|
|
|
|
iron106
Apr 26, 2010, 3:02 PM
Post #26 of 118
(4272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2008
Posts: 213
|
gunkiemike wrote: It almost goes without saying that some of what appears here, and on other climbing sites is 100% BS. Here's my list of the biggest turds. In no particular order... - When fitting shoes, the tighter the better. But hey, it keeps those sweet deals coming on EBay. - Never take rope in when catching a leader fall. Foot, meet ledge. - Nylon loses 5% of its strength each year due solely to age. Quick, someone alert the rope manufacturers! - Dropped gear must be retired due to the risk of microfractures. A perennial tackle box favorite. - Fall Factor determines the peak load on gear, the climber, and belayer. Yup, that's it; nothing else matters. - Toproping on static rope will get you injured. A classic case of, "No, I haven't actually done it. I just know it's a no-no." - Expensive cams are safer than the cheap ones. Usually something along the lines of, "You don't want to look down that long run-out and see a $29 unit down there." Hey buddy, I got a $200 cam to sell ya. - Home-made or modified gear will kill you. Riiight. There are no more improvements possible. Ever. - Gasoline, oil, WD-40 will damage nylon. Caution is prudent. Blowing smoke out your a$$ when you don't know what you're talking about OTOH... - TR self-belay with a toothed cam ascender will shred the rope. (see TR on static rope.) - Place Tricams and large SLCDs with the rails or wider lobes on the bottom. Like tipping over is even possible! - Never clip metal-to-metal. Pitons and bolt hangers = instant flying biner shards. What about.... - You should always...
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 26, 2010, 3:21 PM
Post #27 of 118
(4254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
-Make sure your redundancy is backed up.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 26, 2010, 3:30 PM
Post #28 of 118
(4236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
I always heard that Metal on Metal was really bad. Then I saw Anthrax open for Metallica, and it was fucking awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 26, 2010, 3:32 PM
Post #29 of 118
(4232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
camhead wrote: I always heard that Metal on Metal was really bad. Then I saw Anthrax open for Metallica, and it was fucking awesome! Don't make me pull out the Anvil video again.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 26, 2010, 4:24 PM
Post #30 of 118
(4181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rainman0915 wrote: johnwesely wrote: adatesman wrote: johnwesely wrote: gunkiemike wrote: - Expensive cams are safer than the cheap ones. Usually something along the lines of, "You don't want to look down that long run-out and see a $29 unit down there." Hey buddy, I got a $200 cam to sell ya. I don't think anyone says that. Check any of the threads regarding Rock Empire or KROK (those Ukrainian cams on Ebay). It's rare to see anyone not say it. You are right about the Kroks, but are people saying that about the REs too. I am pretty sure most people say they are not a nice cam but not that they are unsafe. All brand new cams are completely safe. Apparently, knowledge about some Gear4Rocks is Alien to you. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 27, 2010, 12:13 AM
Post #31 of 118
(4074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
colatownkid
Apr 27, 2010, 1:47 AM
Post #32 of 118
(4030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
adatesman wrote: angry wrote: adatesman wrote: granite_grrl wrote: Safety and quality standards aren't the same for every cam manufacturer..... The ones that are UIAA certified are. It's definitely misleading to have you, the gear guy, essentially say that all UIAA certified cams are the same. How's that? If they're UIAA Certified they've been tested by a third party testing facility per the UIAA125/CE12275 specification, so by definition they all are tested to the same standard. How much they exceed the standard is an altogether different question... and therein lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
clc
Apr 27, 2010, 2:10 AM
Post #33 of 118
(4014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 495
|
adatesman wrote: angry wrote: adatesman wrote: granite_grrl wrote: Safety and quality standards aren't the same for every cam manufacturer..... The ones that are UIAA certified are. It's definitely misleading to have you, the gear guy, essentially say that all UIAA certified cams are the same. How's that? If they're UIAA Certified they've been tested by a third party testing facility per the UIAA125/CE12275 specification, so by definition they all are tested to the same standard. How much they exceed the standard is an altogether different question... Granite girl makes a good point. UIAA doesn't test specifically for quality. there are mostly testing strengths of the gear. Really how many cams in 1000 are tested?
|
|
|
|
|
wallwombat
Apr 27, 2010, 2:21 AM
Post #34 of 118
(4001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 727
|
I think that the greatest internet climbing myth/falsehood is that unless you can climb 5.12 or 5.13 or V10 or whatever, then you aren't entitled to have an opinion regarding certain subjects. "You only climb 5.11. Come back when you're climbing 5.13 and then you can comment, noob" I'm never going to climb 5.13 but, after 20+ years of climbing, I feel I can make a comment on most climbing related subjects. Even if I had only been climbing 20 days, I am still allowed to comment on a subject, without some grade obsessed sycophant telling me to shut up, because I don't crank V10 and I don't know Tommy or Joe or Bill or whoever. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. This seems to be a particularly American attitude and it is particularly rife on this site. I don't really see it on forums in the UK or here, in Australia. What amazes me is, these ego-stroking sycophants don't even realise how dumb they are making themselves sound. You don't sound hard and smart. You sound like 'A' grade butt kissers. Climbing 5.13 does not mean you are smarter, wiser or more able to make a comment. It just means you can climb 5.13. And that you probably spend too much time climbing plastic.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Apr 27, 2010, 2:37 AM
Post #35 of 118
(3987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Does climbing 5.13 mean that you might have more mileage on the rock than the 5.10 or 5.11 climber? Not to refute your point but so often the sound, reasonable, and seasoned comments are ignored by some loudmouth who's been climbing for 2 years. How am I (or others) supposed to react? There were a lot of things I thought I was right about 2 years in that I was completely wrong about. The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Then again, experience gets conflated with years climbing and the word experience loses meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
wallwombat
Apr 27, 2010, 3:16 AM
Post #36 of 118
(3962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 727
|
angry wrote: Does climbing 5.13 mean that you might have more mileage on the rock than the 5.10 or 5.11 climber? With climbing gyms being on every second street corner, nowadays, no, it doesn't necessarily mean you have more mileage. These days we have 8 year old kids cranking way harder than lots of "seasoned climbers" every did or will. Does that 8 year old cranker have more right to pass comment because they have climbed harder?
angry wrote: Not to refute your point but so often the sound, reasonable, and seasoned comments are ignored by some loudmouth who's been climbing for 2 years. How am I (or others) supposed to react? There were a lot of things I thought I was right about 2 years in that I was completely wrong about. That's what I am saying. It is very common now for someone who has only been climbing for a couple of years to climb hard sport routes or blocs. Indoor gyms give lots of opportunities for young climbers to get into the game and climb and train a lot. Improvement often follows rapidly but wisdom does not.
angry wrote: The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Then again, experience gets conflated with years climbing and the word experience loses meaning. Neither should really be the issue. If you feel you have something to say regarding some subject, you should be able to say it without fear of being told "come back when you can crank 5.13" or "come back when you've climbed as much as I have". If said person makes a stupid comment, it becomes immediately apparent and they look like a dick head. It's kind of like natural selection. I feel fine with people pointing out that someone has said something stupid and look like a dick head. What I don't feel fine about is someone chiming in and saying "you don't have the right to say that because......" As far as I'm concerned that's just adding another dick head to the equation. An elitist, head-up-his-ass dick head. And , Angry, I was particularly impressed with your little dig about experience being confused with years climbing. Well done mate!
(This post was edited by wallwombat on Apr 27, 2010, 3:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 27, 2010, 3:27 AM
Post #37 of 118
(3946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
wallwombat wrote: I think that the greatest internet climbing myth/falsehood is that unless you can climb 5.12 or 5.13 or V10 or whatever, then you aren't entitled to have an opinion regarding certain subjects. "You only climb 5.11. Come back when you're climbing 5.13 and then you can comment, noob" I'm never going to climb 5.13 but, after 20+ years of climbing, I feel I can make a comment on most climbing related subjects. Even if I had only been climbing 20 days, I am still allowed to comment on a subject, without some grade obsessed sycophant telling me to shut up, because I don't crank V10 and I don't know Tommy or Joe or Bill or whoever. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. This seems to be a particularly American attitude and it is particularly rife on this site. I don't really see it on forums in the UK or here, in Australia. What amazes me is, these ego-stroking sycophants don't even realise how dumb they are making themselves sound. You don't sound hard and smart. You sound like 'A' grade butt kissers. Climbing 5.13 does not mean you are smarter, wiser or more able to make a comment. It just means you can climb 5.13. And that you probably spend too much time climbing plastic. Shutup n00b!!!!11 Last year I had to lead a 5.9 in expedition style because I had been away from the rock so long. My peak ability has fluctuated over the years, my experience and knowledge has only increased. I still reserve the right to call anyone a dumbass, anytime and anywhere. Heh heh.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 27, 2010, 3:45 AM
Post #39 of 118
(3933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jt512 wrote: rainman0915 wrote: johnwesely wrote: adatesman wrote: johnwesely wrote: gunkiemike wrote: - Expensive cams are safer than the cheap ones. Usually something along the lines of, "You don't want to look down that long run-out and see a $29 unit down there." Hey buddy, I got a $200 cam to sell ya. I don't think anyone says that. Check any of the threads regarding Rock Empire or KROK (those Ukrainian cams on Ebay). It's rare to see anyone not say it. You are right about the Kroks, but are people saying that about the REs too. I am pretty sure most people say they are not a nice cam but not that they are unsafe. All brand new cams are completely safe. Apparently, knowledge about some Gear4Rocks is Alien to you. Jay 2 ratings, 3 stars: 1 user got it and 1 didn't. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Apr 27, 2010, 3:49 AM
Post #40 of 118
(3930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
wallwombat wrote: hugepedro wrote: I still reserve the right to call anyone a dumbass, anytime and anywhere. Heh heh. I didn't say you didn't have the right to call someone a dumbass. I said you don't have the right to tell that dumbass that they don't have the right to prove they are a dumbass by making a dumbass comment because you are either a harder climber or a more experienced climber. dumbass YOU'RE HURTING MY HEAD!!!!!111
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 27, 2010, 4:14 PM
Post #41 of 118
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
jt512 wrote: 2 ratings, 3 stars: 1 user got it and 1 didn't. Jay Don't get too cocky or I will trade in my 5 star for a 4.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 27, 2010, 4:41 PM
Post #43 of 118
(3820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
rainman0915 wrote: All brand new cams are completely safe. Another internet myth. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 27, 2010, 4:46 PM
Post #44 of 118
(3814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
wallwombat wrote: I think that the greatest internet climbing myth/falsehood is that unless you can climb 5.12 or 5.13 or V10 or whatever, then you aren't entitled to have an opinion regarding certain subjects. "You only climb 5.11. Come back when you're climbing 5.13 and then you can comment, noob" I'm never going to climb 5.13 but, after 20+ years of climbing, I feel I can make a comment on most climbing related subjects. Even if I had only been climbing 20 days, I am still allowed to comment on a subject, without some grade obsessed sycophant telling me to shut up, because I don't crank V10 and I don't know Tommy or Joe or Bill or whoever. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. This seems to be a particularly American attitude and it is particularly rife on this site. I don't really see it on forums in the UK or here, in Australia. What amazes me is, these ego-stroking sycophants don't even realise how dumb they are making themselves sound. You don't sound hard and smart. You sound like 'A' grade butt kissers. Climbing 5.13 does not mean you are smarter, wiser or more able to make a comment. It just means you can climb 5.13. And that you probably spend too much time climbing plastic. wombat the 'you're not qualified to have an opinion' is one of the most reliable trolls on the internet. It wouldn't hold any weight if it didn't upset some people so much..... DMT
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Apr 27, 2010, 5:36 PM
Post #46 of 118
(3774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
drector wrote: angry wrote: The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Maybe I've been climbing 40+ years and have an IQ of 89. Do you really want to trust just me because of my experience? I think that intelligence is more important than ratings and years on the job. Maybe we need to start using the words "wise" and "wisdom" to describe that desirable trait that makes one worthy to give advice. Dave Being intelligent isn't the same thing as having wisdom. I know some really smart people who I wouldn't trust to know anything about climbing safety because they just don't know it. Relevant experience is where I would put my money. Intelligence helps, but by itself is not entirely reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
colatownkid
Apr 27, 2010, 6:40 PM
Post #47 of 118
(3731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 512
|
angry wrote: Does climbing 5.13 mean that you might have more mileage on the rock than the 5.10 or 5.11 climber? Not to refute your point but so often the sound, reasonable, and seasoned comments are ignored by some loudmouth who's been climbing for 2 years. How am I (or others) supposed to react? There were a lot of things I thought I was right about 2 years in that I was completely wrong about. The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Then again, experience gets conflated with years climbing and the word experience loses meaning. i feel this whole wisdom/intelligence/experience/difficulty thing boils down to a combination of these parts and an explicit understanding of how one goes about defining and relating them. the intelligent climber probably learns very quickly. therefore, they may be knowledgeable while lacking a large amount of experience. the experienced climber may or may not climb hard, but they have almost certainly seen some things that the rest of us can learn from. the climber who can crank the 5.whatever or the Vridiculous is not necessarily experienced, intelligent, or wise. finally, the wise climber is probably just keeping their mouth shut. point is, the validity of one's statement about a particular topic could depend on difficulty, experience, or intelligence, none of which are necessarily related (though people assume they are). also, i find the notion that experience can be measured in number of years climbing to be bogus. your average weekend warrior may get out one or two weekends a month, which translates to 25ish climbing days per year. In one summer it's possible to road trip for a few months and accrue the equivalent of "two years" (or more) worth of experience. not to mention, climbers tend to have rather inflated ideas about the number of days they actually climb. a similar argument applies to experience and difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 27, 2010, 6:42 PM
Post #48 of 118
(3727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
colatownkid wrote: angry wrote: Does climbing 5.13 mean that you might have more mileage on the rock than the 5.10 or 5.11 climber? Not to refute your point but so often the sound, reasonable, and seasoned comments are ignored by some loudmouth who's been climbing for 2 years. How am I (or others) supposed to react? There were a lot of things I thought I was right about 2 years in that I was completely wrong about. The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Then again, experience gets conflated with years climbing and the word experience loses meaning. i feel this whole wisdom/intelligence/experience/difficulty thing boils down to a combination of these parts and an explicit understanding of how one goes about defining and relating them. the intelligent climber probably learns very quickly. therefore, they may be knowledgeable while lacking a large amount of experience. the experienced climber may or may not climb hard, but they have almost certainly seen some things that the rest of us can learn from. the climber who can crank the 5.whatever or the Vridiculous is not necessarily experienced, intelligent, or wise. finally, the wise climber is probably just keeping their mouth shut. point is, the validity of one's statement about a particular topic could depend on difficulty, experience, or intelligence, none of which are necessarily related (though people assume they are). also, i find the notion that experience can be measured in number of years climbing to be bogus. your average weekend warrior may get out one or two weekends a month, which translates to 25ish climbing days per year. In one summer it's possible to road trip for a few months and accrue the equivalent of "two years" (or more) worth of experience. not to mention, climbers tend to have rather inflated ideas about the number of days they actually climb. a similar argument applies to experience and difficulty. Great comment and well put.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 27, 2010, 6:45 PM
Post #49 of 118
(3836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
sidepull wrote: colatownkid wrote: angry wrote: Does climbing 5.13 mean that you might have more mileage on the rock than the 5.10 or 5.11 climber? Not to refute your point but so often the sound, reasonable, and seasoned comments are ignored by some loudmouth who's been climbing for 2 years. How am I (or others) supposed to react? There were a lot of things I thought I was right about 2 years in that I was completely wrong about. The grade shouldn't be the issue, experience should be. Then again, experience gets conflated with years climbing and the word experience loses meaning. i feel this whole wisdom/intelligence/experience/difficulty thing boils down to a combination of these parts and an explicit understanding of how one goes about defining and relating them. the intelligent climber probably learns very quickly. therefore, they may be knowledgeable while lacking a large amount of experience. the experienced climber may or may not climb hard, but they have almost certainly seen some things that the rest of us can learn from. the climber who can crank the 5.whatever or the Vridiculous is not necessarily experienced, intelligent, or wise. finally, the wise climber is probably just keeping their mouth shut. point is, the validity of one's statement about a particular topic could depend on difficulty, experience, or intelligence, none of which are necessarily related (though people assume they are). also, i find the notion that experience can be measured in number of years climbing to be bogus. your average weekend warrior may get out one or two weekends a month, which translates to 25ish climbing days per year. In one summer it's possible to road trip for a few months and accrue the equivalent of "two years" (or more) worth of experience. not to mention, climbers tend to have rather inflated ideas about the number of days they actually climb. a similar argument applies to experience and difficulty. Great comment and well put. Gym days only count as 1/17th of a real day of climbing, DMT
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 27, 2010, 7:23 PM
Post #50 of 118
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
jay wrote: 2 ratings, 3 stars: 1 user got it and 1 didn't. Jay Unless both were ambivalent about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|