|
|
|
|
Trixie
Sep 15, 2009, 2:51 PM
Post #1 of 28
(2290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Posts: 80
|
This question is keeping me awake at night (just like the question of should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!)
OK, how far could a reasonably fit, experienced climber ascend a chimney by bracing his back and legs against a smoothish wall? And how far could said climber descend?
I understand that I'm going to get widely varying responses and possibly be snowed under with "It depends" answers so I'll set a few parameters.
1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber.
2. The climber is a fit, experienced climber with chimney experience.
3. The sides of said chimney are smooth with no footholds, handholds or stretches that are slabby. The entire route is vertical with no overhangs either.
I guess anyone who wants to take a stab at answering this might want to give an answer that applies to how far up or down they personally would get and that's fine.
Will someone please put me out of my misery and have a go at helping me answer this question 
From all these sleepless nights I've learned two basic facts - I can't function rationally without sleep and I really need to get out more! 
Trixie 
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Sep 15, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #2 of 28
(2282 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
Trixie wrote: This question is keeping me awake at night (just like the question of should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!) OK, how far could a reasonably fit, experienced climber ascend a chimney by bracing his back and legs against a smoothish wall? And how far could said climber descend? I understand that I'm going to get widely varying responses and possibly be snowed under with "It depends" answers so I'll set a few parameters. 1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber. 2. The climber is a fit, experienced climber with chimney experience. 3. The sides of said chimney are smooth with no footholds, handholds or stretches that are slabby. The entire route is vertical with no overhangs either. I guess anyone who wants to take a stab at answering this might want to give an answer that applies to how far up or down they personally would get and that's fine. Will someone please put me out of my misery and have a go at helping me answer this question From all these sleepless nights I've learned two basic facts - I can't function rationally without sleep and I really need to get out more! Trixie
I could make it 20+ feet. But if there were a picture of you naked covered with mud at the 40 foot mark, I'm pretty sure I'd get to it.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Sep 15, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #3 of 28
(2254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Uh, yeah, it depends. 20-40 feet with no rests sounds about right But it's a whole lot harder and scarier going down than up.
|
|
|
|
|
Carnage
Sep 15, 2009, 3:10 PM
Post #4 of 28
(2252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2007
Posts: 923
|
wjca wrote: Trixie wrote: This question is keeping me awake at night (just like the question of should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!) OK, how far could a reasonably fit, experienced climber ascend a chimney by bracing his back and legs against a smoothish wall? And how far could said climber descend? I understand that I'm going to get widely varying responses and possibly be snowed under with "It depends" answers so I'll set a few parameters. 1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber. 2. The climber is a fit, experienced climber with chimney experience. 3. The sides of said chimney are smooth with no footholds, handholds or stretches that are slabby. The entire route is vertical with no overhangs either. I guess anyone who wants to take a stab at answering this might want to give an answer that applies to how far up or down they personally would get and that's fine. Will someone please put me out of my misery and have a go at helping me answer this question From all these sleepless nights I've learned two basic facts - I can't function rationally without sleep and I really need to get out more! Trixie I could make it 20+ feet. But if there were a picture of you naked covered with mud at the 40 foot mark, I'm pretty sure I'd get to it.
i would need to see a naked pic in this thread to know if its worth climbing to see another.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Sep 15, 2009, 3:15 PM
Post #5 of 28
(2245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
Trixie wrote: This question is keeping me awake at night (just like the question of should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!) OK, how far could a reasonably fit, experienced climber ascend a chimney by bracing his back and legs against a smoothish wall? And how far could said climber descend? I understand that I'm going to get widely varying responses and possibly be snowed under with "It depends" answers so I'll set a few parameters. 1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber. 2. The climber is a fit, experienced climber with chimney experience. 3. The sides of said chimney are smooth with no footholds, handholds or stretches that are slabby. The entire route is vertical with no overhangs either. I guess anyone who wants to take a stab at answering this might want to give an answer that applies to how far up or down they personally would get and that's fine. Will someone please put me out of my misery and have a go at helping me answer this question From all these sleepless nights I've learned two basic facts - I can't function rationally without sleep and I really need to get out more! Trixie
Looks like someone is planning on some buildering...
Wear approach shoes (for sticky rubber) and a leather jacket (for extra grip). You could make it 60-80 feet easily, if you keep your wits.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Sep 15, 2009, 4:01 PM
Post #6 of 28
(2205 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #7 of 28
(2199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Trixie wrote: This question is keeping me awake at night (just like the question of should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!) OK, how far could a reasonably fit, experienced climber ascend a chimney by bracing his back and legs against a smoothish wall? And how far could said climber descend? I understand that I'm going to get widely varying responses and possibly be snowed under with "It depends" answers so I'll set a few parameters. 1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber. 2. The climber is a fit, experienced climber with chimney experience. 3. The sides of said chimney are smooth with no footholds, handholds or stretches that are slabby. The entire route is vertical with no overhangs either.
If the crack is the right width, then using the technique pictured below, a competent climber could climb hundreds of feet.
Jay
|
|
Attachments:
|
chimney.jpg
(8.13 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Sep 15, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #8 of 28
(2195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Right up to the first mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
fist
Sep 15, 2009, 6:49 PM
Post #9 of 28
(2099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2008
Posts: 47
|
I've done about 35 ft and I'm by no means a good climber. Getting over 50 would be pretty easy for a good climber.
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Sep 15, 2009, 6:52 PM
Post #10 of 28
(2094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
A piece of string is the same length as the sound of one hand clapping.
|
|
|
|
|
budman
Sep 15, 2009, 7:06 PM
Post #12 of 28
(2077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 170
|
Until you fall out of that OW.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Sep 15, 2009, 7:30 PM
Post #13 of 28
(2050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Trixie wrote: should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!
It would depend on the angle the rain falls.... but in any case going faster is the best option.... you get more time at the destination to dry off.
|
|
|
|
|
byran
Sep 17, 2009, 3:08 AM
Post #14 of 28
(1897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 266
|
How smooth is smooth? Is this like glass or does it have good friction just without any edges? Does the climber have kneepads? I'm going to say somewhere between 50 and 2,000 feet depending on the climber and slickness of the rock. Going down would be much easier, especially in a squeeze chimney. You can usually "melt" down a squeeze at a few inches per second, and maintain such a pace indefinitely. Your body might even continue descending after you've bled to death from 3rd degree abrasions.
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
Sep 17, 2009, 3:22 AM
Post #15 of 28
(1889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
Trixie wrote: should you walk or run to shelter in the rain - answer seems to be it depends on the type of rain!
Last time I got caught in the rain there was an OM waiting to be shotgunned at the car... I ran.
Soaking, I lacerated its poor blushed white skin with the car key and a triumphant tilt made my stomach flesh as saturated as its outward brother.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Sep 17, 2009, 3:29 AM
Post #16 of 28
(1883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Trixie wrote: 1. The width of the chimney is to be considered the optimum width for the height of the climber.
budman wrote: Until you fall out of that OW.
The two bolded parts above do not equate.
|
|
|
|
|
Urban_Cowboy
Sep 17, 2009, 3:38 AM
Post #17 of 28
(1873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2009
Posts: 219
|
Mythbusters already solved the walk/run in rain question.
|
|
|
|
|
Trixie
Sep 17, 2009, 8:51 AM
Post #18 of 28
(1821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Posts: 80
|
byran wrote: How smooth is smooth? Is this like glass or does it have good friction just without any edges? Does the climber have kneepads? I'm going to say somewhere between 50 and 2,000 feet depending on the climber and slickness of the rock. Going down would be much easier, especially in a squeeze chimney. You can usually "melt" down a squeeze at a few inches per second, and maintain such a pace indefinitely. Your body might even continue descending after you've bled to death from 3rd degree abrasions.
OK, climber doesn't have knee pads and the rock is on the slick side of average, if you know what I mean.
Both walls have an edge running vertically which has no holds - think of two columns. Sorry, I should have made this a bit clearer in my initial post.
Thanks everyone who has offered opinions on this. More are welcome and especially some ideas as to what you think the limiting factor would be (abrasion, muscle fatigue etc)
Thank all
Trixie
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Sep 17, 2009, 7:56 PM
Post #19 of 28
(1734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
Trixie wrote: byran wrote: How smooth is smooth? Is this like glass or does it have good friction just without any edges? Does the climber have kneepads? I'm going to say somewhere between 50 and 2,000 feet depending on the climber and slickness of the rock. Going down would be much easier, especially in a squeeze chimney. You can usually "melt" down a squeeze at a few inches per second, and maintain such a pace indefinitely. Your body might even continue descending after you've bled to death from 3rd degree abrasions. OK, climber doesn't have knee pads and the rock is on the slick side of average, if you know what I mean. Both walls have an edge running vertically which has no holds - think of two columns. Sorry, I should have made this a bit clearer in my initial post. Thanks everyone who has offered opinions on this. More are welcome and especially some ideas as to what you think the limiting factor would be (abrasion, muscle fatigue etc) Thank all Trixie
Lose of focus / attention would definitely stop you (from upward progression).
(This post was edited by bill413 on Sep 17, 2009, 7:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Sep 17, 2009, 8:32 PM
Post #20 of 28
(1701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
The answer, in this case, is until he gets bored.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Sep 17, 2009, 8:33 PM
Post #21 of 28
(1700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
JT is right for ascending.
descending theoretically would be the same, but my guess is that once you're more than 30' up, most people would balk at downclimbing further simply due to the head game involved.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 17, 2009, 9:27 PM
Post #22 of 28
(1675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Trixie wrote: byran wrote: How smooth is smooth? Is this like glass or does it have good friction just without any edges? Does the climber have kneepads? I'm going to say somewhere between 50 and 2,000 feet depending on the climber and slickness of the rock. Going down would be much easier, especially in a squeeze chimney. You can usually "melt" down a squeeze at a few inches per second, and maintain such a pace indefinitely. Your body might even continue descending after you've bled to death from 3rd degree abrasions. OK, climber doesn't have knee pads and the rock is on the slick side of average, if you know what I mean. Both walls have an edge running vertically which has no holds - think of two columns. Sorry, I should have made this a bit clearer in my initial post. Thanks everyone who has offered opinions on this. More are welcome and especially some ideas as to what you think the limiting factor would be (abrasion, muscle fatigue etc) Thank all Trixie
The only limiting factor to the competent climber would be fear. Unless you're talking about well over a hundred feet with no rests, in which case exhaustion could begin to be a serious factor.
If the rock is pretty slick rock, as you say it is, you'd have to press out hard to keep from slipping. This is what the limitation of over a hundred feet is based on. In the other extreme, on very gritty granite, the only limitation would be how long your clothing and skin would last.
For reference, I've done 120 feet of pretty much perfect width chimney climbing without a rest, but placing good gear so the fear never gets too great. By the end of that 120 feet, it starts to be fairly tiring.
Edited to add: I forgot, you have to chimney back down too, all without any rest? Hmm... that changes things. I'd say maybe 100 feet? But of course this is pure guesswork.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Sep 17, 2009, 9:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 17, 2009, 9:36 PM
Post #24 of 28
(1665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
vegastradguy wrote: JT is right for ascending. descending theoretically would be the same, but my guess is that once you're more than 30' up, most people would balk at downclimbing further simply due to the head game involved.
I've done that sort of descent precisely once. NEVER AGAIN.
To the question at hand, assuming good fitness on the part of the climber, indefinitely. I wouldn't be willing to go more than about 50 feet without gear though.
|
|
|
|
|
Trixie
Sep 18, 2009, 9:49 PM
Post #25 of 28
(1605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Posts: 80
|
Cracklover, thank you so much for that link. I howled, hooted, sobbed and hee'ed and hawed like a donkey! That thread is utterly priceless. It reminds me of some of the undergraduates and postgraduates I taught.
Any chance you can keep digging up funny links for me? I broke my wrist today so I'll be out of action for quite a while. I need something to keep me amused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
