Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Sport Climbing:
a few concerns
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Sport Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 


mem_drifter


Feb 23, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #1 of 52 (5814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7

a few concerns
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Im new to sport climbing and weigh around 300lbs. Im just a big guy not really that fat haha. What im wondering if i get into sport climbing and take a good fall do i need to worry about anything because of my weight?

I did try searching on the site but couldn't find anything.


krosbakken


Feb 23, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #2 of 52 (5797 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The only thing I would be concerned about is having a belayer that is a lot small than you in weight.

So...make sure you don't out weight your belayer by a huge amout or your belayer will be pulled into the first bolt if you take a fall, and that could result in some problems.


just my two cents.


mem_drifter


Feb 23, 2009, 4:29 PM
Post #3 of 52 (5791 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [krosbakken] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ive talked about anchoring one of my friends to the ground already and he agreed with that idea Wink


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 4:34 PM
Post #4 of 52 (5781 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mem_drifter wrote:
ive talked about anchoring one of my friends to the ground already and he agreed with that idea Wink

Sounds good. Might want to get a thicker rope as well, they hold a higher number of UIAA falls.


(This post was edited by coastal_climber on Feb 23, 2009, 4:34 PM)


krosbakken


Feb 23, 2009, 4:37 PM
Post #5 of 52 (5778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Yes, this is a good idea for sure. But with this set up the fall will be harder on both of you because your belayer doesn't move when you fall. (if this makes sense)

And it might be hard for you belayer to lock you off in a fall because of your weight. (I might be incorrect on all of this, but these are things that pop into my head.)

Can someone that knows what they are talking about give this man some tips? Wink

Just my thoughts. Smile


mem_drifter


Feb 23, 2009, 4:40 PM
Post #6 of 52 (5771 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [krosbakken] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

all of your tips seem like some very good considerations. As long as everyone thinks the bolts will stay in the wall and the rope will hold it will give a little piece of mind.


johnwesely


Feb 23, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #7 of 52 (5767 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5344

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Have your belayer use a Gri-Gri. You will never get a hard catch because of your weight.


kriso9tails


Feb 23, 2009, 4:44 PM
Post #8 of 52 (5762 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

mem_drifter wrote:
ive talked about anchoring one of my friends to the ground already and he agreed with that idea Wink

I don't tend to agree with that idea. It just makes it harder to belay. When I started leading sport I was a lanky kid weighing perhaps a hundred and ten pounds. Everyone outweighed me by a lot so I learned to belay heavier people pretty quick.

When I weighed around a hundred and sixty to a hundred and seventy, I had belayed (and caught decent falls) for people that outweighed be by over a hundred pounds. Did I get yanked up? Yeah, sure, but what does that actually matter? I pretty much always end up in the air catching a big fall, even when the climber weighs less than me.


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 4:45 PM
Post #9 of 52 (5761 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

As with others, I would recommend a UIAA "multi-drop" certified 10.5 mm rope with a durable sheath and a GriGri for your belayer. I would also recommend quickdraws with a strong open gate strength for the first few bolts. Something that holds 9 kN or higher. The Stubi Supreme and Wild Country Helium are good options.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 23, 2009, 4:48 PM)


andrewG


Feb 23, 2009, 5:17 PM
Post #10 of 52 (5732 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 5, 2008
Posts: 102

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
I would also recommend quickdraws with a strong open gate strength for the first few bolts.

Why? If you are that concerned just put some lockers on a couple of your draws. Just curious. I've never heard of someone buying gear for it's improper use strength ratings.


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 5:27 PM
Post #11 of 52 (5723 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [andrewG] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

andrewG wrote:
USnavy wrote:
I would also recommend quickdraws with a strong open gate strength for the first few bolts.

Why? If you are that concerned just put some lockers on a couple of your draws. Just curious. I've never heard of someone buying gear for it's improper use strength ratings.

Gate flutter.


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #12 of 52 (5697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [andrewG] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

andrewG wrote:
USnavy wrote:
I would also recommend quickdraws with a strong open gate strength for the first few bolts.

Why? If you are that concerned just put some lockers on a couple of your draws. Just curious. I've never heard of someone buying gear for it's improper use strength ratings.

As others said, because of gate flutter. If he takes a hard fall at the first bolt on some biner with a 7 kN open gate strength, and the gate opens during the fall, it’s over. Impact force skyrockets with weight. That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 23, 2009, 6:00 PM)


andrewG


Feb 23, 2009, 7:28 PM
Post #13 of 52 (5651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 5, 2008
Posts: 102

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

This is a forum that I read a while back.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...te%20flutter;#410962

This is from BD http://www.bdel.com/...ta/qc_kp_archive.php (towards the bottom under "testing a worn biner")
In reply to:
Partially due to the fact that the test was done with this biner as the only piece of protection in the system (as it would be on the route if someone fell just past the first bolt), there was what we call the whiplash effect, or gate flutter. As the load is impacted, the gate actually flutters open slightly, but at the right time, and just enough that really you are experiencing an open gate situation—this allowed the basket of the gate to bend slightly at the spine end (where the rope groove is). The gate flutter situation may have been more likely because the spring tension on this gate was rather weak and the rope groove of the biner reduced the cross section enough near the spine to allow the basket to deflect more (than if it wasn't rope-worn) during the gate flutter scenario.

I guess from these two things I came to the conclusion that gate flutter is generally not a realistic phenomenon. I also find it hard to believe that gate flutter would cause the gate to open enough to cause the tooth or keylock to not engage at all. Personally none of my biners are grooved, especially not like the one in the BD study (and their gate tensions are not apparently weak). I haven't seen the video referenced in the RC.com thread either.

On the other hand I weigh essentially half of what the OP does. I guess the moral of the story is do what makes you feel safe after doing your own research.


dingus


Feb 23, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #14 of 52 (5634 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [krosbakken] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

krosbakken wrote:
The only thing I would be concerned about is having a belayer that is a lot small than you in weight.

So...make sure you don't out weight your belayer by a huge amout or your belayer will be pulled into the first bolt if you take a fall, and that could result in some problems.


just my two cents.

Just how many 300 lb climbers do you think are out there?

DMT


k.l.k


Feb 23, 2009, 8:41 PM
Post #15 of 52 (5604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you are really 3bills, your chance of getting up any steep sport route is just not that good.

You're going to be slab climbing for awhile. But that's a good thing-- you'll learn how to use your feet.

As for belaying, even top ropes in the gym will be challenging for most belayers. This is not a sport for really big guys. At 6'2" and 180 I routinely hulk over folks at the crag. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.


suilenroc


Feb 23, 2009, 8:44 PM
Post #16 of 52 (5603 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [dingus] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 9:03 PM
Post #17 of 52 (5589 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [suilenroc] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

suilenroc wrote:
I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...

UIAA does not specify a specific "load limit". However their specifications are built around the assumption that the climber plus his / her gear weighs 80kg.


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #18 of 52 (5577 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hey Mem Drifter, this could be interesting: http://en.petzl.com/...te=14&Conseil=56


suilenroc


Feb 23, 2009, 9:11 PM
Post #19 of 52 (5576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...

UIAA does not specify a specific "load limit". However their specifications are built around the assumption that the climber plus his / her gear weighs 80kg.

Ahh, I see...I can totally understand why they do not specify a load limit... Thanks!

So, a 300lbs climber is near twice the weight (85%?) that the gear was tested for.?.?.?

I'd be concerned... Not really with TRing, with leading for sure!


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 9:22 PM
Post #20 of 52 (5564 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [suilenroc] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

suilenroc wrote:
USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...

UIAA does not specify a specific "load limit". However their specifications are built around the assumption that the climber plus his / her gear weighs 80kg.

Ahh, I see...I can totally understand why they do not specify a load limit... Thanks!

So, a 300lbs climber is near twice the weight (85%?) that the gear was tested for.?.?.?

I'd be concerned... Not really with TRing, with leading for sure!

The equipment is designed in mind to hold a factor two fall with a 80 kg person. A 150 kg person taking a factor .75 fall would produce less force then a 80 kg person taking a factor two fall. The quickdraws you use will hold a minimal of 22 kN in the close gate position and UIAA certified hangers hold at least 25 kN. So would not worry too much about it. I would choose a multi-drop certified rope so it lasts a reasonable amount of time.


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 9:32 PM
Post #21 of 52 (5552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...

UIAA does not specify a specific "load limit". However their specifications are built around the assumption that the climber plus his / her gear weighs 80kg.

Ahh, I see...I can totally understand why they do not specify a load limit... Thanks!

So, a 300lbs climber is near twice the weight (85%?) that the gear was tested for.?.?.?

I'd be concerned... Not really with TRing, with leading for sure!

The equipment is designed in mind to hold a factor two fall with a 80 kg person. A 150 kg person taking a factor .75 fall would produce less force then a 80 kg person taking a factor two fall. The quickdraws you use will hold a minimal of 22 kN in the close gate position and UIAA certified hangers hold at least 25 kN. So would not worry too much about it. I would choose a multi-drop certified rope so it lasts a reasonable amount of time.

I think its fall factor of 1.7 but its still way over what would normally occur in most climbing situations.


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #22 of 52 (5542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [coastal_climber] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

coastal_climber wrote:
USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
USnavy wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
I did a little searching and couldn't find the answer...

The NFPA consider's a 2 person load limit to be 600lbs...

What does the UIAA consider a 1 person load limit is?

I weigh around 185lbs, and have always figured that to be on the heavier side... can't imagine being 300lbs...

UIAA does not specify a specific "load limit". However their specifications are built around the assumption that the climber plus his / her gear weighs 80kg.

Ahh, I see...I can totally understand why they do not specify a load limit... Thanks!

So, a 300lbs climber is near twice the weight (85%?) that the gear was tested for.?.?.?

I'd be concerned... Not really with TRing, with leading for sure!

The equipment is designed in mind to hold a factor two fall with a 80 kg person. A 150 kg person taking a factor .75 fall would produce less force then a 80 kg person taking a factor two fall. The quickdraws you use will hold a minimal of 22 kN in the close gate position and UIAA certified hangers hold at least 25 kN. So would not worry too much about it. I would choose a multi-drop certified rope so it lasts a reasonable amount of time.

I think its fall factor of 1.7 but its still way over what would normally occur in most climbing situations.

Its a factor 1.77 fall however the hangers and quickdraws are still designed to hold a factor 2 fall.


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 9:46 PM
Post #23 of 52 (5536 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.


suilenroc


Feb 23, 2009, 10:17 PM
Post #24 of 52 (5524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [coastal_climber] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

coastal_climber wrote:
I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.

Probably the quality of rock or the person who put the bolts in...


coastal_climber


Feb 23, 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #25 of 52 (5520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [suilenroc] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

suilenroc wrote:
coastal_climber wrote:
I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.

Probably the quality of rock or the person who put the bolts in...

One of many risks we take.


suilenroc


Feb 23, 2009, 10:26 PM
Post #26 of 52 (2889 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [coastal_climber] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

coastal_climber wrote:
suilenroc wrote:
coastal_climber wrote:
I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.

Probably the quality of rock or the person who put the bolts in...

One of many risks we take.

agreed. Unimpressed


USnavy


Feb 23, 2009, 10:34 PM
Post #27 of 52 (2883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [coastal_climber] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

coastal_climber wrote:
I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.
Which is likely the human body in may cases. You would be good off if you made it through one factor two fall without an injury. Making it through the standard 8 - 12 falls that most 10.5 mm ropes can handle.... that’s ultra improbable. Chances are after your second one you wouldn’t be able to climb back up in a position to take a third.


mem_drifter


Feb 24, 2009, 8:42 AM
Post #28 of 52 (2847 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ive been reading up and studying on all the comments everyone has made and greatly appreciate the help. I also just bought a new rope and its a 10.2mm rope and i believe its rated at 8 or 9 falls.


vegastradguy


Feb 24, 2009, 9:02 AM
Post #29 of 52 (2840 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
coastal_climber wrote:
I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.
Which is likely the human body in may cases. You would be good off if you made it through one factor two fall without an injury. Making it through the standard 8 - 12 falls that most 10.5 mm ropes can handle.... that’s ultra improbable. Chances are after your second one you wouldn’t be able to climb back up in a position to take a third.

it should be noted that all rope manufacturers recommend that if you experience even one fall approaching factor 2, you should retire that rope immediately afterwards.


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 24, 2009, 9:12 AM
Post #30 of 52 (2836 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.


(This post was edited by robdotcalm on Feb 24, 2009, 9:46 AM)


jmvc


Feb 24, 2009, 9:17 AM
Post #31 of 52 (2830 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 647

Re: [robdotcalm] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

SBBW shurely?


Partner j_ung


Feb 24, 2009, 9:52 AM
Post #32 of 52 (2812 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [jmvc] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't want this to sound like you should NOT climb, but... well, let's just say, it's a pretty good thing you're seeking info. Make sure this thread isn't your only source. Here you go:

http://www.safeclimbing.org/..._Climbers_Beware.pdf

Edit: just to give proper credit, it looks like that pdf originally comes from PMI.


(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 24, 2009, 10:08 AM)


Partner j_ung


Feb 24, 2009, 10:09 AM
Post #33 of 52 (2803 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [j_ung] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Also:

1. Don't climb choss.

LaughUnimpressed


mem_drifter


Feb 24, 2009, 11:31 AM
Post #34 of 52 (2786 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [j_ung] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thank you for that article it helped me understand the forces alot more and was very informative.


crackmeup


Feb 24, 2009, 12:04 PM
Post #35 of 52 (2777 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 146

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mem_drifter wrote:
Im new to sport climbing and weigh around 300lbs. Im just a big guy not really that fat haha. What im wondering if i get into sport climbing and take a good fall do i need to worry about anything because of my weight?.

If I were in your situation, I would stick to top-roping for the time being while engaging in a weight loss program (assuming you are not a giant and thus not overweight). Here are a few reasons:

- The lighter you are (within reason), the better you'll climb. As you lose weight, you'll see tremendous progress.
- Many more people will be able/willing to belay you. At less than half your weight, I would not dare belay you on a sport route.
- You'll be less likely to get hurt in the event of a ground fall (e.g. failing to clip the first bolt or bouldering).
- You'll have more trust in the system and won't have to think about the issue you brought up, especially if you climb with other "reasonably big" partners and share experiences.
- You will be able to learn and get beta from better climbers with similar body types. Right now you'd have a hard time finding any.

Please take no offense and feel free to ignore my comment. What do I know, you could be perfectly happy climbing at 300 lbs.


USnavy


Feb 24, 2009, 1:12 PM
Post #36 of 52 (2757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [robdotcalm] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.

ex·po·nen·tial

Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Smile

For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 1:14 PM)


kriso9tails


Feb 24, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #37 of 52 (2738 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7766

Re: [j_ung] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Make sure this thread isn't your only source. Here you go:

Geez man, why do you hate this site? I gave some guy good beta in a thread like this.. once... I think.


shimanilami


Feb 24, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #38 of 52 (2730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

For the sake of your belayer, don't ever skip bolts.


d0nk3yk0n9


Feb 24, 2009, 1:54 PM
Post #39 of 52 (2728 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2009
Posts: 182

Re: [shimanilami] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shimanilami wrote:
For the sake of your belayer, don't ever skip bolts.

The only exception to this I'd make for a heavy climber is the first bolt. Obviously, I wouldn't skip it, but I would strongly consider lowering back down (or downclimbing) and unclipping the first bolt. That way, your belayer has farther they can fly before being sucked into a quickdraw and possibly dropping you.


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 24, 2009, 2:23 PM
Post #40 of 52 (2717 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.

ex·po·nen·tial

Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Smile

For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.

With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster

Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |-
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al
1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression>
2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins>
- ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb

Citation format for this entry:

"exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009).

I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW


hafilax


Feb 24, 2009, 2:37 PM
Post #41 of 52 (2708 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [robdotcalm] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The rule of thumb I've always been told is that a 30% difference in weight is tolerable for a belayer. If you can find someone that weighs a little over 200#'s to belay you then the lifting won't be too severe.

You could get someone to wear a weighted pack or something to increase their weight. I would avoid rigidly anchoring or an anchor which would bring you to an abrupt stop.

I don't think you really have to worry about gear breaking. Although the forces involved will be stronger there's only a factor of 2 within a factor of 10 safety margin. You'd have to try really hard to hit 25kN IMO.


USnavy


Feb 24, 2009, 2:43 PM
Post #42 of 52 (2703 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [robdotcalm] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.

ex·po·nen·tial

Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Smile

For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.

With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster

Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |-
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al
1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression>
2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins>
- ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb

Citation format for this entry:

"exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009).

I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW

Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 2:44 PM)


acorneau


Feb 24, 2009, 2:48 PM
Post #43 of 52 (2694 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool

Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.


USnavy


Feb 24, 2009, 3:41 PM
Post #44 of 52 (2678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [acorneau] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
USnavy wrote:
Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool

Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.

But those words are more limited in their usage then a word that simply identifies "greatly more". For example, astronomical is often associated with "the largest possible". It would not be very correct for me to say the performance difference between a Honda Civic and a Lotus Elise is astronomical because the performance difference between a Lodus Elise and a Mclaren F1 GTR is extreme, which in turn, makes the acceleration difference between the Civic and Elise relatively moderate in comparison. So the world astronomical would not be as fitting in that case. I would need a word that expresses an extreme in difference but does not imply the most extreme possible. Laugh


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 3:42 PM)


N_Oo_B


Feb 25, 2009, 7:27 AM
Post #45 of 52 (2633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2007
Posts: 463

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

indoors i would recomend belayer always anchor down. lol

ive read a story once of a 400lb person making it up half a slab. his belayer was draggedright up to the slab when he sat back in the harness. the cacti he had slung ripped out and followed him.


recomendations were to either find a much better anchor. or rig two ropes and two belayers.

food for thought


dingus


Feb 25, 2009, 7:38 AM
Post #46 of 52 (2626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [N_Oo_B] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I met Walt climbing at the Grotto. He was a giant of a man, I dunno, 6' 5"? 6' 6"? BIG.

He wasn't lean per se. More like a basketball player I guess.

He was never partnered up when I met him outdoors and we never really climbed together.

Then one day I ran into him in the gym and readily agreed to give him a top rope belay. Up the route he goes, looking like Jack's giant going back up the bean stalk.

At the top of the route he says 'take,' I acknowledge and he sags on to the rope.

Holy SHIT!!!111 I came SO CLOSE to dropping that dude!!! He is perhaps the closest I ever came to dropping someone.

What did I do wrong?

NOTHING.

I simply was not prepared for the weight. In hindsight, Walt easily tipped the scales at 250. I've been a life long member of the 200 lb club (give or take 20, hehe) my whole life. I was not and am not used to giving belays to folks heavier than me.

I was SHOCKED.

Literally.

That weight differential - to see it from the other side - to BE greatly outweighed by another climber - it was stunning.

A hundred pound differential is a very serious delta. I would not dismiss it out of hand.

DMT


Gmburns2000


Feb 25, 2009, 7:50 AM
Post #47 of 52 (2620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15253

Re: [acorneau] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
USnavy wrote:
Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool

Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.

Just don't use the word "enormity." While it does have its place for describing the enormousness of certain things / events / etc., it also means evil.

Technically correct but confusing: The enormity of budget cuts is difficult to understand.

Better: The enormity of the situation in Darfur is difficult to understand.

[/ tangental rant off a tangent that wasn't desserved or needed in the first place]


Partner angry


Feb 25, 2009, 8:39 AM
Post #48 of 52 (2604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That rope is fine especially since you're only toproping. At your weight, even on TR, a grigri is a good idea. You'll lose a lot of weight or quit long before you want to lead. Not being harsh, I've just seen this one play out a lot.


iron106


Feb 25, 2009, 12:35 PM
Post #49 of 52 (2568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2008
Posts: 213

Re: [mem_drifter] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Wouldn't using a SCREAMER help lowering the impact force on the pro to make it work within the limits of the gear?


swoopee


Feb 25, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #50 of 52 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560

Re: [dingus] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I weigh 200 lbs and tend to be the heaviest climber out of any of the people I climb with. I have yet to belay anyone heavier than myself, but I am sometimes very surprised by how much some of the smaller guys weigh.


I_do


Feb 26, 2009, 4:57 AM
Post #51 of 52 (708 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232

Re: [USnavy] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.

ex·po·nen·tial

Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Smile

For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.

With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster

Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |-
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al
1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression>
2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins>
- ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb

Citation format for this entry:

"exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009).

I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW

Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool

Well you didn't understand exponential yourself so just use any word you don't understand and then change the meaning to fit what you want to say.


dingus


Feb 26, 2009, 6:41 AM
Post #52 of 52 (704 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [I_do] a few concerns [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I_do wrote:
USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
robdotcalm wrote:
USnavy wrote:
That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.

Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?

r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).

edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.

ex·po·nen·tial

Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>

Smile

For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.

With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster

Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |-
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al
1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression>
2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins>
- ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb

Citation format for this entry:

"exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009).

I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW

Well damm it anyways. Frown I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Cool

Well you didn't understand exponential yourself so just use any word you don't understand and then change the meaning to fit what you want to say.

An excellent melloncamp point. I wistfully applaud your rudder. It is a petunia day!

DMT


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Sport Climbing

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook