|
rgold
Apr 16, 2007, 3:57 PM
Post #26 of 45
(853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
The fall described here is a factor .22 fall. With an 80 kg leader, a rope with a UIAA rating of 8.5 kN, and a static belay, one would expect 17% stretch, a bit less than 8 feet, which would put the fallen leader about 13 feet below the bolt. The additional 5 feet, if that's how much there was, must have come from slack in the system and belayer motion.
|
|
|
|
|
stevej
Apr 16, 2007, 4:14 PM
Post #27 of 45
(843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 117
|
granite_grrl wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Have you seen some one getting hurt from falling ? If so, can you tell us about it I wish there was a one eyebrow raised smilie face. I indeed see someone who has been hurt by falling every single day. I was around for that accident, but I don't really remember it. From reports of my accident the rope didn't catch me before I hit the ledge. The route was runout, and I'm sure I was aware of the dangers, figured I wouldn't fall on easy ground, and lost the gamble. Nothing to do with falling further than expected, or rope strech or bad belaying. I will say that the fall lengths do interest me because the idea of ever hitting another ledge terrifies me! But this thread is to serve as a reminder to people to be careful and to maybe understand lead falls a little better. I'd rather not have this conversation turn into what happens when you hit a ledge, but what to keep in mind so you won't.
Stop, don't indulge him!!! You've been around long enough to know what major_sorbet's real interest is - he's probably masturbating feverishly at the description of another climbing accident.
|
|
|
|
|
joshy8200
Apr 16, 2007, 4:37 PM
Post #28 of 45
(827 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 646
|
Those numbers don't seem that surprising at all. You factor in the exaggeration affect (I'm not picking here...it's just a usual phenomenon.) And 2-3 above the bolt should be a 6 footer. So a 10 footer 3 feet out from the bolt is not anything to be 'surprised' by.
Also think about this. Every factor that adds distance to the fall doubles. Ie: You think you're 2-3 feet above the bolt, but you're actually 3.75 feet above the bolt. Well you're actually adding 1.5 feet to a fall estimated from the 3 feet above the bolt. This would also apply to your rope stretch and any slack in the system of course and those numbers would add up quickly.
Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Apr 16, 2007, 4:50 PM
Post #29 of 45
(813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
stevej wrote: Stop, don't indulge him!!! You've been around long enough to know what major_sorbet's real interest is - he's probably masturbating feverishly at the description of another climbing accident.
If so he should go back and read some of the threads he has posted to here as he has already probably masturbated to this one. It really makes me wonder if Majid really reads any of the posts he "responds" to.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
Apr 16, 2007, 5:02 PM
Post #30 of 45
(798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
In reply to: Just something to think about.
Exactly the reason why we posted this.
I guess the range of comments doesn't really surprise me. Its too bad so many people who have decided to put in their $.02 have missed the point.
For what its worth there was no rope slippage as we were using a Gri-Gri. There was a small amount of slack out, as in how anyone who isn't constantly shortroping their partner will normally have. Rebecca was not anchored and she did get pulled up some on each fall.
|
|
|
|
|
joshy8200
Apr 16, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #31 of 45
(791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 646
|
chossmonkey wrote: In reply to: Just something to think about. Exactly the reason why we posted this. I guess the range of comments doesn't really surprise me. Its too bad so many people who have decided to put in their $.02 have missed the point.
I didn't mean to 'miss the point' by adding my $.02 at all. I get the point of being extremely aware of the possible distance of a fall, which y'alls' experiment does a very good job at pointing out sometimes we underestimate the distances that we could possibly fall.
I only meant to chime in that there a quite a few factors that we may overlook when estimating how far we will fall vs how far we will actually fall.
The comment about exaggeration is meant to point out that a lot of times we will may think we have fallen farther than 'possible' or farther than we should have...But in actuality (in climbing) those claims can be explained by the phenomenon I spoke of.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Apr 16, 2007, 5:15 PM
Post #32 of 45
(785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
microbrain wrote:
In reply to: To recap for those with reading comprehension similar to dynosore's level. Everything from the belayer's perspective was done correctly.
yet in your original post, microbrain, you wrote:
In reply to: The belayer got a broken nose from the impact. In reply to: Both climbers are worried that the belayer was not prompt in locking off.
Yeah, how did I ever get the impression the belayer could have done a better job, standing directly under the climber when 2 steps to the side would have saved them a broken nose and still given a safe belay, and by your own story it's questionable whether they were ready and locked off to catch the fall....my comprehension is more than adequate, work on YOUR presentation. And you're an idiot if you think it's the climber's fault because he didn't ANNOUNCE his fall intentions, the belayer should be ready to catch a fall AT ANY TIME.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Apr 16, 2007, 5:30 PM
Post #33 of 45
(772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
This is why I hadn't posted in a public forum before.
In reply to: Both climbers are worried that the belayer was not prompt in locking off.
To mean that we thought of that issue already. The belayer was giving slack at the time on an ATC, and his hand was out of brake position to facilitate that.
The point about standing to the side is mute. The normal recommendation is to stand under the first bolt after the climber is clipped to the second bolt. This climber was all the way to the third bolt.
dynosore wrote: work on YOUR presentation
point taken... you seem to understand now, and you are just argumentative through the rest of your post. I don't need to side track the thread defending any more.
(This post was edited by microbarn on Apr 16, 2007, 5:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Apr 16, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #34 of 45
(745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
or moot even.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Apr 16, 2007, 6:14 PM
Post #35 of 45
(741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
 good catch I will leave it as mute for others to laugh too.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Apr 16, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #36 of 45
(718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Way to let it go, microbarn... good work muting the flames! :D
Anyway, thanks for posting you 2. I'd agree there are definately too many people not thinking seriously about what could happen during a lead fall.
I think this is especially neglected when clipping the second bolt [and even third] that can lead to ground falls.
And on top of that, many belayers will sit down on the most comfortable belay seat they can find, not standing close to the wall. And let's admit it, often it's a GF belaying, and they weigh less than the macho BF whose leading [I'm including myself here :D]... and if a lead fall happens, you fall farther because the belayer not only gets pulled up, but also towards the wall.
Good points, everyone. Reminds me that it's good to tell your belayer to stand into the wall and pay attention.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Apr 16, 2007, 6:48 PM
Post #37 of 45
(714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
As an addendum:
Maybe people aren't falling enough and there aren't enough falls to keep belayers sharp. I know lot's of leaders that will "take" instead of falling, including myself at times. There are leaders out there who only have a couple of whippers in their climbing carrier because they take so much!
Perhaps everyone should learn to fall more SO THAT belayers can practice staying more attentive. [I'm talking sport climbing here; obviously falling on tenuous gear is a judgement call.]
PS
(This post was edited by psprings on Apr 16, 2007, 6:49 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2007, 6:53 PM
Post #38 of 45
(706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
deadhorse wrote: I have a rather soft 10.2 (mammut eiger) and weight 180. Couple that with the fact that we have very short routes at the crags I frequent, and it means i've hit the ground more than i like.
You know, actually, you're never supposed to hit the ground. I think you have a bigger problem than a stretchy rope.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2007, 6:58 PM
Post #39 of 45
(698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
microbarn wrote: dynosore wrote: In reply to: We also gave the leader an ear full for the unannounced practice lead fall. Verses giving the belayer an earful for not being ready to catch a fall? Nice  The belayer caught the fall. The climb was easy and the leader was climbing fast. The belayer was trying to give an appropriate amount of slack to ensure the leader wasn't hindered. To recap for those with reading comprehension similar to dynosore's level. Everything from the belayer's perspective was done correctly.
Unfortunately for the belayer, his perspective was apparently from directly below the leader. Do you think that was correct?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #40 of 45
(689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lena_chita wrote: It is strange, but I noticed that shorter falls ( 5-6 ft) that I have taken since then were actually worse -- I felt more of a rope jerk, I was slamming into the rock weirdly, etc.
Nothing weird about that at all. The falls are short and hard because your belayer is pulling you into the wall, instead of giving you slack and a dynamic belay. By any chance, is this the same belayer who caught you on your first, long fall? If so, the psychology makes sense: he thought he dropped you too far the first time, so now he's pulling in slack (perhaps unconsciously), resulting in shorter, harder, and potentially more injurious falls.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 16, 2007, 7:13 PM
Post #41 of 45
(679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
microbarn wrote: The point about standing to the side is mute [sic].
The belayer was injured in the fall and you think the point is moot? "Microbrain" it is.
In reply to: The normal recommendation is to stand under the first bolt after the climber is clipped to the second bolt.
Maybe that's the "normal recommendation" in Pennsylvania. In the rest of the climbing world, we realize that the belayer should almost never stand directly below the climber. Standing a little off to the side reduces the chances that the belayer will be hit by rockfall or by the climber himself.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Apr 16, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #42 of 45
(666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
psprings wrote: As an addendum: Maybe people aren't falling enough and there aren't enough falls to keep belayers sharp. I know lot's of leaders that will "take" instead of falling, including myself at times. There are leaders out there who only have a couple of whippers in their climbing carrier because they take so much! Perhaps everyone should learn to fall more SO THAT belayers can practice staying more attentive. [I'm talking sport climbing here; obviously falling on tenuous gear is a judgement call.] PS
I don't know if you're trolling, but the last thing I want to do is take a whipper as a way of testing my belayer. I see what you're saying; people should learn what it's like to catch a lead fall, but in the way that Nate and Rebecca did it: a controlled enviroment where everyone knows what's up. What you seem to be suggesting is a random ping to see if your belayer is awake. All the above stuff about proper aniticipation of fall length, etc. aside, it indeed shouldn't matter since belayer's should be paying attention all the time, right? In reality, I think we'd have more accidents.
People just need to learn to belay properly and pay attention. It's not that hard....
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Apr 16, 2007, 7:47 PM
Post #43 of 45
(651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
That's not what I'm saying at all, actually. You misunderstand. I'm not talking about random "testing" of the belayer or non-random testing at all; I'm talking about taking a fall when you're coming off instead of a down-climb + take.
The point is, often times, when people know they are going to be falling, instead of ACTUALLY falling, they tend to "take". I simply suggest that since leaders know that they are "coming off", that instead of taking, they should fall and let their belayer know that they are falling. This does not prevent the leader from letting their belayer know verbally that they are going to be falling instead of taking.
I don't think that most sport climbing falls result in injury, and I don't think that never falling is a solution that keeps people from getting hurt. If anything, it makes them less safe for when a fall does occur.
Hope that clears up my point; I think were talking about 2 different situations. I agree with you on random testing; it's not smart to not let your belayer know when you're falling. I'm usually saying things like "watch me" "freaking small holds up here... ugh!" "holy crow, Batman, I'm about to fly!".
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 17, 2007, 4:14 AM
Post #44 of 45
(576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: lena_chita wrote: It is strange, but I noticed that shorter falls ( 5-6 ft) that I have taken since then were actually worse -- I felt more of a rope jerk, I was slamming into the rock weirdly, etc. Nothing weird about that at all. The falls are short and hard because your belayer is pulling you into the wall, instead of giving you slack and a dynamic belay. By any chance, is this the same belayer who caught you on your first, long fall? If so, the psychology makes sense: he thought he dropped you too far the first time, so now he's pulling in slack (perhaps unconsciously), resulting in shorter, harder, and potentially more injurious falls. Jay
In addition, of course, there is less rope in the system to stretch and absorb the energy generated.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
deadhorse
Apr 17, 2007, 4:29 AM
Post #45 of 45
(567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 241
|
jt512 wrote: You know, actually, you're never supposed to hit the ground. I think you have a bigger problem than a stretchy rope. Jay
In reply to: I hate it when you are falling, and you have time to think "hey I should have stopped by now". >Cam
YES! I was working a "project" climb's crux and blew it, for the first time, and it was only at like the 22 ft mark. My tiny belayer (she's 100 lbs, I'm 180) was way back from the base. All I had in my head was "I wonder if she's gonna catch me before I hit the ground..." My ass finally came to a stop a few feet off the deck.
Kinda makes you happy when you realize you should have been scared, but were only curious instead! 
(This post was edited by deadhorse on Apr 17, 2007, 4:30 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
