|
shakylegs
Mar 20, 2004, 12:01 AM
Post #1 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
WARNING! Newbie question alert!
(Yeah, I'll probably be flamed for asking this, but whatever.)
If I slot a micro-cam or brassie (or anything else that's only rated for body-weight), do I simply place it and hope for the best, or can it be bounce-tested?
Please be gentle.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 20, 2004, 12:18 AM
Post #2 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Yes, do the bounce test. Losing the gear on the test is far better than losing it while in the top step groping for the next one. Of course, the bad thing about marginal placements is that once they pass the bounce test you then have to use them.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Mar 20, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #3 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Depends. There are a variety of ways to bounce test. For cams, I usually only test if the rock quality is suspect. I usually attach my aider/daisey and give it a series of progressively aggressive stomps and that is enough to tell me if the edges around the outer lobes are going to hold or not. Nuts are a different story. I'll clip it, then lean on it, and then start bouncing like a mad man. The worse the gear is below me, the more agressively I bounce test the piece I'm about to move up to. I don't want to take a fall if I know that I have several body weight only pieces below me and the consequences of ripping the piece I'm moving up on are dire.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Mar 20, 2004, 12:41 AM
Post #4 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Bounce testing on less than bomber pro, yes, usually.
However, my thought (and I am no expert) is that if the placement is truly only bodyweight and you have no choice but to use it, bouncetesting too aggressively may blow the peice when just your bodyweight might not. Also, in soft sandstone, bouncing the crap out of a peice (as in too aggressivley, blowing peice after peice) may destroy the placement unnecessarilly. Use your judgement and know the rock as best you can.
When using your judgement...think to yourself...what is below the "bodyweight" peice? Is it bomber? What are the consequences if the bodyweight peice blows when I try to stand on it? Think...how much do I have to bounce to really know if it will hold?
I read an article or post somewhere that talks about taking a scream aid (a very sensitive "screamer") and practicing bounce testing and funkness testing on it. When it begins to fail, you know you have reached about 2kn (i believe) of force. Get to know what this feels like...understand how much force your bounce test generates relative to how much force you want the dodgy placment to hold...this will make your testing more precise and bring up your confidence level on the pro post-testing. Reducing bounce-test overkill will result in far more placements that you can use in the long-run that otherwise might have stopped you in your tracks.
Sometimes, rather than bail, I have used peices that might not have held normal bouncetesting...however, I made these judgements based on the peice below the bodyweight peice. Once it was a bolt. Hell...am I going to bail because I am afraid of falling from a bodyweight peice onto a 3/8 inch bolt? Nope, I'm gonna use that crappy gear, barely testing, and hope for the best. However, if it was above a string of "bodyweight" placements, I might back down and leave it to the experts.
Also, if things are really dicy, be careful how you bouncetest You don't want to go static-daisy-falling onto the peice below the one that you are testing and blowing that peice, too!. Balance yer weight between the peices, one foot on each, keep yer head down, and be ready to Gracefully weight your previous peice when the one you are testing blows.
Just my thoughts, no expert here, but have had my share of fun on sandstone this season. Thanks to everyone on the aid form that I learned most of this from in the first place, hope im making you proud.
-Kate.
edited because I left out a word...as if there weren't enough already!
|
|
|
|
|
smithclimber
Mar 20, 2004, 1:03 AM
Post #5 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2002
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: If I slot a micro-cam or brassie (or anything else that's only rated for body-weight), do I simply place it and hope for the best, or can it be bounce-tested?
Just to clarify, Shakylegs... none of the gear you buy is "only rated for body-weight".
Micro cams are usually rated between 6 - 8KN and even the tiny micro nuts are typically rated at 3KN.
The gear is plenty strong enough to hold your body weight AND THEN SOME.
It is the placement itself that will dictate.
There aren't any "body-weight only" pieces, just "body-weight only" placements.
Make sense?
And as mentioned above, yes you generally want to bounce test shady looking placements (keeping in mind what sort of pieces are below you).
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Mar 20, 2004, 1:07 AM
Post #6 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Good catch, Wes
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Mar 20, 2004, 1:25 AM
Post #7 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
3kn= 220 * 3 about= 660 - A hundred pounder (like Kate) can easily generate the 660 pounds by aggessive bounce testing, possibly blowing the wires.
Sure bounce it - but within reason.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Mar 20, 2004, 1:25 AM
Post #8 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
thanks all. really good, informative responses. definitely clarifies things.
|
|
|
|
|
holdplease2
Mar 20, 2004, 2:47 AM
Post #9 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 1733
|
Yo! U kallin' me a litewait boi!
Thanks for the KN info...applies to the bouncing on a screamer and knowing the force you are testing the piece with...If you weigh 180, do you need the peice to hold 660 pounds? Would it be OK to test this one to more like 250 to hold you and your squirming until you get your next good peice? Will you stop climbing and bail if it only holds 400?
Its all about the fine line.
;)
-Kate.
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Mar 20, 2004, 5:12 AM
Post #10 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
I had a local aid guru tell me about a test, that I have not had a chance to try yet - not sure what weight would cause this to happen - sure it would depend on the binner, but here goes:
You put your hand on your lead binner, feeling closely where the gate hits the binner - if you bounce/weight the binner enough to stretch/flex the binner you have tested the piece sufficiently, jump on it and go.
If would be interesting to setup your particular type of lead binner on a load cell or some kind of scale device and see at what weights you flex your binner to what point.
Concept makes sense to me – I need to try this tomorrow.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Mar 20, 2004, 11:23 PM
Post #11 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
Bounce testing on a long, dicey string of bodyweight??
You guys CRAZY???
That's like shucking yer favorite hound offa a cliff to see if him can fly.
NEVER bounce test when the grim reaper is waitin' below with a pitchfork.
Good way to buy a farm, imho.
Sheesh.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Mar 21, 2004, 2:05 AM
Post #12 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Disclaimer – heck Brutus, I’m only working on some c3/a3 stuff – thanks for the advice – hope I don’t find myself on top of some killer string of bodyweight only pieces (a4?).
Today I did find myself on a talon over a fixed #1ish looking brassy over a #4 brassy with a screamer over a rivet (left a hanger on it and clipped) over a bolt. If all zippered to the bolt, rope stretch might have glanced me off a 2’ ramp down lower.
When I sucked up tight to the talon – I realized I was on a timebomb – I had hip bounced it with the adjustable – btw, the flexing of the led binner on the gate is very noticeable. I got another hook – the smallest chiseled leper on another very marginal placement very quickly.
I was 4.5 moves over some pieces I did not want to fall on.
Brutus’s advice is fairly intuitive when the juices are flowing! It was like porcupines making love – very carefully on those last two hook moves before latching another C1.
Sun burnt!
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Mar 21, 2004, 2:49 AM
Post #13 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
Two words:
funkness test
I can easily generate enough force in a no-risk funkness test to start ripping a scream aid. Bindner. Done that.
When walking the thin red A5 line, Mister Funkness is your path back to sanity.
Don't leave home without him.
Equalized hooks are another matter...
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
smithclimber
Mar 21, 2004, 3:09 AM
Post #14 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2002
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: Bounce testing on a long, dicey string of bodyweight?? You guys CRAZY??? That's like shucking yer favorite hound offa a cliff to see if him can fly. NEVER bounce test when the grim reaper is waitin' below with a pitchfork. Good way to buy a farm, imho. Sheesh. Brutus
If you don't bounce test each piece in a long string of marginal placements then YOU are the one who is CRAZY!!! :shock:
Sure, I've used the "ease onto it and hope it doesn't blow" approach myself, but only above decent gear (where a fall wouldn't be disasterous).
Recommending people to NOT bounce test each marginal placement successively is a VERY BAD IDEA.
The purpose of bounce testing each piece thoughly, before you climb all the way up on it, is to ensure (as much as one can) that the piece you are currently standing on will maintain you in the event that the piece you are currently testing blows out.
You must have reasonable confidence that the piece you are standing on can withstand the force of this small jolt as your weight comes onto it (when the tested piece fails).
To repeatedly climb higher and higher on a string of un-tested placements is truly an accident waiting to happen!
Geez... who would like to chime in on THIS one? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
bigwalling
Mar 21, 2004, 4:12 AM
Post #15 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 728
|
My bet is Brutus is big into funk testing. Someone on here was raving about it sometime ago. They had done hard shit too, so my bet is it's him.
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Mar 21, 2004, 4:32 AM
Post #16 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Thanks again Brutus!
I had my funkness in the pig - nailing practice was to come later. Not that the funkness would have helped on the hooks - but I will start clipping that funkness on my rack when looking at a string of 3kn wires - even if it isn't a5.
For good or evil - I tend to stomp/kick down (funkness like test) more than trasfer weigth and bounce when testing the new piece - thus if/when they pop - there is not a shock on the down piece.
Maybe I was just lucky on the talon today - but I've also got a bit of a feel for keeping weight on the legs and doing more of a butt funkness bounce on the top piece.
I popped 2 attempts on the second hook before finding just the right crystal - while keeping the talon weighted - the talon was waaaayyy flakey, as soon as I commited to the second hook (unweighted it) it fell off.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Mar 21, 2004, 3:06 PM
Post #17 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
A few observations:
1. Until a climber has done a bit of aid, their evaluatoin of what constitutes a "Bodyweight only" placement can sometimes be based more on fear than experience. You'd be surprised what will hold you. I've been caught by a rurp after after a 25+ foot fall.
2. Beware of funkness testing unless you somehow are sure that you have a good handle on how much force you are generating. It's easy to generate the highest possible forces with funkness, that's how people sometimes break the eyes of pitons and coppperhead cables.
3. A bodyweight placement is exactly where you want to test. You just don't want to "overtest" What I would do is clip a daisy chain to the new, suspect piece, then I sit down on it, while still balanced over the rungs of the aiders on the piece I'm using, with both hands on them too. IF it doesn't pull when I sit on it, I give it enough bounce to give it enough force to go just far enough beyond bodyweight that I figure that it won't just blow due to the uneven forces of moving up on it for awhile. If it does blow, I usually haven't put undue force on the piece I'm on in the process.
Aid climbing is such a trippy fear. In free climbing, you usually know when you're not going to fall. In aid climbing, the fall could often come unexpectedly. Gripping. Then there's biner-shift, where you're weightless after a loud clack for a microsecond and you don't know if its a fall or just the biners moving around.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Mar 21, 2004, 5:02 PM
Post #18 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i want to reiterate the bit about the careful bounce testing on soft sandstone. you can create some giant awful scars doing that, so evaluate carefully whether the test is necessary or not. of course, on godawful hard aid on soft sandstone you will be bouncing no matter what - but do you really have to on that green alien in a thin entrada crack? in those cases i clip a daisy into the piece to be tested, weight it as hard as i can without bouncing(definitely not like a true bounce test), and if it looks good i get on it. scars from bounce testing cams in soft sandstone can look as bad as pin scars.
bounce testing is an art, not an exact science.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Mar 21, 2004, 5:51 PM
Post #19 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: Recommending people to NOT bounce test each marginal placement successively is a VERY BAD IDEA. The purpose of bounce testing each piece thoughly, before you climb all the way up on it, is to ensure (as much as one can) that the piece you are currently standing on will maintain you in the event that the piece you are currently testing blows out.
Tee hee, thanks for the lecture on why testing pieces is a good idea.
:roll:
I never said I don't test marginal pieces.
I said if you BOUNCE test on a long string of bodyweight pieces, you're crazy.
imho, easy aid, no test needed. Get on it, get up it, and get off it as fast and as high as possible.
Moderate aid, up through say A3+, Bounce it. Bouncing is way quicker than the funkness.
Hard aid, in case you didn't see it earlier,
FUNKNESS
If you don't know what a funkness is, please don't give advice regarding testing pieces on the aid forum, because you'll likely get someone killed.
I'm pretty much a noob aid climber, but even I know what a funkness is.
Ditto what Karl Babameister says about awareness of funkness forces. Practice with scream aids that you about to retire in order to "calibrate" your feel for the test. When we gonna get together for some cragging Karl?
Of course, you may be one of those 98-pound aid gods who could bounce test all day and never zipper a pitch. But if not, just continue bouncing your way to oblivion.
First one to the morgue is a rotten egg!
:twisted:
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Mar 22, 2004, 4:36 AM
Post #20 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Brutus said:
In reply to: If you don't know what a funkness is, please don't give advice regarding testing pieces on the aid forum, because you'll likely get someone killed.
Dang, I thought I understood that butt funkness fairly well? - ok retraction everyone - DO NOT BUTT funckness any aid pieces.
In my case, we are talking a big hammer!
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Mar 22, 2004, 9:21 PM
Post #21 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
brutus,
I think smithclimber just missed your second post about the Funkness. When I read your first post I also thought you were suggesting not testing any of your pieces. Sounded kinda crazy to me as well and I almost imediatley responded that your way was definately NOT the better way, in bold letters. But bold letters are so last year...
So, my the question is do you actually test every sketch piece with a Funkness? Like a pecker in a small bottomed out groove, or a #0-#1 head. It seems like the funk would pull most things out or may be break cables. Do you give a full on Funk or just a little Funk? You talking George Clinton or some back alley wanna be band?
|
|
|
|
|
smithclimber
Mar 23, 2004, 12:00 AM
Post #22 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2002
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: You talking George Clinton or some back alley wanna be band?
:lol: That's a good one, Matt. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Mar 24, 2004, 6:03 PM
Post #23 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: brutus, bold letters are so last year...
If they're just last year, mebe I'm catching up... I used to be in the dark ages. :)
In reply to: So, my the question is do you actually test every sketch piece with a Funkness? Like a pecker in a small bottomed out groove, or a #0-#1 head. It seems like the funk would pull most things out or may be break cables. Do you give a full on Funk or just a little Funk? You talking George Clinton or some back alley wanna be band?
As usual, it depends.
If every piece is sketch, I'd test each piece where funking makes sense. I'd test each piece to above body weight. #1 heads can hold this kind of force, especially when equalized. A fixed #0 -- with rusted cables -- yikes -- Depends on what I'm on, and the placements before and after. I've only placed one #0 circlehead in my life, I funked it, moved on it and past it, and my partner cleaned it with a gentle tug.
Do I try to rip the stuff out of the rock with maximum force?
Of course not. Call me "back alley Sally".
As I understand it, the purpose of the test is (Just like the bounce test) to evaluate how well the next piece will be able to stop a short fall... to make that string of sketch into a pyramid of security... and to do that with absolutely no risk of shock loading the current piece.
Let's say that my current placement is a shaky hook that falls off when unweighted. I probably didn't funk it, or the hook placement before it. The next placement is a beak, or some marginal piece like a #1 copperhead pinned in place back behind an expando flake with a fat Bugaboo.
My choices:
Bounce test it,
Funk test it, or
Ease onto it and pray
If I bounce test the head and it or the flake blows, I have nothing to back me up if the hook tinkles down the rock.
Using the funkness, I can fully load the next placement without risking the "security" of the shaky hook I'm standing on.
Ease onto the piece without testing and pray? I try to minimize rolling the dice, thanks.
As Karlee pointed out, huge forces can be developed with a funkness. imho learning how much force you are applying is a skill well worth developing when venturing into the realm of extended sketch.
Bounce testing definitely has its place in aid climbing.
But knowing the next piece will hold a fall up to scream-aid force, before ever applying body weight to it, allows me to cut back on my anti-anxiety medications.
Just one way of doing things, of course. Not saying its the "better way", just saying it's an option that might be worth exploring. Sure seemed to work for me back when "5.4 or A0" wasn't the upper limit of my abilities.
And personally, I think folks who doen't use the funkness on very hard aid, , that rely only on the bounce test, or "Butt Funkness" are crazy.
Of course, the mental state of anyone who would try a big wall is open to question anyways...
Brutus
Bed bound, drooling and incontinent
Old Climbers' Home
Oakland, California
|
|
|
|
|
lambone
Mar 24, 2004, 9:14 PM
Post #24 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1399
|
yeah, makes sense...
I guess i'll havta start clipping the funk to my lead rack....bummer.
|
|
|
|
|
bigwallfun
Mar 25, 2004, 12:33 AM
Post #25 of 40
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Posts: 43
|
ANYONE who tests with a funkness I bet has'nt done any thing hard.Why would you put a static blow on a piece your about to get on. and if you can't bounce it good use your trail line and let your belayer bounce it from below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
