|
Gmburns2000
Feb 7, 2011, 2:46 AM
Post #51 of 91
(8118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: *Edit: I just thought of a way for you to get out of your catch-22. Almost anybody should be willing to take intentional falls with you if they are on top rope, because sitting into the fall won't cause any harm. So find a partner willing to do that with you, and break your habit of leaning back from the fall while in TR situations. Then learn to "go with" the force of the fall to give a softer catch on TR. Once you can do that, have your partner take tiny lead falls with you, and then as you learn to give a soft catch, he can gradually increase the fall distance. Jay GU'd. I mentioned that on page one. Good call. FIVE STARS!!!! There goes your climbing. Jay
Watch out now, you might just stumble along and find me belaying you someday.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 2:56 AM
Post #52 of 91
(8114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: Patto, when the observed facts don't fit your physical model, it indicates that your model is wrong. This is basic physics Jay. You can't change it.
You can't change basic physics, but you can certainly fail to apply it correctly, as you have demonstrated.
In reply to: jt512 wrote: Vertical to moderately overhanging ones, especially routes with bulges, are the ankle breakers. Yep. Exactly why I pull my climbers up short before striking a bulge below them.
Um...not what I meant.
In reply to: jt512 wrote: No, the main factor is the steepness of the wall below the climber. Plainly wrong jay. The position of the wall below the climber doesn't impact the horizontal force only the position of the climber relative to the protection and the amount of rope out.
Oh, for heaven's sakes. That is ridiculous.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 7, 2011, 7:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 7, 2011, 3:04 AM
Post #53 of 91
(8108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
l3uddy789 wrote: Also could someone explain to me a "hard catch" I'm pretty sure I know what it means but I want to know how to avoid it ect.
jt512 already addressed this but I wanted to add a bit that you might find illustrative. I am very much a layman though so if you want more detail, there are a lot of great threads on here where very knowledgeable people have discussed it at length.
Two main factors determine the relative "hardness" of a catch, rope stretch and the movements of the climber. If the belayer does not move from their stance or exerts energy in to the system opposite the climber by sitting back, the rope has to do all the shock absorbing. While the rope does stretch several feet during a fall, only a small amount of the energy of the falling climber is absorbed by the bulk of that stretch and the rest is absorbed quickly at the end of the fall so if there is not much rope out, the climber effectively slams to a halt. When you give a dynamic belay you are basically spreading that peak force over a longer period of time and allowing the climber to come to rest more gently.
I have been on the receiving end of hard catches from new belayers who panicked and sat back when they knew better. I have a back injury from one such catch that still bothers me 7 months later.
edit for spelling and to fix an awkward phrasing
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Feb 7, 2011, 3:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 7, 2011, 3:12 AM
Post #54 of 91
(8102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
"patto wrote: jt512 wrote: Vertical to moderately overhanging ones, especially routes with bulges, are the ankle breakers. Yep. Exactly why I pull my climbers up short before striking a bulge below them.
I'm pretty sure he was saying that when you break shit is when you fall while pulling a bulge with your bolt/gear below on the vertical portion of the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
robx
Feb 7, 2011, 3:17 AM
Post #55 of 91
(8094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2011
Posts: 108
|
There are still times climbing indoors when giving a soft catch is the absolute wrong choice. Between 1st and 2nd clip, when the chance of decking is high, leaning back or cranking in some slack might negate a soft catch, but it might also prevent a broken ankle.
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Feb 7, 2011, 3:24 AM
Post #56 of 91
(8086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
l3uddy789 wrote: Also could someone explain to me a "hard catch" I'm pretty sure I know what it means but I want to know how to avoid it ect.
Actually, on this note, I have always been curious myself how this would feel to the belayer in practice, though I don't ever want to make it happen.
Based on my experiences belaying, I suspect the answer is 'you'll know it when you feel it.' Though to note, I also don't do the things people have told me not to...ie, sit/lean back except in very specific situations, stand 8+ft away from the wall, etc...
It reminds me of a particular occasion when my leader was having difficulty overcoming the crux and fell a few times. Once he got through the crux, a climber friend came over to me and said 'nice catches!' It was a first. I have no idea if they were soft or hard catches or if I was giving a dynamic belay. My partner made no comment about my belaying other than 'thanks for the belay! did I really pull you off the ground?!?' All I remember was being VERY tuned into my leader and using the information I was getting to give the best belay I could with what I knew.
Part of me still wants to know what I did that made them 'good catches' and how I could be better. I was a little too focused to really remember...
have fun out there!
LS
ps edited to account for a previous post.
(This post was edited by ladyscarlett on Feb 7, 2011, 3:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 3:27 AM
Post #57 of 91
(8083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
I will try this one more time.
This is about the worst-case scenario for breaking an ankle. The climber is on the bulge for heaven's sake, and clipped below it. Contrary to my own intuition and your belief, as blondgecko and I think rudmin have shown, the more slack the belayer puts into the system, the harder the climber will hit the wall. To minimize the impact, the belayer should keep the minimum amount of slack in the rope (I'd have thought otherwise) and give a dynamic belay.
Patto, you are ignoring counter-arguments to your claims and just repeating the claims. I've already suggested that you look up the thread in which this conclusion was demonstrated. You didn't, and just repeated the claim. Goshark has already provided at least a partial explanation as to why your "elementary physics" about falling on a vertical wall is wrong. Again, you just ignored the counter-argument and repeated your own claim.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 3:41 AM
Post #58 of 91
(8070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ladyscarlett wrote: l3uddy789 wrote: Also could someone explain to me a "hard catch" I'm pretty sure I know what it means but I want to know how to avoid it ect. Actually, on this note, I have always been curious myself how this would feel to the belayer in practice, though I don't ever want to make it happen. Based on my experiences belaying, I suspect the answer is 'you'll know it when you feel it.' Though to note, I also don't do the things people have told me not to...ie, sit/lean back except in very specific situations, stand 8+ft away from the wall, etc... It reminds me of a particular occasion when my leader was having difficulty overcoming the crux and fell a few times. Once he got through the crux, a climber friend came over to me and said 'nice catches!' It was a first. I have no idea if they were soft or hard catches or if I was giving a dynamic belay. My partner made no comment about my belaying other than 'thanks for the belay! did I really pull you off the ground?!?' All I remember was being VERY tuned into my leader and using the information I was getting to give the best belay I could with what I knew. Part of me still wants to know what I did that made them 'good catches' and how I could be better. I was a little too focused to really remember...
I suspect that what you did was to be lighter than your partner, and so when your partner fell, you got pulled up or into the wall, which reduced the climber's deceleration, providing them with a soft catch.
If you are as petite as you appear in your pics, get used to a climbing career of giving soft catches and receiving hard ones in return from your heavier partners, who won't budge when you fall. You're going to have to train them to give you dynamic belays, possibly after having to convince them that they're killing you with their catches; because if they're big guys, then they will have no experience getting hard catches from the lighter partners, and will have no idea what you are complaining about.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 7, 2011, 3:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 7, 2011, 3:58 AM
Post #59 of 91
(8058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: I will try this one more time. This is about the worst-case scenario for breaking an ankle. The climber is on the bulge for heaven's sake, and clipped below it. Contrary to my own intuition and your belief, as blondgecko and I think rudmin have shown, the more slack the belayer puts into the system, the harder the climber will hit the wall.
Well, I'm fairly sure that's false. Suppose I'm the belayer and I simply let go of the rope? That is akin to adding infinite slack to the system--and I doubt in that case that the falling climber will hit the wall at all--before hitting the ground.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 7, 2011, 4:04 AM
Post #60 of 91
(8050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
jt512 wrote: Patto, you are ignoring counter-arguments to your claims and just repeating the claims. I've already suggested that you look up the thread in which this conclusion was demonstrated. You didn't, and just repeated the claim. Goshark has already provided at least a partial explanation as to why your "elementary physics" about falling on a vertical wall is wrong. Again, you just ignored the counter-argument and repeated your own claim.
You keep moving the bar Jay. Also as far as hip distance from the piece goes that certainly cannot produce much horizontal force. You diagram shows a overhanging climb not a vertical climb.
As I have accepted from the beginning there are certainly instances where soft catches are preferred. However you seem to think that is all important.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Feb 7, 2011, 4:15 AM
Post #61 of 91
(8045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
an interesting discussion. it shouldnt be lost, though, that there are instances where a hard catch, or something in between a dynamic and static belay is required- being aware of the consequences of a fall (obstacles that a climber may hit) is, at the end of the day, a massive part of the belayers job, as it will allow him to determine the best belay to provide for a given fall.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 7, 2011, 4:16 AM
Post #62 of 91
(8044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
jt512 wrote: I will try this one more time. [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/anklebreaker.jpg[/img] This is about the worst-case scenario for breaking an ankle. The climber is on the bulge for heaven's sake, and clipped below it. Contrary to my own intuition and your belief, as blondgecko and I think rudmin have shown, the more slack the belayer puts into the system, the harder the climber will hit the wall. To minimize the impact, the belayer should keep the minimum amount of slack in the rope (I'd have thought otherwise) and give a dynamic belay. Patto, you are ignoring counter-arguments to your claims and just repeating the claims. I've already suggested that you look up the thread in which this conclusion was demonstrated. You didn't, and just repeated the claim. Goshark has already provided at least a partial explanation as to why your "elementary physics" about falling on a vertical wall is wrong. Again, you just ignored the counter-argument and repeated your own claim. Jay
This is more or less correct, iirc. Having slack at the start of the fall makes very little difference to the final horizontal velocity (except, as Curt mentions, in the limiting case where you hit the ground before hitting the wall). The best option in the model was to release a bunch of slack only after the climber had built up some horizontal velocity, so that when the rope comes tight again there's less horizontal component to the force it imparts on the climber. Didn't go into the "real" dynamic belay case, but it's basically the same thing - reducing the tension in the rope during the period when a substantial fraction of this tension is pulling the climber towards the wall.
As for how a fall on a vertical climb can have a substantial horizontal component, that's easy: it'll happen every time it's your hands that go first. Basic physics - your feet then become the pivot for the rest of your body, and it's either jump outwards or flip upside down. I'd suggest the former.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 4:22 AM
Post #63 of 91
(8040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
patto wrote: jt512 wrote: Patto, you are ignoring counter-arguments to your claims and just repeating the claims. I've already suggested that you look up the thread in which this conclusion was demonstrated. You didn't, and just repeated the claim. Goshark has already provided at least a partial explanation as to why your "elementary physics" about falling on a vertical wall is wrong. Again, you just ignored the counter-argument and repeated your own claim. You keep moving the bar Jay. Also as far as hip distance from the piece goes that certainly cannot produce much horizontal force.
Simple observation shows that climbers fall away from the wall on vertical, and even slightly less-than-vertical, terrain. I said that goshark provided "at least a partial explanation" for this. I suspect that there is more to it.
Climbing a vertical wall on small holds requires body tension. To stay on the wall you must apply a force with your hands that has an outward component. To compensate, you must apply an opposite force with your feet, which must push into the wall. If your hands blow, you are thus propelled outward from the wall by your legs. You fall away from the wall, and arc back into it.
In reply to: You diagram shows a overhanging climb not a vertical climb.
My diagram illustates one of the situations I explicitly referred to: climbing a vertical to moderately overhanging wall with a bulge. Somehow you interpreted my reference to a bulge as the climber climbing above the bulge. Admittedly my wording was ambiguous, but I thought it would be obvious—as it was to notapplicable—that I was talking about climbing on the bulge, not above it.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 7, 2011, 4:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 5:00 AM
Post #64 of 91
(8021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blondgecko wrote: As for how a fall on a vertical climb can have a substantial horizontal component, that's easy: it'll happen every time it's your hands that go first. Basic physics - your feet then become the pivot for the rest of your body, and it's either jump outwards or flip upside down. I'd suggest the former.
That's certainly a simpler explanation than my pull–push hypothesis, and I think you are at least partially right. I have two comments. One, I think that if you lose your handholds, it is often the case that your feet come off too quickly for you to actually jump backwards. However, even so, your feet still stick long enough to cause some backward rotation, moving your center of gravity away from the wall, and thus increasing the swing in. Secondly, I still think that there is some automatic push-off from the legs, per my "body tension" hypothesis, which would add to the distance the climber falls away from the wall due to outward rotation.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 7, 2011, 5:02 AM
Post #65 of 91
(8019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
vegastradguy wrote: an interesting discussion. it shouldnt be lost, though, that there are instances where a hard catch, or something in between a dynamic and static belay is required- being aware of the consequences of a fall (obstacles that a climber may hit) is, at the end of the day, a massive part of the belayers job, as it will allow him to determine the best belay to provide for a given fall.
You're right, every fall is a unique case and everyone seems to agree that you cannot react the same way to every fall. I think the main thing under discussion here though, is whether a static or dynamic belay should be the default from which you make adjustments to accommodate a given situation.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 7, 2011, 5:07 AM
Post #66 of 91
(8015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
blondgecko wrote: This is more or less correct, iirc. Having slack at the start of the fall makes very little difference to the final horizontal velocity (except, as Curt mentions, in the limiting case where you hit the ground before hitting the wall). The best option in the model was to release a bunch of slack only after the climber had built up some horizontal velocity, so that when the rope comes tight again there's less horizontal component to the force it imparts on the climber. Didn't go into the "real" dynamic belay case, but it's basically the same thing - reducing the tension in the rope during the period when a substantial fraction of this tension is pulling the climber towards the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Feb 7, 2011, 5:45 AM
Post #67 of 91
(8003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
jt512 wrote: I suspect that what you did was to be lighter than your partner, and so when your partner fell, you got pulled up or into the wall, which reduced the climber's deceleration, providing them with a soft catch. If you are as petite as you appear in your pics, get used to a climbing career of giving soft catches and receiving hard ones in return from your heavier partners, who won't budge when you fall. You're going to have to train them to give you dynamic belays, possibly after having to convince them that they're killing you with their catches; because if they're big guys, then they will have no experience getting hard catches from the lighter partners, and will have no idea what you are complaining about. Jay
Heh, giving it soft and taking it hard. Why does it always seem to come to that when with the big guys?
That's ok, I LIKE climbing with the big guys...
Hee hee
Cheers
LS
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 5:48 AM
Post #68 of 91
(7999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ladyscarlett wrote: jt512 wrote: I suspect that what you did was to be lighter than your partner, and so when your partner fell, you got pulled up or into the wall, which reduced the climber's deceleration, providing them with a soft catch. If you are as petite as you appear in your pics, get used to a climbing career of giving soft catches and receiving hard ones in return from your heavier partners, who won't budge when you fall. You're going to have to train them to give you dynamic belays, possibly after having to convince them that they're killing you with their catches; because if they're big guys, then they will have no experience getting hard catches from the lighter partners, and will have no idea what you are complaining about. Jay Heh, giving it soft and taking it hard.
Where were girls like you when I was young enough to get girls like you?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
l3uddy789
Feb 7, 2011, 6:42 AM
Post #69 of 91
(7986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2011
Posts: 98
|
Can you guys stop writing on my thread... the arguments are getting quite repetitive and are not giving me any more advice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's not like you guys have to belay each other so there is no point in arguing this any longer.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 7, 2011, 6:55 AM
Post #70 of 91
(7975 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
l3uddy789 wrote: Can you guys stop writing on my thread... the arguments are getting quite repetitive and are not giving me any more advice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's not like you guys have to belay each other so there is no point in arguing this any longer. Ian
Sure, we could probably stop "writing on [your] thread" (assuming that we could actually figure out what that means), now that the last shred of hope that you could actually learn anything from a series of sincerely helpful and insightful posts has been demolished.
Mods, before banning me, please carefully review this thread, and especially my contributions to it.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 7, 2011, 6:56 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Feb 7, 2011, 7:07 AM
Post #71 of 91
(7969 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
notapplicable wrote: vegastradguy wrote: an interesting discussion. it shouldnt be lost, though, that there are instances where a hard catch, or something in between a dynamic and static belay is required- being aware of the consequences of a fall (obstacles that a climber may hit) is, at the end of the day, a massive part of the belayers job, as it will allow him to determine the best belay to provide for a given fall.You're right, every fall is a unique case and everyone seems to agree that you cannot react the same way to every fall. I think the main thing under discussion here though, is whether a static or dynamic belay should be the default from which you make adjustments to accommodate a given situation.
I dont think there is or should be a 'default' belay style- its too dependent on the terrain and situation. I start off with a hard catch belay at the beginning of every route, as groundfall is a potential, but after that, its too up in the air for one to be prevalent over the other, imho.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Feb 7, 2011, 8:39 AM
Post #72 of 91
(7954 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
lock and hold default ... if you dont know
consider that there are quite a few routes where you cant really see the person on lead ... you dont know whether they are above a ledge or not, etc ...
everything people have posted above assumes you can clearly see yr climbing partner ...
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Feb 7, 2011, 8:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 7, 2011, 9:10 AM
Post #73 of 91
(7947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
l3uddy789 wrote: Can you guys stop writing on my thread... the arguments are getting quite repetitive and are not giving me any more advice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's not like you guys have to belay each other so there is no point in arguing this any longer. Ian
What a strange thing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Feb 7, 2011, 1:54 PM
Post #74 of 91
(7923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
l3uddy789 wrote: Can you guys stop writing on my thread... the arguments are getting quite repetitive and are not giving me any more advice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it's not like you guys have to belay each other so there is no point in arguing this any longer. Ian
This is the internet, buddy. You no longer have control. Aside from the negative comments, the thread drift is on topic and is fairly interesting.
I just have a couple things to add or reiterate.
A soft catch is applied as the climber's weight comes onto the rope. Giving extra slack DOES NOT provide a soft catch. A beginning belayer should do NO more then giving with the catch and allowing their body to be pulled up or in, as jay already said.
A hard catch also has it's place in preventing a climber from hitting something, which has also already been said.
The crux of the matter is learning how to make the right catch at the right time. This is why it is important to gradually increase your knowledge and varying experiences. With practice comes the ability to better adapt to your situation.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 7, 2011, 2:54 PM
Post #75 of 91
(7912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
vegastradguy wrote: notapplicable wrote: vegastradguy wrote: an interesting discussion. it shouldnt be lost, though, that there are instances where a hard catch, or something in between a dynamic and static belay is required- being aware of the consequences of a fall (obstacles that a climber may hit) is, at the end of the day, a massive part of the belayers job, as it will allow him to determine the best belay to provide for a given fall.You're right, every fall is a unique case and everyone seems to agree that you cannot react the same way to every fall. I think the main thing under discussion here though, is whether a static or dynamic belay should be the default from which you make adjustments to accommodate a given situation. I dont think there is or should be a 'default' belay style- its too dependent on the terrain and situation. I start off with a hard catch belay at the beginning of every route, as groundfall is a potential, but after that, its too up in the air for one to be prevalent over the other, imho.
Perhaps I should have said ideal, instead of default. All I was trying to say is that in an ideal situation where there is nothing to hit and the only advantage to just locking off or, in contrast, deliberately moving your body in response to the forces exerted on the system, is going to be the relative "hardness" of the catch, we can't even agree on what you should do.
I think you should belay dynamically because it reduces forces on the gear and on the climber. Others seem to think those do not constitute real advantages, or at least think they are being overstated, and believe you should lock off unless there are specific hazards to be avoided by belaying dynamically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
