|
giggly
Oct 4, 2010, 1:53 AM
Post #26 of 53
(2597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2010
Posts: 64
|
oh well maby you guys can take turns sucking my dick
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Oct 4, 2010, 1:55 AM
Post #27 of 53
(2594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
giggly wrote: oh well maby you guys can take turns sucking my dick
Would you have the common courtesy to tickle my asshole at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
giggly
Oct 4, 2010, 1:56 AM
Post #28 of 53
(2592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2010
Posts: 64
|
let me guess
your from califorina
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Oct 4, 2010, 2:01 AM
Post #29 of 53
(2585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
About 3,000 miles off. From south of the mason Dixon line, actually.
I suppose the name of the place under my name is too confusing, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 4, 2010, 2:23 AM
Post #30 of 53
(2578 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
giggly wrote: oh well maby you guys can take turns sucking my dick
Yeah, I had you pegged as a "Deliverance" kind of guy.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Oct 4, 2010, 2:58 AM
Post #31 of 53
(2570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Well Giggly you are posting on forum that is read by thousands. The readership is international.
You are posting your opinion.
giggly?  nobody knows who you are. The ONLY thing we know about you is how you write 
So I read your post, and think, "How would I feel, if this guy offered to belay me?"
And I answer "To hell with this! Give me back my rope, I'm leaving now!"
|
|
|
|
|
giggly
Oct 4, 2010, 3:38 AM
Post #32 of 53
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2010
Posts: 64
|
well you was in califorina / they don't speak french
so if they offer to belay you...
|
|
|
|
|
Kartessa
Oct 4, 2010, 4:20 AM
Post #33 of 53
(2551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362
|
giggly wrote: well you was in califorina / they don't speak french so if they offer to belay you...
No Comprendez mi amigo...
Solo it is, sketchy piece or not.
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Oct 4, 2010, 5:10 AM
Post #34 of 53
(2537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
Run, don't walk.
(Edit to add:
Somebody lost the thread.)
(This post was edited by dan2see on Oct 4, 2010, 5:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
giggly
Oct 4, 2010, 5:34 AM
Post #35 of 53
(2528 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2010
Posts: 64
|
Oh Kartessa I think I am in love.
You are such a beautiful lady.
Goodnight.
|
|
|
|
|
cal32
Oct 4, 2010, 6:01 AM
Post #36 of 53
(2524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2010
Posts: 25
|
a if the fall seems clean
But I think it's unlikely you'd know how good the last two pieces of pro your partner placed are. Unless he's communicating and shouting down to you quite extensively.
Seems more likely you'd get into this kind of trouble on a multi-pitch route too, not your local crag...I think b is rarely a viable option. Sometimes you can jump off a rock you're belaying on or something is about it.
I think it's almost always a good idea to carry a screamer, for cases like there were pro is sketchy and lengthening the fall a bit should be okay.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 4, 2010, 2:20 PM
Post #37 of 53
(2485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: Why don't you have an option in between the two? Something like dropping onto the rope at the time of the catch. Makes for a harder catch but leaves the belayer in more control of the situation. Why would you ever do anything that would increase the impact force on marginal gear? For that matter, why would you ever "drop onto the rope at the time of the catch"? Jay
I agree that for marginal gear it's a bad idea but USNavy presented a no win situation. If a dynamic belay fails the climber hits the deck. Dropping down would at least give you the option of reacting if the first piece blew.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 4, 2010, 3:23 PM
Post #38 of 53
(2472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Silly people. You're not supposed to take big whippers on questionable gear. 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Kartessa
Oct 4, 2010, 3:27 PM
Post #39 of 53
(2468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362
|
hafilax wrote: USNavy presented a no win situation.
I shall call it the "Kobayashi Maru" of USNavy's Climbing Academy
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 4, 2010, 4:51 PM
Post #40 of 53
(2445 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
hafilax wrote: jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: Why don't you have an option in between the two? Something like dropping onto the rope at the time of the catch. Makes for a harder catch but leaves the belayer in more control of the situation. Why would you ever do anything that would increase the impact force on marginal gear? For that matter, why would you ever "drop onto the rope at the time of the catch"? Jay If I'm trying to keep the climber from hitting something.
Well, you're not doing it right. The top piece is marginal. Increasing the impact force on it is likely to cause it to fail. Then, you will have increased the length of the fall, which is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.
In reply to: I agree that for marginal gear it's a bad idea but USNavy presented a no win situation. If a dynamic belay fails the climber hits the deck. Dropping down would at least give you the option of reacting if the first piece blew.
USnavy said that both pieces were marginal. Thus, there is no reason to prefer the bottom piece over top one. Betting on the lower piece is riskier because (1) from the facts as given, it appears just as likely to fail as the top piece; (2) it is closer to the ground, and the climber might deck even if the piece holds; (3) the fall factor will be greater on the bottom piece than the top, increasing the likelihood that it will fail; and (4) since the lower bolt is 30 feet off the ground, dropping down will probably not shorten the fall enough to keep the climber from decking (although you don't suggest it, due to the height of the bolt, running back would not be very effective either and would change the angle of the impact force on the piece). Thus, we should bet the farm on the top piece.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 4, 2010, 4:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Oct 4, 2010, 5:05 PM
Post #41 of 53
(2437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Well, as someone who does free climb over [deliberately] marginal (versus questionable, and yes, there's a difference) gear on occasion I'd say:
c) Just lock it up, sit tight, and don't get too clever at the belay. If I wan't a different 'catch', I'll buy a rope with different characteristics. If I do want you to somehow behave differently than that I'll give specific instructions prior to making a sequence of moves.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 4, 2010, 5:51 PM
Post #42 of 53
(2425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: Why don't you have an option in between the two? Something like dropping onto the rope at the time of the catch. Makes for a harder catch but leaves the belayer in more control of the situation. Why would you ever do anything that would increase the impact force on marginal gear? For that matter, why would you ever "drop onto the rope at the time of the catch"? Jay If I'm trying to keep the climber from hitting something. Well, you're not doing it right. The top piece is marginal. Increasing the impact force on it is likely to cause it to fail. Then, you will have increased the length of the fall, which is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. In reply to: I agree that for marginal gear it's a bad idea but USNavy presented a no win situation. If a dynamic belay fails the climber hits the deck. Dropping down would at least give you the option of reacting if the first piece blew. USnavy said that both pieces were marginal. Thus, there is no reason to prefer the bottom piece over top one. Betting on the lower piece is riskier because (1) from the facts as given, it appears just as likely to fail as the top piece; (2) it is closer to the ground, and the climber might deck even if the piece holds; (3) the fall factor will be greater on the bottom piece than the top, increasing the likelihood that it will fail; and (4) since the lower bolt is 30 feet off the ground, dropping down will probably not shorten the fall enough to keep the climber from decking (although you don't suggest it, due to the height of the bolt, running back would not be very effective either and would change the angle of the impact force on the piece). Thus, we should bet the farm on the top piece. Jay
If you give a big dynamic belay and the top piece blows, both belayer and climber will be falling.
My thoughts were along the lines of what healyje just posted.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Oct 4, 2010, 6:22 PM
Post #43 of 53
(2413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
d) Avoid having my climber weight either of the questionable pieces via improper grigri use. Terra firma should be plenty bomber to stop him/her.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 4, 2010, 6:27 PM
Post #44 of 53
(2412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
hafilax wrote: jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: jt512 wrote: hafilax wrote: Why don't you have an option in between the two? Something like dropping onto the rope at the time of the catch. Makes for a harder catch but leaves the belayer in more control of the situation. Why would you ever do anything that would increase the impact force on marginal gear? For that matter, why would you ever "drop onto the rope at the time of the catch"? Jay If I'm trying to keep the climber from hitting something. Well, you're not doing it right. The top piece is marginal. Increasing the impact force on it is likely to cause it to fail. Then, you will have increased the length of the fall, which is the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. In reply to: I agree that for marginal gear it's a bad idea but USNavy presented a no win situation. If a dynamic belay fails the climber hits the deck. Dropping down would at least give you the option of reacting if the first piece blew. USnavy said that both pieces were marginal. Thus, there is no reason to prefer the bottom piece over top one. Betting on the lower piece is riskier because (1) from the facts as given, it appears just as likely to fail as the top piece; (2) it is closer to the ground, and the climber might deck even if the piece holds; (3) the fall factor will be greater on the bottom piece than the top, increasing the likelihood that it will fail; and (4) since the lower bolt is 30 feet off the ground, dropping down will probably not shorten the fall enough to keep the climber from decking (although you don't suggest it, due to the height of the bolt, running back would not be very effective either and would change the angle of the impact force on the piece). Thus, we should bet the farm on the top piece. Jay How much higher would the impact force be for a belayer that stays on the ground versus one that gives say a 2m dynamic belay? I don't really have a feel for it. I have mostly given dynamic belays to keep the climber from slamming into the wall versus trying to minimize impact force or stopping force on the climber. The fall factor in the scenario is already pretty low. My gut says that there isn't that much difference. If you give a big dynamic belay and the top piece blows, both belayer and climber will be falling.
First of all, you don't dynamically belay in trad by jumping. You do it by allowing rope to slip through your ATC; it gives you finer-grained control.
The fall factor on the top piece is 0.5. That's substantial, nominally producing 10 kN of impact force on the top piece. Without doing any calculations, just assume that the rope stretches 15% of 60 feet, or 9 feet. If you were to allow 3 feet of slack through the ATC, you'd be increasing the distance over which the deceleration occurs by one-third. That's going to lower the impact force substantially. You could conceivably halve the impact force.
In reply to: My thoughts were along the lines of what healyje just posted.
Not me. I would definitely give and expect to receive a dynamic belay.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 4, 2010, 6:38 PM
Post #45 of 53
(2405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
USnavy wrote: So your partner is 60 feet off the deck, 15 feet past his last piece. The last piece is "fair" it may hold, but you would not be surprised if it did not. The next piece down is 10 feet below that and it is also questionable. At the 15 foot mark he peels off and takes the big whip. Do you: a. Give the most dynamic belay possible to minimize the impact force on the top piece knowing that you’re extending the fall enough that if it pulls, the next piece may not catch in time to fully stop the climber. b. Yank in slack and run backwards in an effort to minimize the fall distance. You will greatly increase the impact force on the top piece and increase the chance of it pulling but your running belay may have removed enough slack that the next lower piece will catch (assuming it holds).
A - unless the climber specifically tells me otherwise to do something different. In my mind, the climber knows better how that piece is going to respond.
However, not knowing what the climber wants to do, I'd rather assume first that the piece will hold than not hold. Otherwise, what's the point of placing the piece to begin with? Personally, I'd rather give a soft catch even if the piece was bomber, so saying that I'd be providing a dynamic belay in this circumstance is kind of redundant.
However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't have other options running through my head before the fall just in case either piece blew out. What those options are depends on a lot on circumstances, including any conversation I'd have with the climber regarding how (s)he wants to be belayed.
As always, it depends.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 4, 2010, 9:31 PM
Post #46 of 53
(2370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Where's the 3rd to last piece and how is that. If both pieces blow, without even factoring in rope stretch, extra slack or the dynamics of the belay, that puts the climber at the 20 foot mark. Unless the climber told me that the gear was suspect, I would assume it was solid.
I know that hypothetical thinking is good, but i just can't see myself being in this situation as a climber or a belayer. That is a hell of a risk, and both climber and belayer should know beforehand that despite your best efforts, things may not turn out so well.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 4, 2010, 9:43 PM
Post #47 of 53
(2359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Where's the 3rd to last piece and how is that. If both pieces blow, without even factoring in rope stretch, extra slack or the dynamics of the belay, that puts the climber at the 20 foot mark. Unless the climber told me that the gear was suspect, I would assume it was solid.
You must be mainly trad climbing on hard rock. On desert sandstone my default assumption is that every piece is marginal, and should be protected with a dynamic belay.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 4, 2010, 9:49 PM
Post #48 of 53
(2350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Where's the 3rd to last piece and how is that. If both pieces blow, without even factoring in rope stretch, extra slack or the dynamics of the belay, that puts the climber at the 20 foot mark. Unless the climber told me that the gear was suspect, I would assume it was solid. You must be mainly trad climbing on hard rock. On desert sandstone my default assumption is that every piece is marginal, and should be protected with a dynamic belay. Jay
Yes, me like granite. I do not have extensive experience with softer rock.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 4, 2010, 10:30 PM
Post #49 of 53
(2334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
with 60 feet of rope in service, if you fall, you got min for 15-19 feet of additional rope added to your fall factor with a typical dynamic rope elongation. you could die if the total of elongation + distance falling from pieces adds or gets near 60 feet.
This where poor grades in math will get you either hurt or killed.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Oct 5, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #50 of 53
(2290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: USnavy said that both pieces were marginal. Thus, there is no reason to prefer the bottom piece over top one. Betting on the lower piece is riskier because (1) from the facts as given, it appears just as likely to fail as the top piece; (2) it is closer to the ground, and the climber might deck even if the piece holds; (3) the fall factor will be greater on the bottom piece than the top, increasing the likelihood that it will fail; and (4) since the lower bolt is 30 feet off the ground, dropping down will probably not shorten the fall enough to keep the climber from decking (although you don't suggest it, due to the height of the bolt, running back would not be very effective either and would change the angle of the impact force on the piece). Thus, we should bet the farm on the top piece.
5. Rope drag during the fall will make a pretty solid attempt at un-placing (to coin a term) the second piece. The question of why it should be considered marginal in the first place then becomes especially important.
So, I'm with you that the belayer should "bet the farm" on the first piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
