "works fine" is that your standards are low; that is, you, like most climbers, don't understand what constitutes really good belaying. Jay I agree with Jay on this one. Many reasons have been given why this method sucks, but the best the defenders of this method can do is say things like "it works fine", "I have been doing it this way for years", and "there is more than one way to do things". I have shown five full guides this method (as described in Rock and Ice) they all think it is a terrible article, full of flaws, but it doesn't take a pro to see that. I have lost all respect for Rock and Ice. Jay you present some good points but I think that if most climbers as you stated "do not understand what constitutes good belaying" there would be many more accidents in climbing. Most belayers belay well enough to keep their partners from hitting the deck, but that's where it usually stops: [*:a5d2d59824]Only a minority of belayers understand the importance of dynamic belaying.
[*:a5d2d59824]Among the group above, only a minority can actually execute a dynamic belay reliably.
[*:a5d2d59824]The number of belayers who keep too much slack in the rope at the start of a pitch is astounding.
[*:a5d2d59824]When toproping, few belayers keep enough tension in the rope to protect the climber as he leaves the ground, and nearly all keep too much tension in the rope as he nears the anchor. Shall I go on? Jay |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Nov 23, 2005, 9:32 PM
Post #60 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: There are of course many minor/almost fatal accidents caused by bad belaying that you never hear of, broken ankles for example. |
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 27, 2005, 11:56 PM
Post #61 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: http://climbing.com/techtips/ttsport225/ That's a much better job of explaining it, and was out years before this R&I article. Why did they draw the belay device upside down though? Either way, this is a lot closer to what I do, and what I teach. Still sucks. The rope should not be locked off by default. I repeat: the brake side of the rope should be kept at most 90 degrees from the leader's side of the rope. This allows the belayer to instantly payout slack, take in slack, or lock off to catch a fall. If the rope is already locked off, the belayer can't respond fast enough to the climber. I do not let people belay me on anything I might actually fall on if they use this technique. This method is easier to teach than the classical pinch-and-slide method, but is too slow and inflexible for lead belaying someone on a hard route. The student, if initially taught this method, will have to eventually learn a more advanced technique. Thus, the only person who really benefits from this belay method is the instructor, whose workload, especially in a group setting, is reduced. Jay I disagree, I've belayed plenty of people up hard climbs, and it works just fine. I've taken arms lengths of slack out during a fall with no problem using this technique. Then you had time to take in arms lengths of slack. That's not the issue. The issue (one issue, anyway) is when you don't have time; say, when the leader unexpectedly falls while clipping the second bolt of a sport climb. You have a split second to react. The best you can hope to do is to fall onto your ass and yard in a foot or two of slack. But, if your rope is locked off, you don't have time to unlock it first to pull out slack. All you can do is sit, and your leader will fall an extra couple of feet, which can be the difference between him decking and not. In reply to: Everyone I climb with perfers this technique, and I expect my belayers to do the same for me. The only explanation I can have for that is that everyone you climb with is a relative beginner, or at least not very advanced in their belay technique. For instance, please explain how you would provide a dynamic belay in repsonse to an unexpected lead fall while at a hanging belay with the rope locked off. Jay
I've climbed with a lot of people that weren't beginners Jay...I'll spare you their credentials so this doesn't turn into a name dropping fest.
How would I provide a dynamic belay at a hanging belay? Hmm...good one. Let's see, by dynamic you must be talking about providing a softer catch...yes? Well, if I'm hanging, then I'll get pulled up (giving a softer catch) and let the rope run a little if appropriate. So no problem there Jay, unless we're not talking about the same thing.
If your asking about taking slack in, in a circumstance where if the leader blows the clip they'll deck...well odds are I'm paying pretty friggin close attention and I'm ready to take slack in...so your right, that brake strand might not be totally locked off...it might be rising up a little at that moment. But once they have the clip that rope is going back down.
Sorry, but I don't climb much with people who risk decking at a clip. We usually place more gear before that point...or don't climb the route...or it's well within our ability and we don't fall.
I understand the point your trying to make, but I think this belay technique (which I've tried to describe as being different than the one presented in R&I) is an excellent technique to learn, provides a greater safety margin, and can be easilly deviated from in those rare circumstances where a desperate clip might result in a nasty whipper.
So your right, that rope doesn't sit locked off 100% of the time, but it's definitly my default possition, and I think that's best.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
whenindoubtrunitout
Nov 28, 2005, 12:27 AM
Post #62 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 31
|
The article did appear to have some inconsistencies in it with regard to how it showed hand position and the proper orientation of the belay device and rope itself.
But the technique they were trying to describe is proper. A University study was conducted in the early 1980s comparing supination to pronation of the belay brake hand when using common belay devices. The study showed pronation to be superior in every way to supination when the method was used by belayers accustomed to the technique.
If you disagree it is probably because you are used to doing things your way and simply don't want to change. You have been doing it this way for a long time and never had an accident. But I know climbers who tied into their belay loop for 20 years without an accident. That doesn't mean they were right.
And strangely enough... that was the argument for keeping the hand supinated when climbers went from using the hip belay (a method in which hand supination is proper) to using belay devices years ago. That's right... I've actually been climbing long enough to see this topic come full circle. I thought the university study had put this subject to rest. Maybe the picture on the Gri Gri revived it. :-(
The thing to keep in mind is that the purpose of belaying is to stop the rope from quickly paying out. The purpose is not to pull rope through a device as easily as possible. Priorities seem to be incresingly mismanaged in the era of the Gri Gri.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 28, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #63 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Sorry, but I don't climb much with people who risk decking at a clip.
Really? Huh.
Most of the people I climb with risk decking on most of their leads.
Most of them are aware of that risk though.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 28, 2005, 1:59 AM
Post #64 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry, but I don't climb much with people who risk decking at a clip. Really? Huh. Most of the people I climb with risk decking on most of their leads. Most of them are aware of that risk though. DMT
If that makes me a noob in your book, so be it...i really don't care. (not talking to anyone in particular, i just know how many people on these boards have a napoleon complex about their infinite wisdom and how the rest of us are noobs)
to me, if your risking decking on most leads, you either don't know how to place good gear...or your knowingly climbing routes that were bolted poorly.
that or your knowingly climbing r/x type shit and you thus, if you fall and get hurt, you should be blaming yourself for knowing puting yourself in a very risky situation rather than cursing out your belayer for not taking out another 6" of slack.
I've made my points, take em of leave em.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 28, 2005, 2:06 AM
Post #65 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Seems to me many sport routes have deck potential at the first and 2nd clips. Vast majority that I've personally seen. Maybe they're defective. But for the 2nd and 3rd clips at most of the sport routes around here, really fast rope management helps mitigate the decking risk.
And generally speaking the same risk seems present in trad, till the leader gets her 2nd piece in.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 28, 2005, 3:12 PM
Post #67 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: How would I provide a dynamic belay at a hanging belay? Hmm...good one. Let's see, by dynamic you must be talking about providing a softer catch...yes? Well, if I'm hanging, then I'll get pulled up (giving a softer catch) and let the rope run a little if appropriate.
But you can't let the rope run a little if you already have it locked off.
In reply to: If your asking about taking slack in, in a circumstance where if the leader blows the clip they'll deck...well odds are I'm paying pretty friggin close attention and I'm ready to take slack in...so your right, that brake strand might not be totally locked off
So, we are in agreement: When you actually want to belay well, you can't use the technique in the magazine; the rope cannot be locked off.
In reply to: ...it might be rising up a little at that moment. But once they have the clip that rope is going back down.
Why, so that if they fall unexpectedly, you once again won't be able to do anything useful?
In reply to: Sorry, but I don't climb much with people who risk decking at a clip. We usually place more gear before that point...or don't climb the route...or it's well within our ability and we don't fall.
I think that is the source of your misunderstanding. You climb with people who don't fall much in the first place, so you have never had to become more proficient in your belay technique.
In reply to: I understand the point your trying to make, but I think this belay technique (which I've tried to describe as being different than the one presented in R&I) is an excellent technique to learn, provides a greater safety margin, and can be easilly deviated from in those rare circumstances where a desperate clip might result in a nasty whipper.
No one, you included, has yet to explain what this greater safety margin actually is. In fact, by your own arguments, you have shown that the safety margin is greater when you keep the rope in a position from which you can take in or let out slack more quickly, which is precisely what I have been arguing, as well.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 28, 2005, 3:35 PM
Post #68 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: But the technique they were trying to describe is proper. The thing to keep in mind is that the purpose of belaying is to stop the rope from quickly paying out.
If you believe that to be the only purpose of belaying, I can understand why you think the R and I technique is "proper." I do not expect that you will understand why I wouldn't let you belay me.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 28, 2005, 8:47 PM
Post #69 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: How would I provide a dynamic belay at a hanging belay? Hmm...good one. Let's see, by dynamic you must be talking about providing a softer catch...yes? Well, if I'm hanging, then I'll get pulled up (giving a softer catch) and let the rope run a little if appropriate. But you can't let the rope run a little if you already have it locked off.
In reply to: In reply to: If your asking about taking slack in, in a circumstance where if the leader blows the clip they'll deck...well odds are I'm paying pretty friggin close attention and I'm ready to take slack in...so your right, that brake strand might not be totally locked off So, we are in agreement: When you actually want to belay well, you can't use the technique in the magazine; the rope cannot be locked off.
In reply to: In reply to: ...it might be rising up a little at that moment. But once they have the clip that rope is going back down. Why, so that if they fall unexpectedly, you once again won't be able to do anything useful?
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry, but I don't climb much with people who risk decking at a clip. We usually place more gear before that point...or don't climb the route...or it's well within our ability and we don't fall. I think that is the source of your misunderstanding. You climb with people who don't fall much in the first place, so you have never had to become more proficient in your belay technique.
But if your talking about people taking repeated falls close to the ground...no...that's not the type of climbing I do.
In reply to: In reply to: I understand the point your trying to make, but I think this belay technique (which I've tried to describe as being different than the one presented in R&I) is an excellent technique to learn, provides a greater safety margin, and can be easilly deviated from in those rare circumstances where a desperate clip might result in a nasty whipper. No one, you included, has yet to explain what this greater safety margin actually is. In fact, by your own arguments, you have shown that the safety margin is greater when you keep the rope in a position from which you can take in or let out slack more quickly, which is precisely what I have been arguing, as well. Jay
The greater safety margin is being locked off a higher percentage of the time. If you place good gear, and space it corrently...then there is no issue with it. The belayer is more likely to hold a fall that they don't see coming.
If you want to be a fool, and risk hitting ledges and place gear that'll rip out without 2 screamers and a super dynamic belay...that's your own deal. If you climb in a manor that nescessitates this kind of belay...I think you should rethink what your doing.
So, the technique I've propossed works...provided your being a responsible leader and protecting yourself as you should. If you want to be careless...place gear far and few between...and rely on your belayer to literally pick up your slack..than yeah your technique may be better suited to that task...but your an idiot for putting yourself in that situation in the first place.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Nov 28, 2005, 9:01 PM
Post #70 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: ...but your an idiot for putting yourself in that situation in the first place.
Its like you and Jay are speaking completely different languages. Its weird. Let me translate:
Jay is primmarily talking about overhanging sport routes, with mandatory runs between the bolts.
You are not. You are talking moderate trad.
Its a different animal, with different belay priorities. Your comments completely ignore those differences.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Nov 28, 2005, 9:13 PM
Post #71 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
I am with Jay on this one one hundred percent. I have yet to hear a valid reason why this method is better/safer. I have caught 20 or more falls in a day on a regular basis, is this the same amount of falls typically caught by proponents of the R and I method? If you are mainly climbing moderate trad you will not have much exp. catching falls, will you? I will never allow anyone to belay me with this method.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 28, 2005, 9:21 PM
Post #72 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How would I provide a dynamic belay at a hanging belay? Hmm...good one. Let's see, by dynamic you must be talking about providing a softer catch...yes? Well, if I'm hanging, then I'll get pulled up (giving a softer catch) and let the rope run a little if appropriate. But you can't let the rope run a little if you already have it locked off. unless you just ease your grip a little....
You should actually try what you are theorizing about. Unless the fall is severe, the rope won't slip through the device with the rope held in the locked-off postition, even with a loose grip. Okay, maybe with a low-friction device, like the original ATC, and a slick, new, thin rope, it'll slip a little.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: ...it might be rising up a little at that moment. But once they have the clip that rope is going back down. Why, so that if they fall unexpectedly, you once again won't be able to do anything useful? not do anythign usefull? what, like catch the f--- climber?
That's all you'll be able to do, and if you think that is all you are supposed to do, then you won't be belaying me anytime soon.
In reply to: Suck it up...it's your fault you fell, I don't need to put a pillow under your ass everytime you mess up.
If that's your attitude, then, as a belayer, you flat-out suck.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I understand the point your trying to make, but I think this belay technique (which I've tried to describe as being different than the one presented in R&I) is an excellent technique to learn, provides a greater safety margin, and can be easilly deviated from in those rare circumstances where a desperate clip might result in a nasty whipper. No one, you included, has yet to explain what this greater safety margin actually is. In fact, by your own arguments, you have shown that the safety margin is greater when you keep the rope in a position from which you can take in or let out slack more quickly, which is precisely what I have been arguing, as well. Jay The greater safety margin is being locked off a higher percentage of the time. If you place good gear, and space it corrently...then there is no issue with it. The belayer is more likely to hold a fall that they don't see coming.
That sounds good, and in fact, is the fallacy on which this silly locked-off belay style is based on. The fact is that you can easily hold an unexpected fall that occurs while you've got the ropes in front of you, even if you are staring down at your shoes when the fall occurs. You simply lock off when you start to feel tension in the rope. A few inches of rope may slip through the device if the fall is close to factor 1, which is usually for the best, anyway.
In reply to: If you want to be a fool, and risk hitting ledges and place gear that'll rip out without 2 screamers and a super dynamic belay...that's your own deal. If you climb in a manor that nescessitates this kind of belay...I think you should rethink what your doing.
What little box do you live in? Most of the rest of us do fall from time to time, do climb above ledges occasionally, and sometimes have to deal with less than perfect protection. Have you ever heard of sport climbing? What do you think it entails. Without a purposeful dynamic belay, you will eventually break your partner's ankle.
In reply to: So, the technique I've propossed works...provided your being a responsible leader and protecting yourself as you should.
Your technique only "works" because you have defined "works" to mean that your partner won't get injured as long as (1) he is not runout, (2) his gear is solid, (3) the route isn't overhanging, (4) he's not on a slab, (5) he doesn't fall above a ledge, etc. It's almost as if your technique only works when there is no need for a belay at all.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 29, 2005, 2:57 AM
Post #73 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: How would I provide a dynamic belay at a hanging belay? Hmm...good one. Let's see, by dynamic you must be talking about providing a softer catch...yes? Well, if I'm hanging, then I'll get pulled up (giving a softer catch) and let the rope run a little if appropriate. But you can't let the rope run a little if you already have it locked off. unless you just ease your grip a little.... You should actually try what you are theorizing about. Unless the fall is severe, the rope won't slip through the device with the rope held in the locked-off postition, even with a loose grip. Okay, maybe with a low-friction device, like the original ATC, and a slick, new, thin rope, it'll slip a little.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: ...it might be rising up a little at that moment. But once they have the clip that rope is going back down. Why, so that if they fall unexpectedly, you once again won't be able to do anything useful? not do anythign usefull? what, like catch the f--- climber? That's all you'll be able to do, and if you think that is all you are supposed to do, then you won't be belaying me anytime soon. In reply to: Suck it up...it's your fault you fell, I don't need to put a pillow under your ass everytime you mess up. If that's your attitude, then, as a belayer, you flat-out suck.
your welcome to think whatever you like.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I understand the point your trying to make, but I think this belay technique (which I've tried to describe as being different than the one presented in R&I) is an excellent technique to learn, provides a greater safety margin, and can be easilly deviated from in those rare circumstances where a desperate clip might result in a nasty whipper. No one, you included, has yet to explain what this greater safety margin actually is. In fact, by your own arguments, you have shown that the safety margin is greater when you keep the rope in a position from which you can take in or let out slack more quickly, which is precisely what I have been arguing, as well. Jay The greater safety margin is being locked off a higher percentage of the time. If you place good gear, and space it corrently...then there is no issue with it. The belayer is more likely to hold a fall that they don't see coming. That sounds good, and in fact, is the fallacy on which this silly locked-off belay style is based on. The fact is that you can easily hold an unexpected fall that occurs while you've got the ropes in front of you, even if you are staring down at your shoes when the fall occurs. You simply lock off when you start to feel tension in the rope. A few inches of rope may slip through the device if the fall is close to factor 1, which is usually for the best, anyway.
Jay...your just contradicting yourself. You state the purpose of not being locked off is so you can take more slack in...then admit that with this technique "a few inches of slack may slip through". Your more than welcome to try and tell the AMGA they're wrong in their approach of teaching this technique, as well as two climbing magazines publishing articles in support of this technique. I'm sure they'll all admit that they have no idea what they're talking about and you surely must be right.
In reply to: In reply to: If you want to be a fool, and risk hitting ledges and place gear that'll rip out without 2 screamers and a super dynamic belay...that's your own deal. If you climb in a manor that nescessitates this kind of belay...I think you should rethink what your doing. What little box do you live in? Most of the rest of us do fall from time to time, do climb above ledges occasionally, and sometimes have to deal with less than perfect protection. Have you ever heard of sport climbing? What do you think it entails. Without a purposeful dynamic belay, you will eventually break your partner's ankle./ In reply to: In reply to: So, the technique I've propossed works...provided your being a responsible leader and protecting yourself as you should. Your technique only "works" because you have defined "works" to mean that your partner won't get injured as long as (1) he is not runout, (2) his gear is solid, (3) the route isn't overhanging, (4) he's not on a slab, (5) he doesn't fall above a ledge, etc. It's almost as if your technique only works when there is no need for a belay at all. Jay
If you place shitty or runout gear often enough to need to have this be your standard belayers technique, i think you should rethink this whole climbing thing.
Saying that belaying otherwise is only fitting when "there is no need for a belay at all" is just ignorant.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Nov 29, 2005, 2:59 AM
Post #74 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
FYI... this really bears repeating:
In reply to: In reply to: ...but your an idiot for putting yourself in that situation in the first place. Its like you and Jay are speaking completely different languages. Its weird. Let me translate: Jay is primmarily talking about overhanging sport routes, with mandatory runs between the bolts. You are not. You are talking moderate trad. Its a different animal, with different belay priorities. Your comments completely ignore those differences. DMT |
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 29, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #75 of 353
(24440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: FYI... this really bears repeating: In reply to: In reply to: ...but your an idiot for putting yourself in that situation in the first place. Its like you and Jay are speaking completely different languages. Its weird. Let me translate: Jay is primmarily talking about overhanging sport routes, with mandatory runs between the bolts. You are not. You are talking moderate trad. Its a different animal, with different belay priorities. Your comments completely ignore those differences. DMT
Yeah, your probably right. That is primarilily what I'm talking about. I haven't climbed a ton on overhanging sport..but what I have done hasn't nescessitated a different technique.
If your on runout sport routes with a good potential for decking....I'd agree (as I have admitted before) that you should be pretty ready to take more slack in. Arguing that it's totally nescessary all the time to be ready to give a dynamic belay and thus have to belay like this is just redicilous. Need I remind you how many sport climbers give dynamic belays on sport routes with grigri's.
Each technique has it's time and place.
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
