|
suilenroc
Feb 24, 2009, 6:26 AM
Post #26 of 52
(3492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581
|
coastal_climber wrote: suilenroc wrote: coastal_climber wrote: I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link. Probably the quality of rock or the person who put the bolts in... One of many risks we take.
agreed. 
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 24, 2009, 6:34 AM
Post #27 of 52
(3486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
coastal_climber wrote: I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link.
|
|
|
|
|
mem_drifter
Feb 24, 2009, 4:42 PM
Post #28 of 52
(3450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7
|
Ive been reading up and studying on all the comments everyone has made and greatly appreciate the help. I also just bought a new rope and its a 10.2mm rope and i believe its rated at 8 or 9 falls.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Feb 24, 2009, 5:02 PM
Post #29 of 52
(3443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
USnavy wrote: coastal_climber wrote: I know, but that's what ropes are tested to. It comes down to the weakest link. Which is likely the human body in may cases. You would be good off if you made it through one factor two fall without an injury. Making it through the standard 8 - 12 falls that most 10.5 mm ropes can handle.... that’s ultra improbable. Chances are after your second one you wouldn’t be able to climb back up in a position to take a third.
it should be noted that all rope manufacturers recommend that if you experience even one fall approaching factor 2, you should retire that rope immediately afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Feb 24, 2009, 5:12 PM
Post #30 of 52
(3439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
USnavy wrote: That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg.
Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved?
r.c.
SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words).
edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.
(This post was edited by robdotcalm on Feb 24, 2009, 5:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jmvc
Feb 24, 2009, 5:17 PM
Post #31 of 52
(3433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 647
|
SBBW shurely?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 24, 2009, 5:52 PM
Post #32 of 52
(3415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I don't want this to sound like you should NOT climb, but... well, let's just say, it's a pretty good thing you're seeking info. Make sure this thread isn't your only source. Here you go:
http://www.safeclimbing.org/..._Climbers_Beware.pdf
Edit: just to give proper credit, it looks like that pdf originally comes from PMI.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 24, 2009, 6:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 24, 2009, 6:09 PM
Post #33 of 52
(3406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Also:
1. Don't climb choss.
|
|
|
|
|
mem_drifter
Feb 24, 2009, 7:31 PM
Post #34 of 52
(3389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 7
|
Thank you for that article it helped me understand the forces alot more and was very informative.
|
|
|
|
|
crackmeup
Feb 24, 2009, 8:04 PM
Post #35 of 52
(3380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 146
|
mem_drifter wrote: Im new to sport climbing and weigh around 300lbs. Im just a big guy not really that fat haha. What im wondering if i get into sport climbing and take a good fall do i need to worry about anything because of my weight?.
If I were in your situation, I would stick to top-roping for the time being while engaging in a weight loss program (assuming you are not a giant and thus not overweight). Here are a few reasons:
- The lighter you are (within reason), the better you'll climb. As you lose weight, you'll see tremendous progress.
- Many more people will be able/willing to belay you. At less than half your weight, I would not dare belay you on a sport route.
- You'll be less likely to get hurt in the event of a ground fall (e.g. failing to clip the first bolt or bouldering).
- You'll have more trust in the system and won't have to think about the issue you brought up, especially if you climb with other "reasonably big" partners and share experiences.
- You will be able to learn and get beta from better climbers with similar body types. Right now you'd have a hard time finding any.
Please take no offense and feel free to ignore my comment. What do I know, you could be perfectly happy climbing at 300 lbs.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 24, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #36 of 52
(3360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
robdotcalm wrote: USnavy wrote: That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg. Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved? r.c. SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words). edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers.
ex·po·nen·tial
Function: adjective
Date: 1704
1: of or relating to an exponent
2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression>
3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate>
For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 9:14 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Feb 24, 2009, 9:25 PM
Post #37 of 52
(3341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
j_ung wrote: Make sure this thread isn't your only source. Here you go:
Geez man, why do you hate this site? I gave some guy good beta in a thread like this.. once... I think.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Feb 24, 2009, 9:52 PM
Post #38 of 52
(3333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
For the sake of your belayer, don't ever skip bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
d0nk3yk0n9
Feb 24, 2009, 9:54 PM
Post #39 of 52
(3331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2009
Posts: 182
|
shimanilami wrote: For the sake of your belayer, don't ever skip bolts.
The only exception to this I'd make for a heavy climber is the first bolt. Obviously, I wouldn't skip it, but I would strongly consider lowering back down (or downclimbing) and unclipping the first bolt. That way, your belayer has farther they can fly before being sucked into a quickdraw and possibly dropping you.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Feb 24, 2009, 10:23 PM
Post #40 of 52
(3320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
USnavy wrote: robdotcalm wrote: USnavy wrote: That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg. Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved? r.c. SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words). edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers. ex·po·nen·tial Function: adjective Date: 1704 1: of or relating to an exponent 2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression> 3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate> For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg.
With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster
Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |-
Function: adjective
Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al
1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression>
2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins>
- ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb
Citation format for this entry:
"exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009).
I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot
Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Feb 24, 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #41 of 52
(3311 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
The rule of thumb I've always been told is that a 30% difference in weight is tolerable for a belayer. If you can find someone that weighs a little over 200#'s to belay you then the lifting won't be too severe.
You could get someone to wear a weighted pack or something to increase their weight. I would avoid rigidly anchoring or an anchor which would bring you to an abrupt stop.
I don't think you really have to worry about gear breaking. Although the forces involved will be stronger there's only a factor of 2 within a factor of 10 safety margin. You'd have to try really hard to hit 25kN IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 24, 2009, 10:43 PM
Post #42 of 52
(3306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
robdotcalm wrote: USnavy wrote: robdotcalm wrote: USnavy wrote: That’s why ropes tested at 55 kg hold exponentially more falls then when tested at 80 kg. Since there are two only data points 55 kg and 80 kg, how do you know an exponential function is involved? r.c. SBBW (Society for Banning Big Words). edit: to correct SBBW as suggested by careful readers. ex·po·nen·tial Function: adjective Date: 1704 1: of or relating to an exponent 2: involving a variable in an exponent <10x is an exponential expression> 3: expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function ; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent) <an exponential growth rate> For example, the Beal Joker holds 5 UIAA falls at 80 kg and 20 at 55 kg. With only two data points, it makes no sense to say anything more than the rope holds many more falls at 55 kg than at 80 kg since there is no way one can determine the underlying distribution. You may have been misled by the definition from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Here’s the definition from the Unabridged Merriam Webster Main Entry: ex•po•nen•tial Pronunciation Guide Pronunciation: |eksp |nench l, -p |- Function: adjective Etymology: 2exponent + -i- + -al 1 : of or relating to an exponent : involving a variable exponent <an exponential expression> 2 : approximately expressible by an exponential equation <exponential distribution> -- used especially in indicating variation in which one variable factor depends upon another variable factor <culture is said to grow in an exponential manner; and the number of inventions is a function of the size of the cultural base -- F.H.Hankins> - ex•po•nen•tial•ly \-ch l \ adverb Citation format for this entry: "exponential." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (24 Feb. 2009). I was supposed to go climbing today, but it didn’t work out so I’m not letting go on this. My frustration has grown exponentially a lot Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus SBBW
Well damm it anyways.  I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. 
(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 10:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Feb 24, 2009, 10:48 PM
Post #43 of 52
(3297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
USnavy wrote: Well damm it anyways. I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated.
Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 24, 2009, 11:41 PM
Post #44 of 52
(3281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
acorneau wrote: USnavy wrote: Well damm it anyways. I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.
But those words are more limited in their usage then a word that simply identifies "greatly more". For example, astronomical is often associated with "the largest possible". It would not be very correct for me to say the performance difference between a Honda Civic and a Lotus Elise is astronomical because the performance difference between a Lodus Elise and a Mclaren F1 GTR is extreme, which in turn, makes the acceleration difference between the Civic and Elise relatively moderate in comparison. So the world astronomical would not be as fitting in that case. I would need a word that expresses an extreme in difference but does not imply the most extreme possible.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 24, 2009, 11:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Feb 25, 2009, 3:27 PM
Post #45 of 52
(3236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
indoors i would recomend belayer always anchor down. lol
ive read a story once of a 400lb person making it up half a slab. his belayer was draggedright up to the slab when he sat back in the harness. the cacti he had slung ripped out and followed him.
recomendations were to either find a much better anchor. or rig two ropes and two belayers.
food for thought
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 25, 2009, 3:38 PM
Post #46 of 52
(3229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I met Walt climbing at the Grotto. He was a giant of a man, I dunno, 6' 5"? 6' 6"? BIG.
He wasn't lean per se. More like a basketball player I guess.
He was never partnered up when I met him outdoors and we never really climbed together.
Then one day I ran into him in the gym and readily agreed to give him a top rope belay. Up the route he goes, looking like Jack's giant going back up the bean stalk.
At the top of the route he says 'take,' I acknowledge and he sags on to the rope.
Holy SHIT!!!111 I came SO CLOSE to dropping that dude!!! He is perhaps the closest I ever came to dropping someone.
What did I do wrong?
NOTHING.
I simply was not prepared for the weight. In hindsight, Walt easily tipped the scales at 250. I've been a life long member of the 200 lb club (give or take 20, hehe) my whole life. I was not and am not used to giving belays to folks heavier than me.
I was SHOCKED.
Literally.
That weight differential - to see it from the other side - to BE greatly outweighed by another climber - it was stunning.
A hundred pound differential is a very serious delta. I would not dismiss it out of hand.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 25, 2009, 3:50 PM
Post #47 of 52
(3223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
acorneau wrote: USnavy wrote: Well damm it anyways. I always use the word exponentially to express an extreme. So now I need to find another technical sounding word and "a lot" or "greatly" simply won’t cut it. It needs to be at least 10 characters and understood only by the educated. Tremendous, prodigious, stupendous, monumental, gargantuan, astronomical, and my favorite, Brobdingnagian.
Just don't use the word "enormity." While it does have its place for describing the enormousness of certain things / events / etc., it also means evil.
Technically correct but confusing: The enormity of budget cuts is difficult to understand.
Better: The enormity of the situation in Darfur is difficult to understand.
[/ tangental rant off a tangent that wasn't desserved or needed in the first place]
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 25, 2009, 4:39 PM
Post #48 of 52
(3207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
That rope is fine especially since you're only toproping. At your weight, even on TR, a grigri is a good idea. You'll lose a lot of weight or quit long before you want to lead. Not being harsh, I've just seen this one play out a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
iron106
Feb 25, 2009, 8:35 PM
Post #49 of 52
(3171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2008
Posts: 213
|
Wouldn't using a SCREAMER help lowering the impact force on the pro to make it work within the limits of the gear?
|
|
|
|
|
swoopee
Feb 25, 2009, 9:52 PM
Post #50 of 52
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2008
Posts: 560
|
I weigh 200 lbs and tend to be the heaviest climber out of any of the people I climb with. I have yet to belay anyone heavier than myself, but I am sometimes very surprised by how much some of the smaller guys weigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
