|
dingus
Feb 17, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #26 of 72
(3403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
justroberto wrote: The difference between falling 80 feet and falling 70 feet is miniscule.
No, its 10 feet actually.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
Feb 17, 2009, 6:01 PM
Post #27 of 72
(3403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
dingus wrote: angry wrote: You only really do the running belay to keep your climber off the ground. If you're a pitch up already, even if he ends up lower than you, he's off the ground still. Don't fall on runout slabs. Running backwards slab belay is NOT a 'running belay.' DMT
Yeah, that's what I thought at first too. I think he meant a "Carolina Running Belay". This is where on the first pitch the belayer is prepared to run away from the climb to take slack and prevent the leader from decking. I also thought it was a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 17, 2009, 6:59 PM
Post #28 of 72
(3387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
angry wrote: You only really do the running belay to keep your climber off the ground. If you're a pitch up already, even if he ends up lower than you, he's off the ground still.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 17, 2009, 6:59 PM
Post #29 of 72
(3386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
marc801 wrote: angry wrote: You only really do the running belay to keep your climber off the ground. If you're a pitch up already, even if he ends up lower than you, he's off the ground still. Let's see....first pitch ends on a ledge at 80'; the 160' second pitch starts with a 100' runout. Um, no, the leader's not going to be off the ground if he blows it.
Name the route....
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Feb 17, 2009, 7:02 PM
Post #30 of 72
(3381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
dingus wrote: Name the route....
Magical Mystery Tour, Fairview Dome, Tuolumne Meadows.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 17, 2009, 7:05 PM
Post #31 of 72
(3387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
ptlong wrote: dingus wrote: Name the route.... Magical Mystery Tour, Fairview Dome, Tuolumne Meadows.
Hehe.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Feb 17, 2009, 7:14 PM
Post #32 of 72
(3377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
A serious question: If the belayer were able to haul in several yards of rope on this 40-foot slab fall, does that increase the impact forces once the rope goes taut?
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Feb 17, 2009, 7:21 PM
Post #33 of 72
(3368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
fitzontherocks wrote: A serious question: If the belayer were able to haul in several yards of rope on this 40-foot slab fall, does that increase the impact forces once the rope goes taut?
Interesting thought! This thread has meaning again!
80 ft fall with 40 ft of rope out = ff2
Climber starts falling with 40 feet of runout, belayer hauls in 10 feet before rope comes taught, catches on 30 feet of rope. 70 ft fall with 30 ft of rope in service = ff ~2.3?
Things get more mathematically dire the more rope the belayer manages to haul in during the fall.
ex 2:
50 ft runout, belayer hauls in 40 ft (unlikely, but humor me) during fall, catches on 10 feet of rope:
Fall distance: 60ft.
Fall factor: 6???!?
Have we found a new theoretical maximum?
Probably not. The numbers look worse, but I'm betting in real world everything would be offset by various conditions such as the friction between the slab and the leader's face as it's being cheese-gratered off.
Edit: For the record, because some jackass will mention it like we all didn't know, this assumes unprotected runouts above the belay anchor. As ptlong pointed out, the pure math runs in the other direction if fall factor < 1.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Feb 17, 2009, 7:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Feb 17, 2009, 7:23 PM
Post #34 of 72
(3359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
fitzontherocks wrote: A serious question: If the belayer were able to haul in several yards of rope on this 40-foot slab fall, does that increase the impact forces once the rope goes taut?
It depends on the fall factor.
If it's greater than 1 then it increases the impact force. Less than 1 it decreases it.
edit: what I really mean is if the fall factor is less than 1 it decreases the fall factor and increases the fall factor if it is greater than 1. What exactly this does to the impact force when a climber is skiddering down a slab isn't as obvious.
(This post was edited by ptlong on Feb 17, 2009, 7:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbingam
Feb 17, 2009, 7:30 PM
Post #35 of 72
(3348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2009
Posts: 57
|
I was reading 'freedom of the hills' last night after it being suggested to me in another thread. Realized that running belay is something completely different. As other poster mentioned, I meant the one where you are jumping/running back to take up large amounts of slack.
As far as the debate in this thread, from what I saw in the situation, the angle of the slap I meantioned in the OP was 70 to 80 degrees. This might be off, I don't have a good grasp on eye-balling the degree. The climb is rated 5.6, and like I said is pretty runout.
I think if someone is sliding down a slab with it really runout, it's not 3 seconds till they get to the end of the rope, more like 10 seconds. The suggestion to take in slack hand over hand on the break side is probably the advice I would follow; locking off as the person gets in the range of the rope taking.
It will be a LONG time probably until I'm belaying someone on this climb that hasn't got it wired and I'm not leading it, maybe ever, because I just don't like the idea of "You Can Not Fall" (said like gandolf)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 17, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #36 of 72
(3344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Don't forget Gandalf's advice to would-be slab leaders about to pitch off....
"Fly, you fools!'
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 17, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #37 of 72
(3344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
fitzontherocks wrote: A serious question: If the belayer were able to haul in several yards of rope on this 40-foot slab fall, does that increase the impact forces once the rope goes taut?
The effect of taking in slack during the fall is to move the fall-factor away from 1. So, if the fall factor would have been less than 1, then taking in slack, reduces the fall factor. But if the fall factor would have been greater than 1, then taking in slack would increase the fall factor. In fact, if the fall factor would have been 2, then taking in slack would result in the fall factor being greater than 2.
Of course, if the climber is tumbling down a slab, the impact force will be less than if he were falling through clean air, all else equal.
Jay
Edit: GU'd x 2.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 17, 2009, 7:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbingam
Feb 17, 2009, 7:36 PM
Post #38 of 72
(3341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2009
Posts: 57
|
Can you point me to a resource that explains this type of belaying in detail? The hip break is how I was taught. Are you saying the break hand is in the small of the back and the other hand is across the front of the body OR are you saying it's where you lock off with both hands pulling straight down? I don't think I've seen anyone belaying where something other than the one arm back to break a fall is used!?!?!!??
Sorry for n00bishness.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 17, 2009, 7:44 PM
Post #39 of 72
(3334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
ja1484 wrote: Probably not. The numbers look worse, but I'm betting in real world everything would be offset by various conditions such as the friction between the slab and the leader's face as it's being cheese-gratered off.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Feb 17, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #40 of 72
(3321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
Just out of curiosity, this isn't John from E-Rock, is it? I'd get a huge kick out of that.
dingus wrote: justroberto wrote: The difference between falling 80 feet and falling 70 feet is miniscule. No, its 10 feet actually. DMT  Either way, it's going to sting a little!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 17, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #41 of 72
(3324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
marc801 wrote: ja1484 wrote: Probably not. The numbers look worse, but I'm betting in real world everything would be offset by various conditions such as the friction between the slab and the leader's face as it's being cheese-gratered off. The friction from sliding (or a bit less if tumbling) is a huge component in reducing the forces involved. My partner took a 40 footer on Punch Bowl (GPA, Yosemite) where he slid first on his feet a bit, then on his left side (till it got too hot and he rolled onto his right side). That fall took a good 6 or more seconds to complete (compare that with the theoretical 2.75s for an 80' free-fall mentioned up thread). I was able to haul in about 5 arm-loads of slack and barely felt the impact (belaying with a stitch plate directly on my harness), easily catching the fall with one hand.
OMG! A skilled belayer with common sense on rockclimbing.com! If I survive the shock we should go climbing sometime.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 17, 2009, 8:13 PM
Post #42 of 72
(3308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climbingam wrote: Can you point me to a resource that explains this type of belaying in detail? The hip break is how I was taught. Are you saying the break hand is in the small of the back and the other hand is across the front of the body OR are you saying it's where you lock off with both hands pulling straight down? I don't think I've seen anyone belaying where something other than the one arm back to break a fall is used!?!?!!??
The n00b brake-hand-in-the-small-of-the-back belay method would almost certainly result in loss of control of a factor-2 fall. The minimal amount of additional body friction afforded would be more than offset by the biomechanical disaster of having the brake arm jerked up your back by the impact force.
What I'm talking about is braking at the hip as normal, but when you anticipate that the impact force is going to be high, also placing the other hand on the brake side of the rope, practically doubling your grip strength.
Can I point you to a resource that recommends this? Surprisingly, no. As rgold observes in this outstanding post, for some mysterious reason, the simple, common sense expedient of using both hands to catch a hard fall seems never to have been mentioned in print.
rgold wrote: By far the most obvious fix, although this is not part of any belay protocol I've seen, is to quit wasting an entire hand and learn protocols that provide two-handed braking. This is easy to do when one is aware that a fall may be imminent; it is less likely, but perhaps not impossible, to achieve if the fall happens suddenly and without warning. Surely the first step is to train oneself to shift the non-braking hand down fast in all situations.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbingam
Feb 17, 2009, 8:33 PM
Post #43 of 72
(3294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2009
Posts: 57
|
no, not John BUT it was at e-rock. Christine's Variation. Crazy. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 17, 2009, 8:38 PM
Post #44 of 72
(3287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Because on rc.noob, no debate is ever dead. There will always be someone with a different opinion, however wrong it may be.
Uh-huh, sure. Like there's any truth to that.
I suppose the next thing you'll be telling me is that the Easter Bunny poops bunny shit.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Feb 17, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #45 of 72
(3263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
Ah, I was starting to think that I was the leader in question.
Anyways, on that route if the leader is on the first pitch, the belayer doesn't really have any room to run at the base, so reeling in the slack is the only viable option. It's so low angle for a while that the falling leader could probably just lay down and arrest his own fall. On the second (short) pitch, there's a red camalot placement in the flake above the anchor. Falling much above that would mean the leader would probably tumble over the bulge and splat on the slab right beside you. You could reel in as much slack as possible, but I don't think it would do any good since you won't have any time and he's face planting anyways.
For the third pitch, I've only gone up the awesome water groove off the right side of the ledge, but I think going up the face on the left side would be about the same. There's no gear and no bolts until you get to the summit, so a fall on this section would be pretty bad, maybe ending with the leader a long way below the anchor wrapped around one of those little trees. Here your reaction will be largely contingent on your anchor setup. Hopefully you redirected the belay through a biner on the anchor bolt. If so, you could reel in slack like a madman. If not, you'd damn well better focus on maintaining your brake when the leader falls directly on your harness or the anchor, however you've got it set up.
For what it's worth, when I set off for the summit, I told my girlfriend/belayer to yell as loudly as possible if I fell because she wouldn't be able to get us down and I wouldn't be conscious. It's super-fun, mellow climbing, but can be a little heady, especially with the knowledge that there are possibly a bunch of jackass boy scouts at the top throwing shit off.
(This post was edited by justroberto on Feb 17, 2009, 10:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Feb 17, 2009, 9:26 PM
Post #46 of 72
(3251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
dingus wrote: ptlong wrote: dingus wrote: Name the route.... Magical Mystery Tour, Fairview Dome, Tuolumne Meadows. Hehe. DMT
Hmmm...I actually remember the first bolt on the 2nd pitch as being not too far off the belay by Meadows standards. What I also remember is that it's a LONG way to anything else after clipping it. But that first pitch is fairly long. I don't think there's ever a spot on the 2nd pitch where you're likely to hit the ground. Not that you'd be any less dead, mind you...
Fun route, but certainly not a slab, btw.
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Feb 17, 2009, 11:49 PM
Post #47 of 72
(3208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
cfnubbler wrote: dingus wrote: ptlong wrote: dingus wrote: Name the route.... Magical Mystery Tour, Fairview Dome, Tuolumne Meadows. Hehe. DMT Hmmm...I actually remember the first bolt on the 2nd pitch as being not too far off the belay by Meadows standards. What I also remember is that it's a LONG way to anything else after clipping it. But that first pitch is fairly long. I don't think there's ever a spot on the 2nd pitch where you're likely to hit the ground. Not that you'd be any less dead, mind you... Fun route, but certainly not a slab, btw.
I appreciate this mild rebuke. I have not done the route and was going purely on what I remember a friend who did do it telling me a couple of years ago. He was quite clear on the impression that his partner (a really big guy, by the way) was in decking territory on pitch 2.
And to be sure it is not lacking in knobs up there but slab also refers to the angle of the stone. Would it would be less desirable for the belayer to try and pull in slack if instead of sliding down a smooth slab his partner was bouncing down a knobby face?
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 18, 2009, 12:16 AM
Post #48 of 72
(3201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I incorrectly used "running belay" as the running backwards belay notion.
For the perfectionists out there, I apologize.
The two definitions for "running belay" I've come up with are
1. Sliding a cam (or other movable gear) upward while on lead (wiki)
2. Simulclimbing (FOTH)
And yet in so many years of climbing I've never once heard of such term for either of these definitions. Even though I've done both extensively.
It feels to me like something that had meaning, then lost it somewhere along the way. R rated routes used to mean bad gear and huge injury. Now R means runout, though often true, it's not the definition. Still, so many people use the definition this way that's it's impossible to argue.
Probably the same with running belay, it's original meaning has been long lost and replaced with much easier to understand terms (simulclimbing, leapfrogging, sliding). Climbers are smart folks, they don't keep things overly complicated.
So there you have it, I was wrong but I was wrong for all the right reasons.
And to reiterate. You are all wasting your time worrying about how to catch a fall on a slab. Go spend your time learning how not to fall on a slab.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 18, 2009, 12:27 AM
Post #49 of 72
(3191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
"Running Belay"- I've always thought this was the term for any intermediate piece of protection on a pitch. Class 5 climbing differs from class 4 by the use of running belays.
The act of running away from a slab to keep a leader from hitting the ground, I thought, was called a "runaway belay".
Simulclimbing is simulclimbing. Doesn't need another word.
Advancing a single piece as you move up a pitch? Leapfrogging? Like the historic FA of the stovelegs?
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Feb 18, 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #50 of 72
(3189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
Terms get lost or modified. It's the way of language whether we like it or not.
As for "running belay" I could be mistaken but I believe the original meaning was simply a protection point through which the rope runs. In other words the typical cam or nut that you clip the rope to when leading.
I usually hear people use it to refer to simulclimbing.
(This post was edited by ptlong on Feb 18, 2009, 12:29 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
