|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2007, 3:36 PM
Post #1 of 84
(4631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jun 18, 2007, 4:50 PM
Post #2 of 84
(4585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
it depends. as usual. in making decisions in such situations there just is no substitute for experience.
see, you already learned a lesson. you shouldnt be below the leader if the route looks chossy.
i dont have a partner that would be 80punds (he would have to weight about 100 kg or 220 or so punds) heavier than me, but even if i had, in this situation i wouldve probably opted for not being anchored down. or, even better, get a partner that is a bit lighter.
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Jun 18, 2007, 4:56 PM
Post #3 of 84
(4576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
adatesman wrote: Any difference if you outweigh your partner (who's belaying) by a significant amount? Say... 80 pounds? She's finally getting used to the idea of not anchoring herself down when lead belaying and not anchored this time, but up until recently she would have been. I really don't like the thought that she would have been tied in place when that block came crashing through. Not that she would have had much time to do anything anyway... Thoughts? -a.
Yes. Don't do the heavy climber/light belayer thing at the Delaware Water Gap.
Edited to say: I'm not being pedantic. At the Water Gap, the routes wander and rockfall is a significant risk on every line. It doesn't matter where the belayer is, he or she needs to be able to move and with the weight differences, you'd have to take the risk of having your belayer dragged skyward. Given that a lot of the routes are lower angled at the start, that could be just oh so cheesegraterish.
My advice, go to the gunks.
(This post was edited by jgloporto on Jun 18, 2007, 5:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 18, 2007, 4:57 PM
Post #4 of 84
(4573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
# 1 rule of belaying - don't drop the leader
# 2 rule of belaying - stay out of the line of fire if stuff comes down.
Just satisfy those parameters however seems best on the specific cliff you're on.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jun 18, 2007, 5:04 PM
Post #5 of 84
(4556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Well, you can't always really make the call on where to belay in retrospect. Hindsight, you know?
Generally, the best belay spot is a good flat stance as close to directly below the first anticipated piece as possible. If you know there is loose rock, maybe a little off to the side.
But the responsibility during a lead with regard to falling rock is on both climbers. The leader should obviously do everything possible not to trundle hell down on the belay. The belayer should also be alert if there is loose rock on the climb, so that they might step aside. A helmet and a grigri is a good combo too. (I would higly recommend the grigri for a belayer who is significantly outweighed by the clibmer in any cirmcumstance, it lets them stay more in control while they fly through the air during a catch, IMO)
And without giving you too hard a time (because I wasn't there) maybe you should think about decision making when climbing. Was there any clue that the desk sized block was loose before you stepped on it, up above your wife? Rain also tends to loosen up soils and rockfall is more frequent after a rain. Are you and your wife experienced enough to be climbing in areas with loose rock? Not that there's any objective answer to that, but there are some different skills involved. More risks too, and if you're not willing to accept those risks, or at least not with your wife there, you should consider that.
Anyway, glad you were both ok. Hope you scored the booty.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jun 18, 2007, 5:13 PM
Post #6 of 84
(4542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
See where your lust for booty gets you?
Yes, if I were sport-belaying, I would have been standing directly under that first bolt and thus in the line of falling rock...
... but if I had known that the rock was so bad, I might have chosen to skip the route alltogether.
... but I am not all-knowing, so I wouldn't have known that.
... but for all I know, there had been accidents where the belayer was standing off to the side, and was hit by the rock dislodged by a climber off of a nearby route.
And we can go round and round the what-ifs all day. Bottom line -- Sometimes accidents happen despite our best efforts to be safe, so do what you should do, and be what it may... or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jun 18, 2007, 5:30 PM
Post #7 of 84
(4519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
I outweigh my wife by over 80 lbs. One option she'll employ - when the situation is right - is to wear the backpack when she's belaying me. She may even put rocks in it to add more weight. So if I take a 30' whip, she doesn't go flying into the first piece, and she can also move around if she needs to.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #8 of 84
(4514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: So, knowing that section of cliff is rather loose where would you have belayed from if you were on the sport route? At the base of the climb or off to the side? Any difference if you outweigh your partner (who's belaying) by a significant amount? Say... 80 pounds?
The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 18, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #9 of 84
(4487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jun 18, 2007, 6:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jun 18, 2007, 6:10 PM
Post #11 of 84
(4448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
rocknice2
Jun 18, 2007, 6:16 PM
Post #12 of 84
(4440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
shimanilami wrote: I outweigh my wife by over 80 lbs. One option she'll employ - when the situation is right - is to wear the backpack when she's belaying me. She may even put rocks in it to add more weight. So if I take a 30' whip, she doesn't go flying into the first piece, and she can also move around if she needs to.
If by this you mean , wearing it on her back then that is a very bad idea if she's not wearing a chest harness. A sudden pull will pull the lower torso up as the upper torso lags behind. ...... IE; BACKFLIP
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jun 18, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #13 of 84
(4434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
rocknice2 wrote: shimanilami wrote: I outweigh my wife by over 80 lbs. One option she'll employ - when the situation is right - is to wear the backpack when she's belaying me. She may even put rocks in it to add more weight. So if I take a 30' whip, she doesn't go flying into the first piece, and she can also move around if she needs to. If by this you mean , wearing it on her back then that is a very bad idea if she's not wearing a chest harness. A sudden pull will pull the lower torso up as the upper torso lags behind. ...... IE; BACKFLIP
Wow. I'd never considered that. But she's never complained, either.
I guess it's a case of "pick your poison."
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 18, 2007, 6:23 PM
Post #14 of 84
(4427 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
jt512 wrote: Whoever said, "A picture is worth 1000 words"... ...must have meant another picture. Jay
Must have. It looks like the poor bastard leading got his leg behind the rope and blew a piece. I'd think the belayer's head would look worse after a series of cartwheels towards the base, not better.
The weight difference between the climber and belayer throws an extra wrinkle in this. I'd usually anchor for that big of a difference. One option might be anchoring in a little loose so the belayer still has some mobility.
In an area known for rockfall, I'd probably belay off to the side rather than out from the base. On a route that's less than vertical, a large block may well strike down low and send rocks shooting out from the face. On an overhanging route, really close under the first clip might well be the safest place. In short, you really have to see what the conditions are from place to place. There may not be one best option.
As has been said, the climber needs to keep a look-out for loose rock and keep the belayer in the loop. Especially in the early spring or after a rain you really have to watch for the quality of the rock. Glad no one was hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 18, 2007, 6:30 PM
Post #15 of 84
(4414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: So, knowing that section of cliff is rather loose where would you have belayed from if you were on the sport route? At the base of the climb or off to the side? Any difference if you outweigh your partner (who's belaying) by a significant amount? Say... 80 pounds? The belayer should always stand enough to the side of the climber so that he won't be hit by the climber if he falls or by rockfall caused by the climber. If the belayer is 80 lb lighter than the climber, then the belayer should usually be anchored. If there is too much rockfall in the area for the belayer to be anchored, then, as someone else said, don't partner up at that area, since there seems to be no way to do so safely. Jay
The belayer could anchor way out of the danger zone. (Assuming the first piece of protection is suitable for an outward pull.)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Jun 18, 2007, 6:53 PM
Post #16 of 84
(4381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
Anchoring in can be a double edged sword. If unanchord she can move to avoid falling rock but could get pulled into the rock fall if you fell because of said falling rock. If anchored she couldn't get pulled in but she doesn't have as much room to move around to avoid the falling rock.
Personally I'd rather not be anchored, but I'm not a small woman and don't get tugged around as much as many while catching falls.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 18, 2007, 7:05 PM
Post #17 of 84
(4358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
the fact that you replied to me has me wondering....was I clear?
When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur. Rope drag and a required multidirectional first piece are the only negatives that come to mind. These aren't very strong negatives in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 18, 2007, 7:08 PM
Post #18 of 84
(4349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
granite_grrl wrote: If unanchord she can move to avoid falling rock but could get pulled into the rock fall if you fell because of said falling rock. If anchored she couldn't get pulled in but she doesn't have as much room to move around to avoid the falling rock.
I've seen a rock the size of a fridge fall where the belayer had been standing. Fortunately, the belayer allowed the climber to fall, while he ran out of the way, and then caught the falling climber. Had the belayer either locked off and stood his ground, or been anchored in, he'd still be there today (under that block).
You *can* get out of the way of falling blocks, even while providing some tension on the line. This is a skill worth practicing, imo.
Of course, this presupposes you're at the base. If you're at a hanging belay, all bets are off. RG has a great story about this. I'll let him tell it if he wants to.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Jun 18, 2007, 7:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 18, 2007, 7:18 PM
Post #19 of 84
(4333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
microbarn wrote: When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur.
The trouble is that it can be very hard to tell when 'far away' is far enough. For instance, I was once just hitting the trail down from the southwest side of Seneca. There was rockfall from somewhere near the Traffic Jam rappel. A softball-sized chunk ricocheted off the base and angled between my partners. I'd guess we were 35' from the point of impact, and that thing was moving.
In the instance given here, it's a less-than-vertical face. It's really hard to know how rocks are going to come off that at you. I'd probably set up to the side rather than away from the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2007, 7:28 PM
Post #20 of 84
(4319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
microbarn wrote: the fact that you replied to me has me wondering....was I clear?
If by "clear" you mean "clearly wrong," then yes.
In reply to: When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur. Rope drag and a required multidirectional first piece are the only negatives that come to mind. These aren't very strong negatives in my mind.
1. It often is not possible to anchor where no rockfall danger can occur.
2. For all intents and purposes these days, anchoring the belayer negates the possibility of providing a dynamic belay.
3. The further from the wall the belayer is positioned, the more the rope is exposed to rockfall.
4. The further the belayer is from the wall, the greater the horizontal force on the belayer if the leader falls. Sure, if anchored, the belayer can't be pulled into the wall, but he will get yanked harshly toward the wall. Are your Pennsylvania gumby brethren prepared for that?
5. If the belayer were as far from the wall as you seem to be suggesting, the first piece would have to be a truly multidirectional piece, as it would have to be able to withstand a large force over angles approaching a range of 180 degrees. If not a bolt, then we're talking a multi-piece anchor, equalized with with a sliding-x, or the like.
6. Rope drag could certainly be a serious issue.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #21 of 84
(4307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: I've seen a rock the size of a fridge fall where the belayer had been standing.
Sounds like the Riverside Quarry. No, wait, that was an actual fridge.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 18, 2007, 7:52 PM
Post #22 of 84
(4285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: cracklover wrote: I've seen a rock the size of a fridge fall where the belayer had been standing. Sounds like the Riverside Quarry. No, wait, that was an actual fridge. Jay
Thanks for the info. Note to self - never climb at Riverside Quarry.
This was Quincy Quarries, just outside Boston. They don't dump fridges on people there. But interestingly enough the mob used to dump people. Dead ones. They're all nicely covered with ~ 100 feet of Big-Dig dirt now, though.
Oh, and Majid - classic! Definitely deserving a trophy. Love the red head-smear of the stick man, what a nice touch.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 18, 2007, 8:21 PM
Post #23 of 84
(4256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: microbarn wrote: the fact that you replied to me has me wondering....was I clear? If by "clear" you mean "clearly wrong," then yes.
It wouldn't be right for your post to miss an opportunity to insult.
In reply to: In reply to: When anchoring in, it is possible to be very far away from the wall. Make your anchor in an area where no danger can occur. Rope drag and a required multidirectional first piece are the only negatives that come to mind. These aren't very strong negatives in my mind. 1. It often is not possible to anchor where no rockfall danger can occur. 2. For all intents and purposes these days, anchoring the belayer negates the possibility of providing a dynamic belay. 3. The further from the wall the belayer is positioned, the more the rope is exposed to rockfall. 4. The further the belayer is from the wall, the greater the horizontal force on the belayer if the leader falls. Sure, if anchored, the belayer can't be pulled into the wall, but he will get yanked harshly toward the wall. Are your Pennsylvania gumby brethren prepared for that? 5. If the belayer were as far from the wall as you seem to be suggesting, the first piece would have to be a truly multidirectional piece, as it would have to be able to withstand a large force over angles approaching a range of 180 degrees. If not a bolt, then we're talking a multi-piece anchor, equalized with with a sliding-x, or the like. 6. Rope drag could certainly be a serious issue. Jay
Feeling argumentative today, are we?
1. I could have rock fall in my living room, but the chances are reduced. Choose your anchor position accordingly. If no position exists to limit rock fall, then the question of "What to do with a light belayer?" changes to "Should I be belayed?"
2. If you are anchoring, then you are obivously willing to sacrifice a dynamic belay. This is mentioned before. For those of you (jt512) that can't follow the thread, it was also mentioned that your anchor could be loose to allow some movement and some dynamic belaying.
3. Indeed, the more rope is exposed to rock fall the more it could be cut. The sky is blue too. The rope coiled at the base of the climb in an area with expected rock fall potential is bad too. An attentive belayer anchored in loosely has a chance of moving so that the strand to the first bolt is not hit. The coiled rope is not going to be moved.
4. Man, you are reaching for arguments today. If the belayer is under the climb they could be pulled off the ground. Are they ready for that?
5. addressed already....in this case it was a sport climb
6. addressed
markc, you are correct. Using the wording "farther away from the first piece" could be more correct. It isn't always best to move away from the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 18, 2007, 8:38 PM
Post #24 of 84
(4233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Eistein,
microbarn wrote: 1. I could have rock fall in my living room, but the chances are reduced.
You also could be belaying on a narrow ledge, at a hanging belay, in a narrow canyon, or most anywhere else outside of Pennsylvania.
In reply to: Choose your anchor position accordingly. If no position exists to limit rock fall, then the question of "What to do with a light belayer?" changes to "Should I be belayed?"
Huh? As opposed to free solo?
In reply to: 2. If you are anchoring, then you are obivously willing to sacrifice a dynamic belay.
Sorry, but most people on this site who are anchoring wouldn't know a dynamic belay if it kicked them in the ass.
In reply to: 3. Indeed, the more rope is exposed to rock fall the more it could be cut. The sky is blue too. The rope coiled at the base of the climb in an area with expected rock fall potential is bad too.
But if rock hits the rope coiled at the base, the climber won't die, right?
In reply to: 4. Man, you are reaching for arguments today. If the belayer is under the climb they could be pulled off the ground. Are they ready for that?
Yes, they should be, and at least they have their body weight to counter the impact force, unlike with a horizontal pull.
In reply to: 5. addressed already
No, sorry, you didn't address it. You said it wouldn't be a problem. It did not occur to you that you'd have to build a full-blown anchor for the first piece, which usual pretty fucking impractical.
No, sorry, but I'd hardly call, "durrr.....not a problem, I don't think" addressing the problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason, or 2, or 6, that we don't anchor far away from the wall?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jun 18, 2007, 9:35 PM
Post #25 of 84
(4200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
jt512 wrote: Eistein, microbarn wrote: 1. I could have rock fall in my living room, but the chances are reduced. You also could be belaying on a narrow ledge, at a hanging belay, in a narrow canyon, or most anywhere else outside of Pennsylvania. In reply to: Choose your anchor position accordingly. If no position exists to limit rock fall, then the question of "What to do with a light belayer?" changes to "Should I be belayed?" Huh? As opposed to free solo?
In your descriptions, the problem is not the light belayer any more. You aren't addressing the problem I am.
In reply to: In reply to: 2. If you are anchoring, then you are obivously willing to sacrifice a dynamic belay. Sorry, but most people on this site who are anchoring wouldn't know a dynamic belay if it kicked them in the ass.
and that makes you more right how??
In reply to: In reply to: 3. Indeed, the more rope is exposed to rock fall the more it could be cut. The sky is blue too. The rope coiled at the base of the climb in an area with expected rock fall potential is bad too. But if rock hits the rope coiled at the base, the climber won't die, right?
Your logic is failing again. If the climber's rope is cut, they don't necessarily die.
If a belayer is hit by rockfall, then things are already bad and could get worse.
In reply to: In reply to: 4. Man, you are reaching for arguments today. If the belayer is under the climb they could be pulled off the ground. Are they ready for that? Yes, they should be, and at least they have their body weight to counter the impact force, unlike with a horizontal pull.
Are you following the same thread as me?
The belayer is too light to safely belay unanchored.
Your solution is to unanchor them?
In reply to: In reply to: 5. addressed already No, sorry, you didn't address it. You said it wouldn't be a problem. It did not occur to you that you'd have to build a full-blown anchor for the first piece, which usual pretty fucking impractical.
How would you like it addressed? I said you need a multidirectional piece of pro. You said you need a multidirectional piece of pro.
If I add an emoticon, would you consider this point addressed? 
In reply to: No, sorry, but I'd hardly call, "durrr.....not a problem, I don't think" addressing the problem.
No, the rope drag is there. You can choose to accept more risk to your belayer, or you can accept more rope drag.
Do I need an emoticon on this one too? 
In reply to: Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason, or 2, or 6, that we don't anchor far away from the wall?
Have you ever admitted you might be wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
