|
|
|
|
mattm
Apr 19, 2005, 10:04 PM
Post #26 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640
|
In reply to: Good on ya for figuring that out with the level of experience you have. Buuuuuuut... taking falls on your second ever trad lead seems a bit premature. Pick your routes carefully, especially at this critical stage of the game. Live long! Prosper! :D
Regardless of how many 5.8 leads he's done - I'm going to cite a great rgold post about how you SHOULD NOT fall on anything 5.9 and below.
Rgold Said "In this regard, I'm going to make a claim that will get me flamed, but so be it. It is not necessarily addressed to the original poster; the "you" is meant to be universal in what follows. If you are falling on climbs less than 5.10, you're going about it all wrong. Generations of climbers have learned to work their way up through 5.9 without taking leader falls, primarily because the gear made falling a more serious proposition. But better gear won't make you a better climber, and it won't help you develop the discipline needed to climb with relative safety near your limit. So slow down and learn the fine art of failure, so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try. "
Words for new leaders to live by.
|
|
|
|
|
jeremy11
Apr 19, 2005, 10:48 PM
Post #27 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2004
Posts: 597
|
from the pictures it looks like there might be a natural chockstone in the crack right below the hexes - I see a bit of an opening off to the right side of this rock/feature - could this have been slung for pro?
cool stacking, though, but if that rock was slingable I'd take it over stacking any day
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 22, 2005, 11:55 AM
Post #28 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: Regardless of how many 5.8 leads he's done - I'm going to cite a great rgold post about how you SHOULD NOT fall on anything 5.9 and below. Rgold Said "In this regard, I'm going to make a claim that will get me flamed, but so be it. It is not necessarily addressed to the original poster; the "you" is meant to be universal in what follows. If you are falling on climbs less than 5.10, you're going about it all wrong. Generations of climbers have learned to work their way up through 5.9 without taking leader falls, primarily because the gear made falling a more serious proposition. But better gear won't make you a better climber, and it won't help you develop the discipline needed to climb with relative safety near your limit. So slow down and learn the fine art of failure, so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try. "
Can't quite count the number of ways I disagree with both the general tone of these comments and its constituent elements - particularly the comment in bold. There was nothing about the gear in the 70's that made falling more serious than today. And except that I know rgold can place pro, I would otherwise say that comment sounds an awful lot like it came from someone who was never comfortable with placing passive pro and wasn't too happy about things until cams came along. Placing pro was and is a craft and one of the dirty little secrets from back in the day (70's) is that not everyone was good at it. In fact, I'd venture to say it was split more like 1/3 good and solid or at least comfortable, 1/3 acceptable, but not necessarily happy and comfortable, and 1/3 bad at it and rightfully nervous as hell.
And falling is a normal part of climbing at or near you capabilities and that doesn't matter if you are 5.10 climber who falls on a 5.9 or a 5.7 climber that falls on a 5.7. The idea that 5.9's (or any other grade) shouldn't be fallen on is a ridiculous assertion on the face of it. I keep seeing endless commentary about "never falling on trad" and climbing trad "3-4 levels below my sport capabilities"; again, falling - trad or sport - is a normal part of climbing and if you aren't falling you are likely a) not learning and b) not climbing at your limits.
That doesn't mean falling recklessly, however. Common sense, technical know how, and experience all have to come together when climbing above your last piece. You have to know what the characteristics of a fall might be, what the piece below you are capable of, have some [rough] sense of both the whereabouts of the next placement and the odds of you actually getting there and what the consequences of not getting there will likely be.
And, as always, the best way to learn and establish a solid foundation for leading is by seconding good leaders...
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 22, 2005, 12:06 PM
Post #29 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: In reply to: "At the end of the day" I would have to say this had a higher chance of pulling than i would be willing to rely on as my only piece off the deck. Very creative though. However, and a big however, place creative, almost experimental type pieces like that when you don't really have to rely on them(at first) then when you really need them...farther along in your career you will have the skills and the creativity to hook up something creative & bomber. Another thing..I saw a very bomber spot for what looks like a #2-#3.5 cam. azrockclimber, And as I said earlier, I'd fall all day long on the stack in the picture (though, again, I'd adjust the red down and grey up a bit first). The only thing "experimental" about stacking hexs and stoppers is the fact that you guys are young and grew up with cams. Stacking passive pro was just a normal, everyday part of placing pro before cams came along. I used to stack on just about on about every other route back in the day. In fact, we used to have some of our stoppers doubled up on webbing/perlon just so you could fold the top one down for stacks.
Stacking isn't experimental for me...but iut was when I was leading 5.8 so thats where that came from. Oh, and I totally agree with the post about not falling on 5.9 and below..that is just a great general rule. good post. Healyje...if you are taking whippers on 5.9 and below you are pushing yourself too hard too quickly. That is obviously just my opinion. And also..mistakes do happen so very occasionally isn't terrible. . but as a general rule falling regularly on trad routes of that grade and below is just not good judgement IMO. I see what you are saying about not being able to reach the crack in the back. Nothing wrong with stacking..I take more issue with the laxidazical (spelling?) attitude towards falling. It really isn't okay to be dropping off like that regularly at that level. good luck and be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 22, 2005, 12:24 PM
Post #30 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Azrockclimber
We'll just have to disagree. Falling at or within a grade of your climbing level regardless of whether that is 5.8 or 5.12 is completely normal and acceptable. Again, I think it is a ridiculous claim and actually a counterproductive idea to plant in people's heads. In fact I learned to lead back in the 70's from a guy who couldn't climb harder than 5.8 and he placed better pro and had more grace on rock than most leaders I've met since. And I don't treat falling lightly, I just don't treat it as anything special at all - again, I just think of it as business as usual when I'm really on my game.
P.S. The number of 5.10 climbers who have taken dives off Layton Kor 5.8's and 5.9's is pretty legendary.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 22, 2005, 1:07 PM
Post #31 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
fair enough. I think that I was under the impression that you were a new gear leader who was going to be getting stronger/ more experienced. I t seems that you are an experienced climber who climbs at 5.8. I think I just misunderstood the situation.
I do treat falling on gear as special. I try to do it as infrequently as possible. This keeps my ass unbroken and healthy so I can climb. Personally I lead about 2 letter grades lower on gear and sport than what I would be willing to follow on toprope. I dont' consider falling fun, I consider it a bit of a failure and it basically tells me that I was not ready for the route. I didn't train enough, I weigh too much, my grip needs to be stronger etc... I usually go after routes that are challenging for me but not routes that have a good chance of spitting me out. I like to lead routes on sight from the ground up. That is the way I feel that I have succeeded. I feel that is the best and most rewarding style. Falling off just isn't my thing. In order to keep myself from falling I will practice and train. thats just what I do. Of course it does happen occasionally.
good luck with the stacking and climb safe.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 22, 2005, 4:07 PM
Post #32 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Azrockclimber,
I said the guy that taugh me to lead was a 5.8 climber. I've been [trad] climbing for 31 years and have put up many hard trad FA's over that time, the last a five pitch 5.11c R last fall. I also don't dog or "take" on routes - I climb or I fall and I mainly love roofs and overhangs so that means I fall - a lot sometimes. My thoughts here are rooted in long experience, and personally I'm seeing more and more that people who climb sport first are not trad climbing close to their abilities and are less and less willing to fall on gear, which I think is an unfortunate trend. Also if you are dogging up [trad] routes then falling probably really isn't happening, but then it's a way different sort of game than I'm interested in...
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Apr 22, 2005, 4:44 PM
Post #33 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
The way healyje tells it, you would think that he invented sport tradding. Seriously, he sounds just like the newbie gym climber that went from gym to sport to trad in the space of a year. (there are enough of them on this site)
Stacking hexes is highly unusual and they are never the bomb.
If you take je's attitude to jtree, good chance you're going home in a body bag. Particularly if you pick routes like the op did.
There have been maybe two or three sensible replies in this thread.
Oh, and the original route in question is 35 feet long, you can see all of the route from the ground, and if you took a ten footer in the middle of it you would be bleeding for sure.
This station will now return you to toonville.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Apr 22, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #34 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
In reply to: The way healyje tells it, you would think that he invented sport tradding. Seriously, he sounds just like the newbie gym climber that went from gym to sport to trad in the space of a year. (there are enough of them on this site) Stacking hexes is highly unusual and they are never the bomb. If you take je's attitude to jtree, good chance you're going home in a body bag. Particularly if you pick routes like the op did. There have been maybe two or three sensible replies in this thread. Oh, and the original route in question is 35 feet long, you can see all of the route from the ground, and if you took a ten footer in the middle of it you would be bleeding for sure. This station will now return you to toonville.
I don't agree, I think healyje was on the mark. 17.5-10 = 7.5. That doesn't necessarily mean blood. I assume you know this, but just to clarify, a 10 footer is often only 3 or four feet above your pro which rope stretch and wiggly belayers. This isn't a dangerous fall at all onto a good #3 camalot. So, if his last piece was in the exact center of the route, he would probably only be about 7' below it when he stopped moving, which leaves him 10' off the ground, well out of the meat rocking zone. I climb with guys that onsight 12+ trad, in alpine settings. They whip all the time when they're climbing at their limit. Falling is good for your climbing if done safely, regardless of what level you're climbing at. Go for it, have fun!
Oh, and notice how I refrained from snide remarks?
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Apr 22, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #35 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
to reply to some of what's been said:
alpnclmbr1: eyecannon fell from about 20 ft, ended up about 10 ft up. There was no bleeding involved.
I agree that you can see the entire route from the ground; however, it looks as though it eases up after the first 15 ft. or so, but it doesn't. This wasn't a situation where eyecannon thought there was a good chance of falling and was going for it anyway; rather, something just slipped.
As to adjusting the hexes, I think they were set better when he placed them; probably due to the already-admitted mistake of clipping both the rope they had moved slightly by the time I arrived at them with my camera.
Nathaniel
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 22, 2005, 8:47 PM
Post #36 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: And falling is a normal part of climbing at or near you capabilities and that doesn't matter if you are 5.10 climber who falls on a 5.9 or a 5.7 climber that falls on a 5.7.
Looks like we get to agree on something healyje. 8^)
Of course, it's worth mentioning that it's often easier to find harder routes with safe falls than it is to find easier routes that have them. But when the falls are safe there's certainly nothing wrong with trying a move and maybe falling, whatever the grade is. And I would quite agree with your suggestion that failing to do this at least sometimes will inhibit your learning and development at the sport (and prevent you from really knowing what your limits actually are).
However, there's also another factor:
In reply to: I keep seeing endless commentary about "never falling on trad" and climbing trad "3-4 levels below my sport capabilities"; again, falling - trad or sport - is a normal part of climbing and if you aren't falling you are likely a) not learning and b) not climbing at your limits.
At my local trad area, there are only 2 traditional routes 5.12a or harder and they are both dangerous (where "traditional" means it was first ascended ground up; one of them is a bolted slab route). There are a few gear-only headpoint routes (is that "trad"?) in that range or some others with rap-bolts that also take gear; however I'm not interested in headpointing (I don't understand it---I'm satisfied with a clean toprope ascent) and the ones with rap-placed bolts are really more like sport climbs with gear involved (i.e. more inconvenient; so I'll just go climb all-bolted routes instead).
The point I'm making is that for some of us, the reason we climb trad "3-4 levels" below our sport capabilities (or in my case, more like 9 levels :lol:) is an issue of available routes that are reasonably protected, rather than an issue of being willing to fall (which I do plenty of). Oh and also an issue of complete lack of crack climbing skills....
I'm sure we can both agree though that it is quite strange how some people almost seem proud to have never fallen on their gear. Contrary to the perception you seem to have, though, in my experience (which is admittedly more limited than yours) this perspective really does not seem to have evolved out of sport climbing. Sport climbers are used to the philosophy of falling that you seem to share, and tend to more readily apply it to leading on gear.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Apr 22, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #37 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
looks interesting... Creative, for sure. Um, I think maybe it would have been better to only have the rope clipped into one of the hexes and have a non-load bearing attachment to the other one.
just my opinion...
hosh.
|
|
|
|
|
david.yount
Deleted
Apr 22, 2005, 10:14 PM
Post #38 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Bravo Bravo!
Excellent, what clever solution!
As healyje has said, I will repeat, I'd be happy to fall on that stack.
I believe that the taper of the two non-parallel faces on the red (left) hex is significantly greater than the taper of the two edges on the gray (right) hex; such that if the red hex was weighted it would jam the gray hex and the stack would hold.
Somebody offered to flip the gray hex, upside down, hopefully providing more lateral pressure during a fall.
I would keep the stack as is. The difference between the angles of the two tapers is not large, the net taper of the stack is small, and so the red hex might jam as firmly as an old Frost nut or a Sliding Ball Nut.
I would agree it would be nice to raise the gray hex relative to the red hex.
david yount.
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Apr 22, 2005, 11:43 PM
Post #39 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
Turn the biner around gates and rock don't mix. With a stack that deep? (hard to tell from a pic) I'd probably have a double length sling on it or and/or (just how deep is it?) make sure my belayer gave me a good bit of slack until I got past it a good ways unless they'd make me deck. In general what some said about the grey hex going up a bit but it's impossible to tell for me from the pic if that would really have been better. Maybe it's just me but I'm having a hard time being sure just how relatively deep the hexs are from the pic but even if I could see I'd rarely call a stack bomber unless I could feel it. So as far as I can tell it's somewhere between a total pos and pretty good if it's far back in the crack and you only have a single length runner on it and a tight belay I'm liking it a lot less.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Apr 23, 2005, 1:31 AM
Post #40 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Question: How do you judge a hex/stopper placement?
Answer: Look at where the hex/stopper contacts the rock.
Question: What if I cannot see where the hex/stopper contacts the rock due to the rock blocking my view?
Possible answers:
A: I cannot tell if that looks like a good placement or not because my view is blocked, therefore i will move it to where I can see how it is contacting the rock.
B: Which way is down? It looks like if you wiggled the runner they would just fall out of place.
C: How could you run out of large gear on a climb that doesn't need large gear? Especially with a rack of cams from a blue alie to a #4 camalot?
D: If it looks good from a distance, despite not really being able to see how the placement touches the rock in anyway, and knowing that it was placed by a gumby; I am going to pronounce it as a good placement.
Healy chooses "D"
&
Yount chooses "D"
Any other internet experts care to step up to the plate?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 23, 2005, 2:17 AM
Post #41 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: As healyje has said, I will repeat, I'd be happy to fall on that stack.
On the other hand, you were willing to rappel using a (single?) WC Helium as the brake bar of a carabiner brake.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Apr 23, 2005, 2:42 AM
Post #42 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
this is better than rockem sockem robots!
|
|
|
|
|
blakester
Apr 23, 2005, 2:51 AM
Post #43 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: In reply to: As healyje has said, I will repeat, I'd be happy to fall on that stack. On the other hand, you were willing to rappel using a (single?) WC Helium as the brake bar of a carabiner brake. -Jay
Apart from this having no relationship to the quality of the hex placement... so what? I've done many biner brake raps using a single carabiner for the brake.
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Apr 23, 2005, 2:53 AM
Post #44 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
to reply, again, to alpnclmbr1:
A -- taking a picture of it wasn't that easy. However, I can tell you that it had good contact against the right side of the crack.
B -- it took more than just wiggling the runner to take them out.
C -- this was the smallest part of this portion of the crack. I'm pretty sure it was bigger than a #4 camalot anyway. I imagine when it was first climbed either stacked hexes were used, or more likely, they just ran it out.
D -- well, I actually saw the placement and thought it was good. Obviously, there's no reason for you to believe me.
Nathaniel
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 23, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #45 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As healyje has said, I will repeat, I'd be happy to fall on that stack. On the other hand, you were willing to rappel using a (single?) WC Helium as the brake bar of a carabiner brake. -Jay Apart from this having no relationship to the quality of the hex placement... so what? I've done many biner brake raps using a single carabiner for the brake.
I think Jay's comment probably has something to do with the fact that the spine of the WC Helium carabiner is not round, but rather has an "I" beam shaped cross-section.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 23, 2005, 3:32 AM
Post #46 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: As healyje has said, I will repeat, I'd be happy to fall on that stack. On the other hand, you were willing to rappel using a (single?) WC Helium as the brake bar of a carabiner brake. -Jay Apart from this having no relationship to the quality of the hex placement...
It has to do with the judgment of the writer, Einstein.
In reply to: so what? I've done many biner brake raps using a single carabiner for the brake.
But would you use a WC Helium as the single brake bar? Why or why not?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
crazyakclimber
Apr 23, 2005, 4:23 AM
Post #47 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 69
|
hmmm... sketchy... you may want to invest in some big bros or some bd 6 camalots :mrgreen:
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 26, 2005, 1:55 AM
Post #48 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: The way healyje tells it, you would think that he invented sport tradding. Seriously, he sounds just like the newbie gym climber that went from gym to sport to trad in the space of a year. (there are enough of them on this site)
This, from a guy who has a couple of thousand posts, many pontificating on exactly "how to trad climb" - look in the mirror dude, you're talking about yourself. I was simply laying out that I have the experience to back up my comments and actually climbed in a time when stacking was business as usual.
In reply to: Stacking hexes is highly unusual and they are never the bomb.
One can only guess you've really haven't stacked many hexs. Again, it was a completely common activity and they are bomb more often than not if you aren't cluesless. I've had them hold repeated whippers on the same placement many, many times.
In reply to: D: If it looks good from a distance, despite not really being able to see how the placement touches the rock in anyway, and knowing that it was placed by a gumby; I am going to pronounce it as a good placement. Healy chooses "D"
Actually, unless you don't know what you are looking at there is more than sufficient visual information to determine this is a solid stack. Again, I'd dive on it all day long...
In reply to: If you take je's attitude to jtree, good chance you're going home in a body bag. Particularly if you pick routes like the op did.
Unfortunately, jt is one place I haven't had the pleasure, but I suspect going home in a body bag has more to do with who is doing the stacking than anything about the rock or attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Apr 26, 2005, 2:44 AM
Post #49 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
A clueless gumbie does a cam stack without a hint of the right way to do it. He has a partner who declares it fine despite the fact that it is obviously clipped wrong.
Then the clueless internet cheering squad kicks in.
In reply to: Good job on the stack. (snip) but I'd still fall on that all day from the look of it...
The stack is clipped wrong, as you noted.
The hexes are not oriented in the best manner in relation to each other, as you also noted.
Then there is the reality that you cannot see any of the places where the hexes touch the rock. (which you conveniently ignore.)
=-=-=-=-
This is the quality of advice that you get from thirty year climbers on this site? Guess so.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Apr 26, 2005, 7:13 AM
Post #50 of 62
(8466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: In reply to: but I'd still fall on that all day from the look of it... This is the quality of advice that you get from thirty year climbers on this site? Guess so.
That's why that phrase was at the end of my comments with the "but" and the "still" in it - that even though he clipped it wrong and it could be optimized - it's still a good actual stack of pieces.
So yep, they can take it from someone who's actually put up routes with stacked hexs and fallen on them or someone like you who hasn't.
In reply to: The way healyje tells it, you would think that he invented sport tradding. Seriously, he sounds just like the newbie gym climber that went from gym to sport to trad in the space of a year. (there are enough of them on this site)
Look, I don't know you well enough to say if you are a complete asshole, and you had some decent things to say in the "resting..." thread, but after cogent and insightful contributions like this one I'd say with slightly less swagger and attitude you and everyone else here would get a lot more mileage out of your knowledge and keyboard then they have in this one.
P.S. To those interested in some history here is a shot of some of Charlie Porter's old stackers from back in the day. These are from an ebay auction I just nabbed for Stephane's Nuts Museum in Corsica, France
http://cgi.ebay.com/...ame=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6
Also, discussed here: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...hp?p=1074793#1074793
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/...a/500/6299porter.jpg
Oh, and here's a link to Stephane's amazing Nuts Museum site:
http://www.needlesports.com/...useum/nutsmuseum.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
