|
majid_sabet
Jun 20, 2007, 6:36 AM
Post #51 of 84
(3374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jun 20, 2007, 6:38 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 20, 2007, 12:22 PM
Post #53 of 84
(3336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
An RC.com classic of Willy and Shiva proportions. Does anybody know who those guys are? Was that posted originally here?
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 20, 2007, 12:25 PM
Post #54 of 84
(3332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
j_ung wrote: An RC.com classic of Willy and Shiva proportions. Does anybody know who those guys are? Was that posted originally here?
Wasn't that crotch's handiwork? I think he posted it here and on the wreck many moons ago.
Update: Yep, Crotch posted that to rec.climbing back in March of 2003. The thread was titled This is REAL.
(This post was edited by markc on Jun 20, 2007, 12:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
truello
Jun 20, 2007, 2:10 PM
Post #55 of 84
(3313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2006
Posts: 737
|
jt512 wrote: The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely. Jay
How did JTs stance on the subject go from this to not anchoring at all? What is the difference between anchoring "enough to the side" and "enough from the wall"? The physics are still the same.
I think the solution is for all of us in Pennsylvania is to pack up, leave our jobs and family, and move to the blessed land of JT where there are no rock falls and everyone climbs 13+. If moving isn't an option, maybe we can just quit climbing and go hiking or something.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Jun 20, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #56 of 84
(3304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
adatesman wrote: Any difference if you outweigh your partner (who's belaying) by a significant amount? Say... 80 pounds? She's finally getting used to the idea of not anchoring herself down when lead belaying and not anchored this time, but up until recently she would have been. I really don't like the thought that she would have been tied in place when that block came crashing through. Not that she would have had much time to do anything anyway... Thoughts? -a.
I outweigh my about wife by about 80 pounds. When belaying me on one pitch climbs she uses a Grigri and never anchors. She has belayed me successfully for 12 years like this on literally hundreds of different routes and held me on a number of falls including one approaching fall factor one when a hold broke while I was climbing above the first protection point. Obviously she has to be belaying in a place where she won't be yarded into the wall from the force of a fall, but if there's enough rope out, even with the weight difference, small, sport climbing style falls won't even budge her.
I hate it (and voice my ire) when it seems to me the belayer is not standing close enough to the base of the wall. Even more so, if I'm placing gear. I've never had occasion, in decades of climbing, where it seemed to me a good idea that the belayer should be be located far enough from the base to create a significant outward angle (say more than a few degrees) on the first protection point. Years ago in Peshastin Pinnacles, I once saw a climber almost deck (he probably would have died) because the belayer was belaying far enough back from the wall to strip out all the stopper placements when the climber made a sudden upward lunge.
One advantage with the unanchored belay is my wife is free to move to one side or the other, or look for cover (the routes we do tend to be pretty overhanging) if I see potentially loose rock on a route. It's important for the leader to try and look out for this and to warn the belayer. Obviously what side (or where) the belayer chooses to go depends on the specifics of the route and where the loose rock might be.
(This post was edited by yanqui on Jun 20, 2007, 3:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 20, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #57 of 84
(3297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
truello wrote: jt512 wrote: The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely. Jay How did JTs stance on the subject go from this to not anchoring at all? What is the difference between anchoring "enough to the side" and "enough from the wall"? The physics are still the same. I think the solution is for all of us in Pennsylvania is to pack up, leave our jobs and family, and move to the blessed land of JT where there are no rock falls and everyone climbs 13+. If moving isn't an option, maybe we can just quit climbing and go hiking or something.
Jay was speaking in general terms, and reinforced the main issue of the thread. There are occasions where you're not well suited for a certain climb. In this instance, the desire to anchor the belayer directly conflicts with the desire for free movement. It's a tough call either way you go.
I advocated moving to the side rather than away from the wall, as well. The route was described as less than vertical. It's not uncommon to see rockfall on such a route hit the face lower down, angling it outward. Depending upon the features of the route, some may certainly kick sideways. As I said earlier, you want to really study the route and select the best location for the belay.
Don't mind Jay. He was more cuddly at wreck.climbing, but he frequently speaks from an informed opinion. It won't give you the warm fuzzies, but it will make you think critically about your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 20, 2007, 3:06 PM
Post #58 of 84
(3291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: microbarn wrote: When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur. Rope drag and a required multidirectional first piece are the only negatives that come to mind. These aren't very strong negatives in my mind. Then, after J_ung and I provided at least 7 reasons why anchoring "very far away from the wall" is a bad idea, you changed your position to this: In reply to: There are times when you can anchor the belayer farther out of the way to reduce the chances of rocks falling onto them. So, you changed your position in four ways: (1) You added "there are times when..." to your original position, which implied no such limitation; (2) you softened "very far away from the wall" to "farther out of the way"; (3) you softened "to an area where no danger can occur" to " reduce the chances of rocks falling on them; and (4) you eliminated the phrase about there being only two disadvantages to anchoring at a distance. HTH Like I said, I have little trouble with your final product, whereas the original statement is dangerous and incorrect advice on a subject that you have too little experience to be advising. Jay
Welcome to the english language where the same ideas can be voiced with different words.
markc and j_ung provided 2 insights. You haven't clarified anything. In fact, you have confused the issue with your assumptions.
"it is possible" is very general. It is hard to find ways to be "clearly wrong" when being this general.
"very far" is an undefined distance. You made the assumptions of 20 and 50 feet. I never said it should be that far. After you made those assumptions, you also went on to make claims about the impossibility of a multidirectional piece for the first pro. AFTER you already stated some possible multidirectional pro options.
Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you spent much of your posts calling me a gumby and insulting PA. Neither of these has anything to do with evaluation of safe belay practices. You assumed my profile wasn't a joke, outdated, or incorrect. You also incorrectly assumed I have been climbing for a year. Despite markc claiming your posts make a person think critically. These portions can only cloud the topic at hand.
You also whined, cried, stomped your feet, and claimed you had 25 years of experience. So, we should just believe you? I am glad we didn't apply that logic to all of climbing. "Cams have to many moving parts to trust. 1/4 inch bolts have held a bunch of my falls. Why would we need bigger? A single bowline is good enough. We certainly don't need the double bowline with a back up. Why are you climbing on a rock that is only 10 feet high?"
I am still waiting to be proven "clearly wrong".
truello, I think you are right. My father has a saying "Don't argue with stupid people. They just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 20, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #59 of 84
(3271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Microbarn - just look at Yanqui's post, above.
This is what Jay was trying to get at. Sometimes Jay's flames are more entertainment for the masses than nice logical structures. Yes, he's still right, and yes, I still appreciate the fun he caused, but if you want to "get it", just read Yanqui's post. It's a pretty clear "voice of experience" - expressed in simple straightforward terms.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 20, 2007, 4:56 PM
Post #60 of 84
(3260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
cracklover wrote: Microbarn - just look at Yanqui's post, above. This is what Jay was trying to get at. Sometimes Jay's flames are more entertainment for the masses than nice logical structures. Yes, he's still right, and yes, I still appreciate the fun he caused, but if you want to "get it", just read Yanqui's post. It's a pretty clear "voice of experience" - expressed in simple straightforward terms. GO
In this statement, you claim he is right. What is he right about? His argument changed positions and made confusing assumptions on mine. He had no point other then a desire to call someone a gumby and act superior.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #61 of 84
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
truello wrote: I think the solution is for all of us in Pennsylvania is to pack up, leave our jobs and family, and move to the blessed land of JT where there are no rock falls and everyone climbs 13+.
That sounds more like Utah. In California, everybody only climbs 5.12, and rockfall is routine.
In reply to: If moving isn't an option, maybe we can just quit climbing and go hiking or something.
I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 20, 2007, 5:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 20, 2007, 5:21 PM
Post #62 of 84
(3246 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: truello wrote: I think the solution is for all of us in Pennsylvania is to pack up, leave our jobs and family, and move to the blessed land of JT where there are no rock falls and everyone climbs 13+. That sound more like Utah. In California, everybody only climbs 5.12, and rockfall is routine. In reply to: If moving isn't an option, maybe we can just quit climbing and go hiking or something. I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian. Jay
where did I say always?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 20, 2007, 5:27 PM
Post #63 of 84
(3241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
N00bs and Pros
If your leader is 150 lbs and you are 120 lbs and your partner falls, you are not going to fly upward toward the last draw.
You do not have pulley on top to transmit 100% of the falling forces.
The biner on top anchor or biner in your last draw works as a friction device because the moving rope must travel thru a very tight radius and that reduces rope movement significantly some time up to 50% of falling forces are reduced at your last biner, therefore you are not getting the full weight of the falling partner at belay during dynamic fall.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jun 20, 2007, 5:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:37 PM
Post #64 of 84
(3230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
microbarn wrote: jt512 wrote: microbarn wrote: When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur. Rope drag and a required multidirectional first piece are the only negatives that come to mind. These aren't very strong negatives in my mind. Then, after J_ung and I provided at least 7 reasons why anchoring "very far away from the wall" is a bad idea, you changed your position to this: In reply to: There are times when you can anchor the belayer farther out of the way to reduce the chances of rocks falling onto them. So, you changed your position in four ways: (1) You added "there are times when..." to your original position, which implied no such limitation; (2) you softened "very far away from the wall" to "farther out of the way"; (3) you softened "to an area where no danger can occur" to " reduce the chances of rocks falling on them; and (4) you eliminated the phrase about there being only two disadvantages to anchoring at a distance. HTH Like I said, I have little trouble with your final product, whereas the original statement is dangerous and incorrect advice on a subject that you have too little experience to be advising. Jay Welcome to the english language where the same ideas can be voiced with different words.
You lost the original argument, denied it, and I had to repeat myself to show you why you lost it. You still denied it, but in response, you backed off your original position. Then you denied that you backed off your original position, so I wrote another post demonstrating in detail how you softened your original, unreasonable position to a reasonable position. It is right there in black and white where everyone can see that you've backed off your original position, yet you still deny it.
Even before your last round of denials, one prescient person wrote the following to me in a PM: "No matter how much you own him, Microbrain will likely never admit it." This certainly appears to be the case.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 20, 2007, 5:39 PM
Post #65 of 84
(3227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
jt512 wrote: I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian.
I hate to point it out Jay, buy your tally is missing at least one Pennsylvanian.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 6:05 PM
Post #66 of 84
(3215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
markc wrote: jt512 wrote: I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian. I hate to point it out Jay, buy your tally is missing at least one Pennsylvanian.
I always feel bad for you when I make these generalizations about Pennsylvania climbers because you clearly don't fit the pattern. Bob D occasionally protests as well but I claim that he is not a member of the population in question by virtue of having moved out of the state. Anyway, any statement I make that me be insulting to Pennsylvania climbers excludes you tacitly. If it weren't so cumbersome, I would preface every derogatory comment about Pennsylvania with the phrase, "Except for Markc,...".
But I'm convinced of the Pennsylvania gumby phenomenon, and I'm curious about your take on it, coming from the point of view of possibly the only real climber in the entire state.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 20, 2007, 6:10 PM
Post #67 of 84
(3211 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian. I hate to point it out Jay, buy your tally is missing at least one Pennsylvanian. I always feel bad for you when I make these generalizations about Pennsylvania climbers because you clearly don't fit the pattern. Bob D occasionally protests as well but I claim that he is not a member of the population in question by virtue of having moved out of the state. Anyway, any statement I make that me be insulting to Pennsylvania climbers excludes you tacitly. If it weren't so cumbersome, I would preface every derogatory comment about Pennsylvania with the phrase, "Except for Markc,...". But I'm convinced of the Pennsylvania gumby phenomenon, and I'm curious about your take on it, coming from the point of view of possibly the only real climber in the entire state. Jay
I had to save this excellent example of your reading comprehension and assumption abilities.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #68 of 84
(3205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
microbarn wrote: jt512 wrote: markc wrote: jt512 wrote: I'm not sure what everybody in Pennsylvania is actually doing when they think they are rock climbing. Judging by posts, Pennsylvania climbers have been infected by some sort of virus that keeps them in a perpetual state of gumbiness, and utterly incapable of comprehending their incompetence. How can you not see the pattern. It's even here in this thread. One Pennsylvanian makes an outlandish claim about how the belayer can always safely position himself far away from the wall, and everybody disagrees, except one other poster, another Pennsylvanian. I hate to point it out Jay, buy your tally is missing at least one Pennsylvanian. I always feel bad for you when I make these generalizations about Pennsylvania climbers because you clearly don't fit the pattern. Bob D occasionally protests as well but I claim that he is not a member of the population in question by virtue of having moved out of the state. Anyway, any statement I make that me be insulting to Pennsylvania climbers excludes you tacitly. If it weren't so cumbersome, I would preface every derogatory comment about Pennsylvania with the phrase, "Except for Markc,...". But I'm convinced of the Pennsylvania gumby phenomenon, and I'm curious about your take on it, coming from the point of view of possibly the only real climber in the entire state. Jay I had to save this excellent example of your reading comprehension and assumption abilities.
Coming from Pennsylvania, it figures you would.
Jay
P.S. What is an "assumption ability?"
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 20, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #69 of 84
(3188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
microbarn wrote: cracklover wrote: Microbarn - just look at Yanqui's post, above. This is what Jay was trying to get at. Sometimes Jay's flames are more entertainment for the masses than nice logical structures. Yes, he's still right, and yes, I still appreciate the fun he caused, but if you want to "get it", just read Yanqui's post. It's a pretty clear "voice of experience" - expressed in simple straightforward terms. GO In this statement, you claim he is right. What is he right about? His argument changed positions and made confusing assumptions on mine. He had no point other then a desire to call someone a gumby and act superior.
No, he did have a point in addition to calling you a gumby (and - you forgot - insulting Penn climbers). The point was essentially the same one as that Yanqui made above. I thought you might be able to appreciate it better reading it in Yanquis friendly tone. Perhaps not. Your loss.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 20, 2007, 7:23 PM
Post #70 of 84
(3173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
That is just it. I generally agree with Yanqui's post. JT's claims of what my arguments say are believed over what was actually stated.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 21, 2007, 4:15 AM
Post #72 of 84
(3092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
truello wrote: jt512 wrote: The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely. Jay How did JTs stance on the subject go from this to not anchoring at all? What is the difference between anchoring "enough to the side" and "enough from the wall"?
The first of your questions is unintelligible, so, luckily for me, I couldn't answer it even if I wanted to. The second question, for some masochistic reason, I will answer.
The difference between standing to the side to avoid rockfall and standing away from the wall to avoid rockfall is essentially what markc has unsuccessfully been trying to explain. The belayer need only stand a couple of feet to the side of his partner to avoid being hit by rocks that the leader might pull off. Furthermore, being right up against the wall is usually safer than being away from the base of the wall in terms of avoiding any rockfall, because rocks rarely fall right at the base of the wall; rather, they usually land some distance away from the base, either because the route is overhanging or because the rock takes a bounce off the face. So, if you were to attempt to stand away from the wall to avoid rockfall, you would usually have to stand quite far away from the wall, and I'm not going to repeat all the reasons why that is usually a stupid thing to do.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 21, 2007, 4:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 21, 2007, 5:16 AM
Post #73 of 84
(3071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
You got to love A/C
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jun 21, 2007, 5:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 21, 2007, 12:48 PM
Post #74 of 84
(3042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: truello wrote: jt512 wrote: The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely. Jay How did JTs stance on the subject go from this to not anchoring at all? What is the difference between anchoring "enough to the side" and "enough from the wall"? The first of your questions is unintelligible, so, luckily for me, I couldn't answer it even if I wanted to. The second question, for some masochistic reason, I will answer.
hard to believe you could misunderstand anything
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1617202#1617202
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 21, 2007, 1:09 PM
Post #75 of 84
(3029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
jt512 wrote: But I'm convinced of the Pennsylvania gumby phenomenon, and I'm curious about your take on it...
At first, I was going to take on the unenviable task of defending Pennsylvania climbers. Then I realized that there is an ample number of climbers that don't need defending. Their competence is apparent, and many are stronger climbers than I am. Then there are those (perhaps in the majority) that don't warrant defense. They're gumbies that spread dangerous habits like STDs, bringing out all their unfortunate friends in order to 'teach them the ropes'.
As far as the causes, perhaps we need to write a grant request to study the phenomenon more fully. I've considered some of the areas I've visited in comparison with the local crags. SW PA crags may suffer fools more readily than other locations. We have a lot of short crags with easy access, and toproping abounds. It's easy to learn just enough to think you know something. It's not as if there aren't quality guide services and experienced climbers in the area. It's just that the two segments of the population seem to mix about as well as oil and water. In my experience, trying to help out a gumby at the crag rarely goes well. There's immediate defensiveness, and the fact that their habits haven't hurt them yet mistakenly convinces them they're adequate.
I've contemplated moving for the sole purpose of better climbing, as I think most every serious PA climber does. It takes strong ties to the area to resist that pull. I lost two of my best partners to Colorado and Calgary, but at least I have free accommodations near world-class climbing. If you have a moderate exodus of experienced climbers, that leaves less contact points for new climbers. Even if the semi-experienced are passing along knowledge, there isn't the same depth or quality. Sound reasonable so far?
From what I know of microbarn and truello, they're both fairly new to this. They have a few years under their belts, but I don't know that they've hit journeyman status (to borrow an analogy from dingus). That's an exciting and dangerous time for many of us, when it might take a mistake or two to tame hubris. There's a lot you don't work out until you're making decisions for yourself and taking your climbing on the road. I know that was the case for me, even with solid partners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
