|
adnix
Dec 22, 2004, 10:53 PM
Post #101 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 584
|
In reply to: Adnix - just curious - where are you getting those numbers from? It seems like similar statistics were quoted in another thread recently, except that it was the absolute number of falling object accidents, not the percentage, that stayed the same.
The book:
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/...publications-acc.asp
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 22, 2004, 11:11 PM
Post #102 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I wasn't linking the two in that way, merely illustrating the point that [relative] safety can only be evaluated on a per ascent basis.
You DID link them Bro, not me. You said he without a rope was safer than you with one. I call that a link. Relative safety on a per ascent basis? Where did you come up with that?
Again, if I use a rope for 100 pitches and only behave recklessly on one of them, you don't get to reject the other 99 times to state I am less safe for using a rope. I was less safe on that one pitch and it certainly wasn't the ropes fault!
In reply to: In the context of the original question "Does using a rope make you safe?" - no, it does not in and of itself - what you do with it, and every other aspect involved with the ascent, determines how safe you will be.
Climbing is not safe. Your head doesn't render it safe, nor does a rope, a helmet or a SAR team on stand-by. Nothing makes it safe. Safety is an illusion.
We can only strive to make it safer and hopefull, safe enough. Stating that a rope doesn't make climbing safer, while provocative, is simply not a winning argument nor does it reflect reality.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 22, 2004, 11:32 PM
Post #103 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: I wasn't linking the two in that way, merely illustrating the point that [relative] safety can only be evaluated on a per ascent basis. You DID link them Bro, not me. You said he without a rope was safer than you with one. I call that a link. Relative safety on a per ascent basis? Where did you come up with that?
Again, I was only linking/contrasting them as examples that happen to reverse the notion of roped climbing always providing a safe experience - again, Potter may very well be safe[r] free soloing over familiar ground and I might be unsafe with a rope on unfamiliar ground. The only linkage is the illustrate the possibility on different ascents a rope may or not convey safeness - which leads to your question:
[quote]Relative safety on a per ascent basis? Where did you come up with that?[/quote]
I came up with that because I might climb the same route with the same gear on different days and be safe one day and unsafe the next for any number of reasons. Or I might climb it unsafe today and you climb it safely tomorrow. "Safeness" is not something statically assigned to a route as in, "Such and such is a safe 5.9." Routes are safe or not relative to the party climbing them and even that is not a given from ascent to ascent by that same party. "Safeness" only exists relative to an individual ascent - neither the climb nor the climber are arbitrarily safe or unsafe - only actions and decisions made at the intersection of two at a given time ([i]an ascent[/i]) will determine that - i.e. "safeness" is an attribute/variable of any given unique ascent.
[quote]Again, if I use a rope for 100 pitches and only behave recklessly on one of them, you don't get to reject the other 99 times to state I am less safe for using a rope. I was less safe on that one pitch and it certainly wasn't the ropes fault![/quote]
Again, I would say that you were probably relatively safe on most all of them, but not uniformly so - more likely some sort of skewed distribution mapped against a scale of [i]unsafe[/i] to [i]safe[/i]
To be honest I think we are in more or less violent agreement on all this - again, I agree a rope can make a climb safer than not having one - but I'll never agree that it represents some sort of guarantee a climb will be safe just because you have one - it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 22, 2004, 11:38 PM
Post #104 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Again, I would say that you were probably relatively safe on most all of them, but not uniformly so - more likely some sort of skewed distribution across a curve from unsafe to safe
OK, I agree. I can find ample evidence of this in my own recent past.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Dec 23, 2004, 12:19 AM
Post #105 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
In reply to: Thanks Curt Colin I think everyone should consciously solo at least once for that exact reason. Tim A properly used rope can make climbing safer, but it cannot make it safe. Other then that I wouldn't disagree.
I think most people that've lead trad enough or through other circumstances know that they can perform through fear should try it. I think the price of freezing up is to high for everyone to try it.
Also I generally think it's probably best to have done enough climbing to understand without mistake what holds are good and what is down climbable for that person before they try it.
I agree with most of your points I just think you overstate things a bit but what you brought up was good.
I think there can be many down sides to soloing to depending on the persons personality, mindset etc. The intense focus mid climb can I believe give one a false sense of security. Feeling in absolute control isn't always the same thing as being in control. The feelings can be intense and euphoric and have a big influence on mindset but feeling aren't fact. I don't know everyones mind and how they react. I just believe soloing can distort the perception of safety like you are argueing a rope can for some people.
I don't disaprove of soloing and believe there are many things that are easier to learn from it for the right people. I just think it behoves people to engange there rational mind even more so than with roped climbing before attempting a specific climb. Know thyself is probably the most important thing in regards to making realistic decsions about soloing and roped climbing.
Sorry if I repeated other people I haven't read most of the posts yet.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 23, 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #106 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I think everyone should consciously solo at least once for that exact reason.
Under no circumstances would I ever support or ascribe to this view. In fact, I would say by and large free soloing should remain the possible provence of experienced climbers with a high degree of skills and self-confidence operating over very familiar terrain. If you meet that criteria, then my own experience tells me it's something you may want to consider if by chance you realize all your personal planets/ducks happen to have suddenly lined up and the moment / vision siezes you.
Some people have the shape, skills, and headset to do this as competently as is possible in a deliberate, pre-meditated manner, but they are a damned rarified few and even some of them don't survive such bravado. I would never encourage anyone to deliberately go out and free solo - if the desire finds them so be it, I hope the ride is good - otherwise, this is a beautiful, but fierce beast best left undisturbed where it lies until it awakens on its own if at all.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Dec 23, 2004, 1:43 AM
Post #107 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
The quote that you attribute to Colin was written by me.
To start with, as far as I am concerned, everyone that climbs, freesolo's to one degree or another.
As far as encouraging people to solo? I am speaking in terms of a very limited context.
For the most part, if I cannot trust someone to free solo at some given level, then I cannot trust them with their own lives. (At least while I am climbing with them.) This kind of limits things, as I generally teach people how to lead.
Where I usually teach people, (j-tree) the down climbs are often harder then the easiest routes.
What happens to the people who suddenly realize that their rope is not going to do anything if they fall? On almost all routes of any type there are places where you can fall and places where it is best not to fall. (sometimes seriously so)
It can be helpful in terms of getting someone comfortable with the reality of absolute responsibility.
As far as recreational free soloing, yes that is a game for the experienced climber. Mainly, because it is hard to keep your head on straight.
As far as the kind of soloing that I am speaking of in this context? It is a basic survival skill that should be a pre-req for leading.
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Dec 23, 2004, 2:34 AM
Post #108 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
There are two problems with what you just said as far as I'm concerned. First I believe there are people who might freeze up going 50 ft or more without pro but will have enough (false?) trust in the rope to get them through short no fall zones freezing up on free solo's isn't an option at any point. It's not about reality it's about head games. I've "rescued" two begining climbers soloing on easy ground. They may have been able too get out of the situation but they were both frozen in place yelling for help.
Second basically I'd prefer beginers to stay away from climbs with mandatory "hard" downclimbs along with free solo's. I agree that there are situations in trad where you are basically free soloing but nowadays I try to stear begginers towards routes that have as little of this charataristic as possible to start with. I don't have any studies to support it I just think it's generally wise to bump up the fear factor and objective risks in gradual increments. If someone base jumps for example I'm not likely to be worried about them freaking out as someone who's scarriest moment in life has been finding out that Santa Claus is watching all the time. Trad's not for everyone even sport's not for everyone much less free soloing even once. I think it's safer all around if find the point were they think they'd freek out if it was a bit scarrier than actually freak out when it matters most.
|
|
|
|
|
adnix
Dec 23, 2004, 10:51 AM
Post #109 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 584
|
In reply to: Climbing is not safe. Your head doesn't render it safe, nor does a rope, a helmet or a SAR team on stand-by. Nothing makes it safe. Safety is an illusion.
There are about 300,000 climbers in the US & Canada (people who rope up ten days or more a year) and 24 deaths a year. It can be calculated that one out of 12500 participants dies every year. This is pretty much the norm here in Finland, too. We've had on average 2000 active climbers and 5 known deaths during 25 years. Four out of those five took place in alpine environment (one in Norway '90s and three in Chamonix '86 and '96). If you keep climbing 20 years you have a 0,16 percent chance of dying. If you keep climbing 50 years the chance increases to 0,40 percent. I would bet more people get killed in normal activities or deceases during the same time span.
As a side note it could be stated that normal flu kills on average 36000 people a year in US. One out of 8300 people.
Keep climbing and don't get a flu! Getting a flu is way more dangerous than climbing...
AIDS kills 15000 people a year in the US. Alcohol kills 16000. Don't have sex or drink beer, it's dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
sirlancelot
Dec 24, 2004, 4:01 PM
Post #110 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2004
Posts: 27
|
While reading this great thread, I can't help be ask this question as a result of my inexperience in climbing.
I started climbing in september of last year, and started leading in the beginning of the summer. By the end of last summer climbing in the gunks, I have lead up to 5.6 and can TR many 5.10's. From only a summer of climbing I can certainly appreciate the notion that there are times when the leader must not fall as a result of runouts or ledges they might hit. I have been taking things slowly and have yet to take a leader fall; however, there is this amazing looking climb called son of easy O that is 5.8, and G rated with a great overhanging section with no ledges below to hit.
I'd love to lead this climb, which is well within my ability; however, after reading this thread I'm not sure to what extent I can rely on the rope. I highly doubt there is a 5.10 leader out there that has not taken their fair share of falls. Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall).
So what do you guys think of this situation in terms of style and safety. Hopefully alpineclmber and dingus will chime in.
(sorry if this question changes the scope of this thread, but I just had to ask)
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Dec 24, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #111 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
re: Sirlancelot wrote:
As far as "Son of easy O," I do not know the route. 5.8, well protected, steep, and no ledges: sounds about ideal. Ask a local if it is a good one. Better yet find an experienced climber that knows you and is willing to follow and critique your lead. If you can get someone to do this, you are probably all right.
Sport climbing is a good way to get comfortable with the physical aspects of falling. This is a much better alternative to practice falling on a top rope.
Being unreasonably afraid of falling in a safe situation can be as much of a safety hazard as many of the alternatives.
Conquer your unreasonable fear of falling in a safe situation. Then "choose" not to fall, in most circumstances.
The nice thing about waiting for steep 5.10's to really start falling is that the large majority of them are well protected for the crux.
Finding the balance between trusting the rope and over relying on the rope is a fine distinction and mostly a personal one.
Don't be in too much of a hurry. (I am not saying that you appear to be in a hurry) You have a lot of things to learn, and a lot of time to learn them.
Be safe, climb on.
d.
Feel free to ask follow up questions.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 24, 2004, 5:29 PM
Post #112 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
SirLance: If you have been leading for a season, and you can TR 5.10s at the Gunks without falling, and those teaching you to lead are confident that your gear placements are good, then go for it! Son of Easy O is a great climb. The second pitch is overhanging in two directions, with giant handholds and plenty of good gear. But be careful on the first pitch. As is often the case on Gunks climbs, the first 20 feet are nearly unprotected; the gear there is sparce and small.
Sorry, I'm not Alpineclimber or Dingus, hope that's okay? :lol:
GO
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 24, 2004, 10:42 PM
Post #113 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
SirLance,
You say you have TR'd some .10s - have you seconded any with a competent leader. My first suggestion would be to find a good leader and start seconding .7-.10 asap. The more you second up the grades the more confident you will be leading them a grade or two below what you are seconding.
The best thing of all for your own leading is to have the beauty/attractiveness/curiousity about the climbs draw you along - if this Son of Easy O has caught your eye then go for it.
As for falling punch "fear of falling" into the search and you'll find several discussions on the subject. The cure I always recommend is do a ton of downclimbing at every opportunity when on TR and place a solid piece of pro or find a bolt somewhere at a slightly overhanging spot and start falling - 6", 1', 2', 4', etc...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Dec 25, 2004, 12:15 AM
Post #114 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall).
Get Arno's book. Pay special attention to that sections about falling and fear and assessing fall consequences. Take Arno's class if it comes your way.
Your idea about a "bomproof situation", for falling practice is sa good one, but what do you consider bombproof?
I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls, and be sure to inspect the anchors after each fall.
Please do not do as many suggest and fall on one good piece of pro for your practice. Even when falling on bolts, as in for his seminar, Arno backed up the falling bolt from the bolt above with a long sling.
For practice falling on trad gear, build yourself an ANCHOR and still back it up. If you simply must lead up to your fall then place about 4 solid pieces close to where you will take your fall, in addition to the pieces you place as you lead up to your falling protection spot. Beware the zipper effect as well. MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL NOT DECK IF SOME OF YOUR PRO FAILS.
|
|
|
|
|
ryan_m
Dec 25, 2004, 1:29 AM
Post #115 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Posts: 5
|
Didn't bother to read all the other posts in this thread; I'm going to reply to the first one.
First off- using a rope decreases safety? I can understand where you're coming from with the whole mental aspect of climbing and how you should employ ability over gear, but let's get real here- we're not all designed to be soloists, and a rope, in my opinion, increases my safety margin drastically (provided I make use of proper judgement in regards to route, protection, etc.).
How the hell are you supposed to progress without a rope? I sure as shit am not going to go out and work my way up to more difficult routes by soloing everything.
I think you should be lecturing to the effect of employing proper judgement and not allowing the rope to become a false sense of security, although I remain in my conviction that a rope offers much more safety than the average climber's ability. Ropes are designed to make up for the faults of the climber; you can't expect your ability to be reliable day in and day out.
That said, I do agree that the mental aspect of one's climbing ability should be honed and put to use in every situation, easy or hard. I do, however, find the notion of a rope "decreasing" safety to be ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_nc
Dec 25, 2004, 1:42 AM
Post #116 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 9
|
Over reliance on a rope is dangerous. It is better to rely on yourself and use the rope as an additional backup as was intended.
Yeah man this statement is right on point. The rope is used as a back up safety device, behind the climbers brain.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 25, 2004, 3:37 AM
Post #117 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall). I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls...
That makes no sense. Why would it be any safer to put the backup pro above rather than below the pro you plan to fall on, assuming you could place the backup pro reasonably close below the primary pro?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Dec 25, 2004, 4:09 AM
Post #118 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall). I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls... That makes no sense. Why would it be any safer to put the backup pro above rather than below the pro you plan to fall on, assuming you could place the backup pro reasonably close below the primary pro? -Jay
If you back up from below, then if the top pro fails, you are going to shock load the second pro as well as fall farther than you were planning on. This is not a good idea for practicing, especially if you are a beginning trad leader. or in any way unsure about your ability to set good pro.
By backing up from above, your backup holds you at just about the same spot as the main pro would (You could even equalize it if you like, in fact you are making an anchor anyway so why not?). This is a good thing when you are trying to establish yourself in practice falling.
If you've ever had a piece rip and then be caught by the next one down in a fall, well, that's one thing you are avoiding here. You don't want to practice that on your first practice falls.
You could read a little farther into the post where I mentioned having extra pro below but near the falling piece, as in when you want to do more of a true lead and then fall situation, but that should come after you have the basics of falling and your gear placement is outstanding.
IF you have ever seen someone take repeated falls on trad gear until it fails, say pulling two pieces (the third holds), and they fall about 20 feet instead of 4 or 5, I assure you what I suggested will make perfect sense.
I didn't want to give a full accounting of every detail of falling practice, becasue falling is a potentially dangerous thing to do and best done under supervision of someone who knows what is going on-- not something to learn on the internet.
Arno's falling clinic lasts a good while and he goes over loads of stuff about falling, and that's what I'd reccommend-- take his class.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Dec 25, 2004, 4:39 AM
Post #119 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls, and be sure to inspect the anchors after each fall. Please do not do as many suggest and fall on one good piece of pro for your practice. Even when falling on bolts, as in for his seminar, Arno backed up the falling bolt from the bolt above with a long sling. For practice falling on trad gear, build yourself an ANCHOR and still back it up. If you simply must lead up to your fall then place about 4 solid pieces close to where you will take your fall, in addition to the pieces you place as you lead up to your falling protection spot.
I would disagree with almost all of this. Whomever Arno is, he is running a commercial operation so insurance and business prudence would dictate backing up a bolt in a session.
It's the real world that is more of interest here, however - don't do this practice on the first or second bolt, do it on the third or higher. In the totally unlikely event the bolt blows - so be it - you get an even more interesting learning experience. For practicing on trad you should be sure that the piece is bomber and the pieces below it are bomber. In the real world pieces sometimes blow - be prepared for that and any place that the pro looks dubious double up on it.
Also, under no circumstances do this practice with a top rope - it's right up there with placing gear on a top rope for incredibly bad ideas when it comes to developing the headset you need for leading.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 25, 2004, 4:43 AM
Post #120 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall). I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls... That makes no sense. Why would it be any safer to put the backup pro above rather than below the pro you plan to fall on, assuming you could place the backup pro reasonably close below the primary pro? -Jay If you back up from below, then if the top pro fails, you are going to shock load the second pro as well as fall farther than you were planning on.
The same would happen if you backed up the gear from above.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Dec 25, 2004, 5:08 AM
Post #121 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall). I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls... That makes no sense. Why would it be any safer to put the backup pro above rather than below the pro you plan to fall on, assuming you could place the backup pro reasonably close below the primary pro? -Jay If you back up from below, then if the top pro fails, you are going to shock load the second pro as well as fall farther than you were planning on. The same would happen if you backed up the gear from above. -Jay
Nope. Look at it again. Read the part that you didn't quote about equalizing the above backup and the main falling piece. the biners are at the same height, You can't fall any farther than the main falling piece is set for unless the backup and the MFP both fail.
If you back up from below, you are going farther if the top piece fails, because the top piece being your main falling piece is now gone, and you have to fall down to the next piece (your below backup)
Last try:
You want to fall on bolt A, which is lower than bolt B. You clip your draws to bolt A, and the rope runs through them. YOu clip a LONG runner to bolt B, high above bolt A. Your long runner hangs down to the same height asn directly in line with the draws on bolt A. You consider that they are nearly equalized. If either pro at A or B should fail, you will fall the same distance as if none had failed.
Backing up from below, even if the pro is not far below, will cause you to fall farther if the top pro fails, unless you have again equalized, and then you are really backing up from above.
|
|
|
|
|
joshy8200
Dec 25, 2004, 5:16 AM
Post #122 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 646
|
Nope, using a rope doesn't make you safe. Using your head can make you safer. But using your head can also cause you to get in over your head.
I remember that as a kid I used to climb very high into trees and hiking around cliff lines were a fall would have killed me. A lot of people talk about how early in life we have a sense of immortality. I do not remember having a sense of immortality when I was young. I was very aware of being in mortal danger climbing trees. During those times I remember how focused my attention was. As Arno Ilgner puts it in The Rock Warrior's Way, "When you love something attention is automatically focused in the moment because there's no place you'd rather be." At those times in my life there was no other place that my attention was focused. I didn't have distractions of thinking about school, money, ego, or anything. It was just myself and the activity at hand.
When I climb I try to get back to that same focus that I had as a child. Is it the focus or the rope that keeps me safe? When I'm on a long overhanging route that is pushing me mentally and physically to stay focused is my mind going to save me from a fall if I physically become too tired? I don't think so.
I'd like to know how people who use a rope so incorrectly that it becomes more of a liability than an insurance policy. Let's think of an experiment. We'll call it "Does a rope and gear increase or decrease your risk of dying?" We'll have a control 20 groups of 2 novice climbers at the base of a 100ft 5.1 climb with decent protection on it. They are given no gear or rope and told they must reach the top. The experimental 20 groups of 2 novice climbers are given gear and a rope and told to reach the top of the same climb.
What do y'all expect the results would be? Do you think that this experiment would fairly assess this issue of whether climbing with a rope is more safe than without?
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Dec 25, 2004, 5:22 AM
Post #123 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
No, it certainly doesn't make you any safer.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 25, 2004, 5:31 AM
Post #124 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Personally, I think my fear of falling is stopping me from progressing as a lead climber. I've thought about setting a bombproof situation in which to purposely fall and trust the system (and I have heard of courses out west where climbers are taught how to fall). I can tell you from my experience bombproof means backed up FROM ABOVE when you are going to take repeated practice falls... That makes no sense. Why would it be any safer to put the backup pro above rather than below the pro you plan to fall on, assuming you could place the backup pro reasonably close below the primary pro? -Jay If you back up from below, then if the top pro fails, you are going to shock load the second pro as well as fall farther than you were planning on. The same would happen if you backed up the gear from above. -Jay Nope. Look at it again. Read the part that you didn't quote about equalizing the above backup and the main falling piece. the biners are at the same height, You can't fall any farther than the main falling piece is set for unless the backup and the MFP both fail.
What you wrote is that "you even could equalize" them, not that you normally do. Equalizing pro is still not the issue because you could equalize the pro whether you placed the so-called backup piece above or below the socalled main piece (once they're equalized, neither is the main or backup piece anymore, instead you're building a multi-pitch anchor, which defeats the purpose of taking intentional falls on your own gear in the first place.
In reply to: If you back up from below, you are going farther if the top piece fails, because the top piece being your main falling piece is now gone, and you have to fall down to the next piece (your below backup)
Again, that is true whether your backup piece is above or below your main piece. If you put in your back up piece 4 inches below your main piece you'll fall 8 inches further if your main piece blows; if you put in your backup piece above your main piece and it extend it with a long anchor so that it is 4 inches below your main piece, you'll fall 8 inches further if your main piece blows.
Promise?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Dec 25, 2004, 5:48 AM
Post #125 of 126
(9294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: What you wrote is that "you even could equalize" them, not that you normally do. Equalizing pro is still not the issue because you could equalize the pro whether you placed the so-called backup piece above or below the socalled main piece (once they're equalized, neither is the main or backup piece anymore, instead you're building a multi-pitch anchor, which defeats the purpose of taking intentional falls on your own gear in the first place.
NO, you are assuming that I don't normally equalize, in fact I do. Some people do not but rather havne the gear very close to equalized. IN either case, you are missing the point again, and YES, you are building an anchor, I've said that several times, all the way back to the first post on the subject. You are practice FALLING, not gear placing. The point is not to test your gear, it is to practice falling safely. Having a safe anchor to fall on repeatedly does not defeat the purpose of falling practice, which is to learn how to fall in the safest way possible, NOT to test out your gear.
You are going overboard with erroneous assumptions here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
