|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 2, 2008, 6:37 PM
Post #26 of 85
(11756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
altelis wrote: I really don't understand this point of view, to be honest. It seems to me that you reduce the peak force seen in a fall// chances of catastrophic failure by building a solid anchor with the consequence meaning running it out a little more. Right? Especially given that he ran it out right off the anchor anyway. How would it be better to build a crappier anchor but have 1 extra piece of gear for the pitch? The thinking that it would be better to have a crappy anchor but not have to run it out seems to me to be an indication of a SCARED train of thought NOT a rational one,eh? sorry, I agree with you, I meant to type can't but instead typed can. I build my anchors to be solid 100% of the time, and i'll keep adding pieces until I feel like it is good enough, which is usually 3 pieces, but sometimes more. I can't recall a single anchor that I've built that had less than 3 pieces unless there was a bomber bolt, tree, or boulder involved.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Sep 2, 2008, 6:44 PM
Post #27 of 85
(11744 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
fair enough. though i will say i've consistently (not necessarily often, though) used 2 piece gear anchors. usually this is while alpine climbing. if i can incorporate a good "stance" or have the rope running over a ridge, etc., i'll count that as "part" of the anchor. two SOLID big nuts in separate cracks, plus the climbing crosses onto the otherside of a ridge, good to go. this is rare though, like i said, and VERY situation specific.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 2, 2008, 6:45 PM
Post #28 of 85
(11743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: I agree that a 2 piece gear anchor is never a good idea. My question is why did 3 placements fail? Of course, it's easy enough for 3 pieces to fail if they were sketchy placements. Even easier if the nut in the anchor was good but placed for upward pull only. Perhaps Claire will shed some light once her mind has time to clear. Best wishes for Trevor and Claire. Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Sep 2, 2008, 6:48 PM
Post #29 of 85
(11735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
Hindsight is 20/20. Let's just wish them well.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 2, 2008, 6:49 PM
Post #30 of 85
(11731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
majid_sabet wrote: A good climber should build his anchor not based on number of pieces on the wall but based on what the maximum forces may apply to their anchor in SOL situation such as both leader and belayer falling from the anchor. Exactly. The number of pieces is irrelevant. The anchor should be built in such a way that it will not fail given the worst possible scenario. Best wishes to those involved in the accident. It suonds like they got lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
jungle_george
Sep 2, 2008, 6:51 PM
Post #31 of 85
(11739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2008
Posts: 85
|
If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Sep 2, 2008, 7:18 PM
Post #32 of 85
(11702 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jungle_george wrote: If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something? Good point. One possibility is that the first piece and the anchor failed simultaneously.. rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 2, 2008, 7:19 PM
Post #33 of 85
(11701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jungle_george wrote: If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something? you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Sep 2, 2008, 7:21 PM
Post #34 of 85
(11699 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
robdotcalm wrote: Trevor placed a #1 BD cam and proceeded to climb above it. He complained of some difficulties with the climbing and suddenly pitched off backwards. He came tight to the #1 which he was roughly 5 feet above. The cam pulled and he continued falling backward, now head-first, toward the belay. Claire locked off the rope through her ATC and braced inward against the wall to arrest the fall. Trevor hit Claire causing her to slam into the wall leading to fractures of her cheek bone, arm and wrist. Claire also was knocked unconscious at this point. Trevor continued his fall and as the rope came tight through the anchor, the two pieces failed. Luckily for Claire, she had collapsed onto the ledge when she passed out. Her unconscious state also led to a relaxed grip on the rope. Thus, as Trevor continued falling, Claire remained on the ledge despite the anchor blowing. Had she not been knocked out, she would have certainly kept a tight hold on the brake and undoubtedly would have been pulled off the ledge into a fall with Trevor. Sadly, under these circumstances, there was virtually nothing that would have kept Trevor from decking but Claire somehow escaped the same fate. Sounds like the rope was clipped through the master point and when he hit the end of the rope (after his piece failed) that the two piece anchor failed. Hard to say for sure, but if the anchor hadn't failed, I don't think he would have decked.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 2, 2008, 7:26 PM
Post #35 of 85
(11685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: robdotcalm wrote: Trevor placed a #1 BD cam and proceeded to climb above it. He complained of some difficulties with the climbing and suddenly pitched off backwards. He came tight to the #1 which he was roughly 5 feet above. The cam pulled and he continued falling backward, now head-first, toward the belay. Claire locked off the rope through her ATC and braced inward against the wall to arrest the fall. Trevor hit Claire causing her to slam into the wall leading to fractures of her cheek bone, arm and wrist. Claire also was knocked unconscious at this point. Trevor continued his fall and as the rope came tight through the anchor, the two pieces failed. Luckily for Claire, she had collapsed onto the ledge when she passed out. Her unconscious state also led to a relaxed grip on the rope. Thus, as Trevor continued falling, Claire remained on the ledge despite the anchor blowing. Had she not been knocked out, she would have certainly kept a tight hold on the brake and undoubtedly would have been pulled off the ledge into a fall with Trevor. Sadly, under these circumstances, there was virtually nothing that would have kept Trevor from decking but Claire somehow escaped the same fate. Sounds like the rope was clipped through the master point and when he hit the end of the rope (after his piece failed) that the two piece anchor failed. Hard to say for sure, but if the anchor hadn't failed, I don't think he would have decked. May be or some knot ended up in the middle of the rope which stopped him from falling .In Either case, we do not know for sure what stopped the rope. 12 years ago similar accident happened where the leader fell and belyer burnet his hand and let go of his belay causing leader to fall additional 50 feet but then some knot ended in their rope and got jammed in the belay which arrested his fall.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 2, 2008, 7:36 PM
Post #36 of 85
(11669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: robdotcalm wrote: Trevor placed a #1 BD cam and proceeded to climb above it. He complained of some difficulties with the climbing and suddenly pitched off backwards. He came tight to the #1 which he was roughly 5 feet above. The cam pulled and he continued falling backward, now head-first, toward the belay. Claire locked off the rope through her ATC and braced inward against the wall to arrest the fall. Trevor hit Claire causing her to slam into the wall leading to fractures of her cheek bone, arm and wrist. Claire also was knocked unconscious at this point. Trevor continued his fall and as the rope came tight through the anchor, the two pieces failed. Luckily for Claire, she had collapsed onto the ledge when she passed out. Her unconscious state also led to a relaxed grip on the rope. Thus, as Trevor continued falling, Claire remained on the ledge despite the anchor blowing. Had she not been knocked out, she would have certainly kept a tight hold on the brake and undoubtedly would have been pulled off the ledge into a fall with Trevor. Sadly, under these circumstances, there was virtually nothing that would have kept Trevor from decking but Claire somehow escaped the same fate. Sounds like the rope was clipped through the master point and when he hit the end of the rope (after his piece failed) that the two piece anchor failed. Hard to say for sure, but if the anchor hadn't failed, I don't think he would have decked. Just wanted to point out that it seems unlikely anyone knows right now when the anchor pieces came out. Claire went unconcious about the time Trevor landed on her. Trevor's view isn't available at this point. Since Claire remained on the belay ledge, it seems most likely that the anchor pieces were knocked out when Trevor hit the belay.
|
|
|
|
|
jungle_george
Sep 2, 2008, 8:21 PM
Post #37 of 85
(11590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2008
Posts: 85
|
"you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself" A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm??? Don't you have someone to rescue???
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 2, 2008, 9:44 PM
Post #39 of 85
(11526 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
jungle_george wrote: "you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself" A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm??? Don't you have someone to rescue??? You see, you guys always focus on the event by itself and not the true causes on WHY these climbers took fewer gear with them. let's talk about “climb light and fast mentality” MS
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 2, 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #40 of 85
(11515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
majid_sabet wrote: jungle_george wrote: "you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself" A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm??? Don't you have someone to rescue??? You see, you guys always focus on the event by itself and not the true causes on WHY these climbers took fewer gear with them. let's talk about “climb light and fast mentality” MS The climbing at Suicide hardly dictates a "fast and light" style. What's your point? Does it really matter why they didn't have enough gear with them to adequately protect the route?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 2, 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #41 of 85
(11487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
trenchdigger wrote: majid_sabet wrote: jungle_george wrote: "you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself" A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm??? Don't you have someone to rescue??? You see, you guys always focus on the event by itself and not the true causes on WHY these climbers took fewer gear with them. let's talk about “climb light and fast mentality” MS The climbing at Suicide hardly dictates a "fast and light" style. What's your point? Does it really matter why they didn't have enough gear with them to adequately protect the route? Of course it matters. If you do not enough gear to securely lead a pitch then you should stay down below and try some bouldering and not to jeopardize your own and the belayer's life with some half ass protection.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 2, 2008, 10:45 PM
Post #42 of 85
(11472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
majid_sabet wrote: trenchdigger wrote: majid_sabet wrote: jungle_george wrote: "you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself" A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm??? Don't you have someone to rescue??? You see, you guys always focus on the event by itself and not the true causes on WHY these climbers took fewer gear with them. let's talk about “climb light and fast mentality” MS The climbing at Suicide hardly dictates a "fast and light" style. What's your point? Does it really matter why they didn't have enough gear with them to adequately protect the route? Of course it matters. If you do not enough gear to securely lead a pitch then you should stay down below and try some bouldering and not to jeopardize your own and the belayer's life with some half ass protection. You're only reinforcing my point. Asking why they didn't have enough/proper gear with them in the first place (ie. they mis-judged the route, overconfidence, guidebook error, etc) does not explain why they continued to climb when it became apparent that their gear was not adequate.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Sep 2, 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #43 of 85
(11446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
If the anchor was only oriented for an upward force, when the first piece pulled, subsequent forces would have been directly downward. When Claire's recuperated a bit more, maybe she could tell us more about the anchor orientation. I know that I've set a piece in an anchor and then realized it was only good for upward force, so I had to re-orient.
|
|
|
|
|
dicktracy
Sep 3, 2008, 12:51 AM
Post #44 of 85
(11357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 5, 2008
Posts: 9
|
Seriously, who in the hell would build an anchor only protecting against an upward force? That's a mistake which should make you rethink climbing without a guide. Sorry to be a dick. But seriously, no experienced climber should be doing that. Majid, I disagree. More protection is the obvious answer. In hindsight, it's true they should have had more protection. Now the question is why did the protection they have fail? We've answered your question, so what else can we learn? Edited to be nicer.
(This post was edited by dicktracy on Sep 3, 2008, 12:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Sep 3, 2008, 1:08 AM
Post #45 of 85
(11346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
dicktracy wrote: Seriously, who in the hell would build an anchor only protecting against an upward force? That's a mistake which should make you rethink climbing without a guide. Sorry to be a dick. But seriously, no experienced climber should be doing that. Majid, I disagree. More protection is the obvious answer. In hindsight, it's true they should have had more protection. Now the question is why did the protection they have fail? We've answered your question, so what else can we learn? Edited to be nicer. Disagree here and agree with trench/majid (who agree even if they don't know it) the question about why gear failed IS curious, but still only secondary to the question of why such short-sided decision making was made (ie why not reinforce the anchor and run it out more instead of climbing "more protected" on a crappier anchor)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 3, 2008, 1:08 AM
Post #46 of 85
(11346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
dicktracy wrote: Seriously, who in the hell would build an anchor only protecting against an upward force? That's a mistake which should make you rethink climbing without a guide. Sorry to be a dick. But seriously, no experienced climber should be doing that. Majid, I disagree. More protection is the obvious answer. In hindsight, it's true they should have had more protection. Now the question is why did the protection they have fail? We've answered your question, so what else can we learn? Edited to be nicer. Just one little note... If you are belayin' off the deck you don't have to include a downwards anchor, just in case anyone silly readz this forum. secondly, make sure to keep editing to stay nice, no doubt this guy is going to find this thread eventually and the saying"adding insult to injury" will never have been more true.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 3, 2008, 4:17 AM
Post #47 of 85
(11287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
[URL=http://imageshack.us] [URL=http://imageshack.us] [URL=http://imageshack.us] [URL=http://imageshack.us] [URL=http://imageshack.us] [URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Sep 3, 2008, 5:42 AM
Post #48 of 85
(11236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
jungle_george wrote: If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something? It could have happened this way. Climber falls, pulls #1 Camalot, and hits belayer. Belayer is knocked out and can't apply the brakes. Leader falls the length of the first pitch. Rope comes taught on anchor, just before he decks. Anchor fails but because climber decks, no more rope is pulled out. Belayer manages to stay on ledge because of this. It would take an amazing stroke of luck for the fall distance to be just a little longer than the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Sep 3, 2008, 6:03 AM
Post #49 of 85
(11226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
catbird_seat wrote: jungle_george wrote: If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something? It could have happened this way. Climber falls, pulls #1 Camalot, and hits belayer. Belayer is knocked out and can't apply the brakes. Leader falls the length of the first pitch. Rope comes taught on anchor, just before he decks. Anchor fails but because climber decks, no more rope is pulled out. Belayer manages to stay on ledge because of this. It would take an amazing stroke of luck for the fall distance to be just a little longer than the rope. just remember that longer dynamic rope in service reduces the impact so most likely,the anchor failed during the initial impact where the leader hit the belayer .As belayer got knocked off, his weight turned in to a dead anchor which also reduced the shock. My guess is that anchor failed right after the upward shock load .
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Sep 3, 2008, 6:05 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 3, 2008, 6:18 AM
Post #50 of 85
(11214 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
majid_sabet wrote: catbird_seat wrote: jungle_george wrote: If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay. The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no. Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did. Am I missing something? It could have happened this way. Climber falls, pulls #1 Camalot, and hits belayer. Belayer is knocked out and can't apply the brakes. Leader falls the length of the first pitch. Rope comes taught on anchor, just before he decks. Anchor fails but because climber decks, no more rope is pulled out. Belayer manages to stay on ledge because of this. It would take an amazing stroke of luck for the fall distance to be just a little longer than the rope. just remember that longer dynamic rope in service reduces the impact so most likely,the anchor failed during the initial impact where the leader hit the belayer .As belayer got knocked off, his weight turned in to a dead anchor which also reduced the shock. My guess is that anchor failed right after the upward shock load . I can't say that I have any fucking idea what that means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|