The pamphlet that came with my 10mm Mammut/EMS Promo rope says "Immediate, mandatory replacement is necessary after a hard fall (fall factor >=1), extreme mechanical, or thermal damage, etc."

Is this true of all ropes? Is it overly cautious? Would most climbers retire a rope after a factor 1 fall?

Would most climbers retire a rope after a factor 1 fall?

It's not because they want to sell more rope. Fall factor 1's are not terribly common and would likely only boost sales by a few ropes a year; hardly worth the risk....

The pamphlet that came with my 10mm Mammut/EMS Promo rope says "Immediate, mandatory replacement is necessary after a hard fall (fall factor >=1), extreme mechanical, or thermal damage, etc."

Is this true of all ropes? Is it overly cautious? Would most climbers retire a rope after a factor 1 fall?

I have taken on the task of disposing of the climbing communities ropes. It is a daunting challenge, but I get great satisfaction out of knowing I am keeping my fellow brethren safe. I have set up an old rope retirement community in my gear room. You can send any rope that you fall on to me. PM me for the address.

I am relatively new to leading and don't intend to take such severe falls anytime soon.
-Chris

Jay, I wasn't joking dude. I am dead serious.

Well then I have a couple thousand pounds of used rope for you for free. You pay the shipping.

I don't know what kind of rope that is, but if it's anything like the two Mammut 10mm ropes that are shown on their website (Eternity and Galaxy) it should start out with an impact force around 9kN, and should be rated to 7-11 UIAA falls.

With that said, if I took a > FF1 on it, I'd inspect it very closely, and then if it looks okay, retire it to the gym and to sport climbing use only.

But that's just me.

GO

That said, I wouldn't think twice about using a rope that held a factor 1 fall.

Now ask yourself why they no longer have 100% confidence.

As an additional consideration for Sterlingjim's analysis, it may be worth noting that the maximum rope tension developed in stopping a factor-one fall approaches 80% of the UIAA impact maximum. In other words, in terms of maximum rope tension, a factor-one event is way more than half as severe as a factor-two event.

But we also know, without much precision, that catching falls (as well as many other aspects of climbing life) stiffens a rope. So I guess what you are faced with deciding is whether you want to risk using a rope that may be far stiffer than originally, with the implications this has for loads on both body and protection.

Or maybe one could regard a rope in such cases as having two lives--one per end.
And continue using the rope w/opposite-end tie-in, so that the part subjected
to the FF1 would only come into play with a lotttttttttt of rope out?!
Which use will hasten retirement, but w/o the immediateness of the FF1 advice.

*kN*

Well, it's not this simple--an important factor has been omitted in this discussion: climber weight.

Climber weight is not an important factor in this discussion. For a range of climber weights from 60 kg to 100 kg, the calculated percentage of the UIAA impact rating for a factor-one fall varies from 76.5% to 77.7%, which I had the temerity to characterize as "approaching 80%" without reference to the climber weight. For this calculation, I assumed a UIAA rating of 10 kN, which is a bit higher than most of the hangtags but is, I think, a reasonable estimate for a real rope that has held some short falls and been used for some rappels.

kN doesn't give a reference for the PMI tests he cites, ...

His analysis appears to misunderstand my point about the irrelevance of climber weight to my comments.

As an additional consideration for Sterlingjim's analysis, it may be worth noting that the maximum rope tension developed in stopping a factor-one fall approaches 80% of the UIAA impact maximum. In other words, in terms of maximum rope tension, ...

I was quantifying the "severity" as a fraction of the peak load for a UIAA drop for the same climber, ...

I think that there is a big point largely being missed here, and it has to do with what a dynamic rope does: absorb shock through non-recovering elasticity.
...
There was plenty of data that showed that a factor 2 fall pretty much converted a dynamic rope to a static rope, permanently. But for less severe falls, the data was not really there. It seems that manufacturers have paid for it to be done, and now we know that a factor 1 fall does the damage.

And you're repeating the mistake I've tried to point out (even to the point of
"driving the life out of this thread"): "Fall Factor X" is NOT NOT NOT a measure
of force, absent a falling mass.
And what that mass is, makes a difference.
The general statements given in the OP and echoed elsewhere assume a mass
of 80kg, but YMMV in individual cases, and it is the generated force--by whatever
FF generates it (and that depends ...)--that affects the material.

There should be a noticeable difference in the state of equal ropes that have
respectively been used over identical FF histories between a couple of flyweight
rockbunnies vs. a couple of big lunks.

That is not a practical distinction. Do you really think that someone should be thinking, "I'm only 67 kg, so I can take up to a 1.4 FF fall without retiring my rope; but my partner weights 77 kg, so he can take up to a 1.1 FF fall on my rope without my retiring my rope?"
Jay

Uhhhhh, I don't understand what, in my posting that you've quoted, I said anything about forces? In fact, the word doesn't appear.

??? The only unseemliness of this is how you put it. Rather, when considering
the recent history of a rope (recall: the issue at hand is the force-unspecific rule
of retiring after (any) FF-1 fall), the severity of use is assessed. And that requires
simple thinking such as "we didn't come close to generating a force that high," based
on reference to a table of forces per FF & mass.
You think it's practical, rather, to do something like "you took a FF-1 fall just
now, and though you weigh about half the weight used for the UIAA test, we should
follow the FF-1 retirement rule." ?
(Or, on the flip side (a term unknown to X generation?), to remain complacent
when "only" a FF-0.8 fall was sustained, even though climber weight's well over 80kg?)

I imagine there are plenty of climbers out there who fall well on either side
of the FF-1_with_80kg force at FF-1 with their personal mass, and with
their most frequent partner's. They'd be better served with a table of generated
forces than a simplistic FF rule.

And the situation is really compounded in that the rope to be used by the
light climber has future demands upon it that are less than that used by the
heavy climber.

*kN*

As an additional consideration for Sterlingjim's analysis, it may be worth noting that the maximum rope tension developed in stopping a factor-one fall approaches 80% of the UIAA impact maximum. In other words, in terms of maximum rope tension, a factor-one event is way more than half as severe as a factor-two event.

As rgold stated, a factor-1 fall is not half as severe as a factor-2 fall; it's 80% as severe. So, if you'd definitely retire a rope after a single factor-2 fall, then you probably should retire it after a single factor-1 fall as well.

A factor 2 fall involves twice as much energy being absorbed by the same amount of rope.

Most ropes will not survive more than 15 Factor 2 falls, yet they will survive many many more factor 1 falls. Factor 1 falls cause negligable damage to the rope. [Emphasis added]

Patto, I may indeed be wrong; I did a force calculation based on a linear rope model. I am not an engineer and certainly not a materials scientist. Since you seem to know something about this, I'd find it very useful to have some references for three of your statements:

1. Ropes will survive many many more factor-1 falls than factor-2 falls.

2. Factor-1 falls cause negligible damage to the rope.

3. Factor-2 falls cause significant damage to the rope.

If any of your references quantify "many many more," "negligible," and "significant," that would also be helpful, as would a description of the nature of the damage you refer to.

I knowingly used qualitative words as I do not have number available. However I'll try to back up my statements.

Ropes will survive many many more factor-1 falls than factor-2 falls.
This follows from the other two comments. Also talk to Dan Osman about his many factor 1 falls. Pitty the friction got to him. :(

Factor-2 falls cause significant damage to the rope.
Most ropes can hold fewer than 15 factor 2 falls many less than 10. Failure after less than 15 cycles indicates to me that damage the I would describe as significant. It quantifiably reduces the ropes life and strength.

Factor 1 falls cause negligable damage to the rope.
A factor 2 fall involes TWICE a much energy as a factor 1 fall. I don't have the numbers to show you but consider this:

If you have a rubber band that can hold a weight drop of 2kg 15 times how many times could it hold a 1kg weight drop. I would be estimate it would be well over 10x more times. Similiary you could drop oranges from 1m heights vs 2m heights and compare the survivability.

Good elastic mediums can have 1000s of cycles if the plastic yield point is not reached. I would be VERY surprised if a factor 1 fall pushes a rope into plastic deformation.

Check out for a quick description of strength vs strain. http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art43.htm

In other words, you have no data, just a circular argument.

Extensive data show the repeated short falls, whether sport climbing or
top roping, quickly wear out dynamic ropes--owners of climbing gyms know this
all too well. Likewise, frequent rappelling ... does a lot of damage. One study
showed that just 50 rappels with a figure-8 device reduced the number of falls
held by a third. [I wonder at the allowed recovery time in this study.]
...
Heavy climbers do more wear and tear than lighter climbers. Frequent falls
and lowering wallop a rope more than occasional falls when traditional climbing.
Tests of ropes with known climbing histories indicate that after 100 50-meter
pitches, a climbing rope loses half of its fall rating. And another 120 pitches
(11,000 meters climbing total) reduces dynamic ability to one third of original.