|
|
|
|
Colinhoglund
Oct 8, 2010, 5:54 PM
Post #126 of 225
(6441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 338
|
kachoong wrote: Perihelion wrote: "Colinhoglund wrote: WOW, that reply made my day. Hook line and sinker. The angry ones are never right  yep, I admit it, I swallowed the bait. But like I said, I took a good rant and felt much lighter afterwards, so it wasn't a total loss.  Editing to add a P.S.: I misunderstood the first poster, who was actually talking about the familiar grappling hook/cliffhanger. I don't think those items are worthless, but I can appreciate the bit about racking hooks and having them fly back into your face. The second guy, the one who posted the picture, is apparently channeling 007/Batman, and I'll stand by my comments about him... moron. WI6 to WI4, indeed. Right-O. (Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way, as far he knows.) Ummm, no that's not what I was talking about. Here I thought you were riding the wave of sarcasm, but it seems you were seriously bunching your panties about the grappling hook. Heh! Whyyyyy soooo serioussssss?
Wow!!!!! This just keeps getting better!
|
|
|
|
|
Perihelion
Oct 8, 2010, 6:05 PM
Post #127 of 225
(6434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2010
Posts: 51
|
kachoong wrote: Perihelion wrote: "Colinhoglund wrote: WOW, that reply made my day. Hook line and sinker. The angry ones are never right yep, I admit it, I swallowed the bait. But like I said, I took a good rant and felt much lighter afterwards, so it wasn't a total loss. Editing to add a P.S.: I misunderstood the first poster, who was actually talking about the familiar grappling hook/cliffhanger. I don't think those items are worthless, but I can appreciate the bit about racking hooks and having them fly back into your face. The second guy, the one who posted the picture, is apparently channeling 007/Batman, and I'll stand by my comments about him... moron. WI6 to WI4, indeed. Right-O. (Of course I mean that in the nicest possible way, as far he knows.) Ummm, no that's not what I was talking about. Here I thought you were riding the wave of sarcasm, but it seems you were seriously bunching your panties about the grappling hook. Heh! Whyyyyy soooo serioussssss?
As I've said before: I do not wear panties, nor have I ever worn panties, but if called upon, panties I will wear. Big, white house panties, or small, delicate European briefs. Nothing like the feel of silky nylon on the boys. I have to draw the line at butt floss, though; that wouldn't play well with the package during a mantel or stemming move.
You're on double-secret probation now, Buckwheat.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Oct 12, 2010, 7:35 PM
Post #128 of 225
(6347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
cracklover wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: If you don't believe me, go do Flying Hawaiian at Rumney without stick clipping and report back to me.  Twice. But I'm not too bright. GO
Add two for me as well. It's an exposed start but it's not too bouldery as to be completely unsafe.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Oct 12, 2010, 8:49 PM
Post #129 of 225
(6322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
Oct 12, 2010, 11:08 PM
Post #130 of 225
(6293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups.
In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 12, 2010, 11:23 PM
Post #131 of 225
(6286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup?
In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
Oct 12, 2010, 11:47 PM
Post #132 of 225
(6269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay
Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.)
(This post was edited by milesenoell on Oct 13, 2010, 12:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 13, 2010, 1:36 AM
Post #133 of 225
(6248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
milesenoell wrote: jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay I suppose, but it seems to me that using them on the rope end of draws while leading (as I believe they are intended to be used) would be to subject your belayer to much higher forces in a fall than anything you would see in a TR scenario.
You just made another argument for their uselessness.
In reply to: Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.)
If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. Let's say you and your partner each weigh 170 lb. Then, if you used a revolver, it would be like belaying someone who weighed 255 lb. How pleasant an experience would that be? Now, imagine that your partner weighed 200 lb. A 30-lb difference is no big deal, but with a revolver it would theoretically be like belaying someone weighing 300 lb. Is this a reason to be "concerned"? No. Is this a reason to be unhappy? Hell, yes.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 13, 2010, 2:02 AM
Post #134 of 225
(6235 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
milesenoell wrote: jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay I suppose, but it seems to me that using them on the rope end of draws while leading (as I believe they are intended to be used) would be to subject your belayer to much higher forces in a fall than anything you would see in a TR scenario. Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.)
You know, I never bought any, but I always thought that they would make good biners for crevasse rescue. that way you could set up a Z-drag without the hassle of pulley's. Not ideal, but lighter and simpler than pulley's. I also wonder if they'd be any good for setting up a slackline.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 13, 2010, 2:54 AM
Post #135 of 225
(6224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: milesenoell wrote: jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay I suppose, but it seems to me that using them on the rope end of draws while leading (as I believe they are intended to be used) would be to subject your belayer to much higher forces in a fall than anything you would see in a TR scenario. Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.) You know, I never bought any, but I always thought that they would make good biners for crevasse rescue. that way you could set up a Z-drag without the hassle of pulley's. Not ideal, but lighter and simpler than pulley's. I also wonder if they'd be any good for setting up a slackline.
IIRC, when the load on them exceeds a threshold, they don't rotate, and so act like a regular biner. If I'm not just imagining that, then they probably wouldn't be too helpful for tensioning a slackline, nor do they pose the lead fall concern suggested by milesenoell.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Colinhoglund
Oct 13, 2010, 3:57 AM
Post #136 of 225
(6197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2008
Posts: 338
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: milesenoell wrote: jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay I suppose, but it seems to me that using them on the rope end of draws while leading (as I believe they are intended to be used) would be to subject your belayer to much higher forces in a fall than anything you would see in a TR scenario. Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.) You know, I never bought any, but I always thought that they would make good biners for crevasse rescue. that way you could set up a Z-drag without the hassle of pulley's. Not ideal, but lighter and simpler than pulley's. I also wonder if they'd be any good for setting up a slackline.
Actually they are excellent for this purpose because they take up less space in the system. Just think, the one inch they are shorter saves you up to 6" of wasted work on a 6-1 Z drag. Not to mention they are lighter and more compact than a similarly efficient locker/pulley combo.
I usually carry one as part of my multipitch kit just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
Perihelion
Oct 13, 2010, 4:33 AM
Post #137 of 225
(6186 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2010
Posts: 51
|
jt512 wrote: If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. Let's say you and your partner each weigh 170 lb. Then, if you used a revolver, it would be like belaying someone who weighed 255 lb. How pleasant an experience would that be? Now, imagine that your partner weighed 200 lb. A 30-lb difference is no big deal, but with a revolver it would theoretically be like belaying someone weighing 300 lb. Is this a reason to be "concerned"? No. Is this a reason to be unhappy? Hell, yes. Jay
Even if we ignore friction, your examples would be valid only if we were to climb on perfectly inelastic rope. You are ignoring friction and assuming an inelastic rope, which means that your examples are far removed from reality, so much so that they are useless even as a basis for discussion.
The Revolver is not frictionless; it is roughly a 5-10% improvement over a plain biner. (Source: Climbing Self Rescue) This modest reduction of friction, combined with the dynamic properties of the rope, mean that using a Revolver for a TR setup is a non-issue for practical purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
Oct 13, 2010, 4:39 AM
Post #138 of 225
(6183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: jt512 wrote: milesenoell wrote: lemon_boy wrote: the dmm revolver carabiner, without a doubt. i'm always surprised when people recommend using these for a top rope anchor, or other ill advised setups. In what way are you suggesting that that is an ill advised setup? In the way of not providing any friction to reduce the impact force on the belayer. Jay I suppose, but it seems to me that using them on the rope end of draws while leading (as I believe they are intended to be used) would be to subject your belayer to much higher forces in a fall than anything you would see in a TR scenario. You just made another argument for their uselessness. In reply to: Edited to add: I'm not sure how much extra force we are talking about by reducing the friction (but I suspect you do) but I'm just not all that concerned about the forces in a TR system. (I also don't generally climb with anybody who significantly outweighs me.) If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. Let's say you and your partner each weigh 170 lb. Then, if you used a revolver, it would be like belaying someone who weighed 255 lb. How pleasant an experience would that be? Now, imagine that your partner weighed 200 lb. A 30-lb difference is no big deal, but with a revolver it would theoretically be like belaying someone weighing 300 lb. Is this a reason to be "concerned"? No. Is this a reason to be unhappy? Hell, yes. Jay
I was just intrigued by the post suggesting they their use was "ill advised", when a TR system just doesn't seem like the environment most likely to expose a piece of gear's weakness.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 13, 2010, 4:42 AM
Post #139 of 225
(6181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Perihelion wrote: jt512 wrote: If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. Let's say you and your partner each weigh 170 lb. Then, if you used a revolver, it would be like belaying someone who weighed 255 lb. How pleasant an experience would that be? Now, imagine that your partner weighed 200 lb. A 30-lb difference is no big deal, but with a revolver it would theoretically be like belaying someone weighing 300 lb. Is this a reason to be "concerned"? No. Is this a reason to be unhappy? Hell, yes. Jay Even if we ignore friction, your examples would be valid only if we were to climb on perfectly inelastic rope. You are ignoring friction and assuming an inelastic rope, which means that your examples are far removed from reality, so much so that they are useless even as a basis for discussion. The Revolver is not frictionless; it is roughly a 5-10% improvement over a plain biner. (Source: Climbing Self Rescue) This modest reduction of friction, combined with the dynamic properties of the rope, mean that using a Revolver for a TR setup is a non-issue for practical purposes.
What do you mean "even if we ignore friction"? First of all, if we ignore friction, there is nothing to discuss, since the essential difference between the Revolver and ordinary biners is that the former reduces friction. Secondly, my entire conclusion is due to considerations of friction, so we can hardly ignore it. And, no, I'm not ignoring the elasticity of the rope. My conclusions assume that the rope has the same elastic properties regardless of which biner is being used.
As to the improvement in friction being only 5-10%, I'm shocked that it is so small, and frankly, I don't believe it; and, perhaps worse, if your claim is true, I am undecided whether that makes this silly device more or less worthless!
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 13, 2010, 4:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Oct 13, 2010, 2:05 PM
Post #140 of 225
(6116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
i often see people recommending them in a toprope anchor. this is retarded. have you ever seen what happens when you use a pulley for a toprope anchor? belayer=meat launch, climber = meatbomb. that aside, if you used 2 of them in a TR anchor, the direction of rotation of the 2 pulleys where they are in contact is tangentially opposite, which is obviously fucked up.
if you use them when you don't have a ton of rope drag the leader will likely take a much bigger fall, as there isn't as much friction to act as a 'braking' mechanism.
whenever i see people with revolvers on their rack i just shake my head. ultra specialized, basically useless, and if used in the wron scenario - dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 13, 2010, 2:10 PM
Post #141 of 225
(6115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
As far as I can tell, the revolver doesn't make a very good pulley because of the tight bending radius which leads to lots of bending losses in the rope. You really have to go to a larger diameter wheel to get the benefit of using a pulley with a 180 bend in the rope. Where the revolver would make more of a difference is at smaller bending angles such as on a piece of pro.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 13, 2010, 2:25 PM
Post #142 of 225
(6105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
hafilax wrote: Where the revolver would make more of a difference is at smaller bending angles such as on a piece of pro.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Oct 13, 2010, 2:27 PM
Post #143 of 225
(6104 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
The only real info on the roller that I can find:
In reply to: The roller itself is made of 7075 and blends smoothly into the back of the carabiner to encourage the rope to run correctly. Inside the roller is a dry tube Igus bearing which in turn is supported by a high tensile stainless sleeve over a high tensile stainless spindle. The whole assembly runs very smoothly and the sealed bearing tubes as it wears. It is also very strong, and the spindle will not deform until a force approaching 10 to 12 kN is generated.
http://www.dmmclimbing.com/...sp?pid=1&pid2=76
(This post was edited by acorneau on Oct 13, 2010, 2:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Guran
Oct 13, 2010, 2:48 PM
Post #144 of 225
(6094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220
|
lemon_boy wrote: whenever i see people with revolvers on their rack i just shake my head. ultra specialized, basically useless, and if used in the wron scenario - dangerous.
Nah...
A revolver is a better-than-nothing pulley and as such at least better than those petzl plastic thingys.
It is also a speciality piece for meandering routes.
...and of course the true mark of a gear whore.
I have one. I take it when I might have use for a pulley, but don't expect to. Otherwise it stays in the gear box.
|
|
|
|
|
Perihelion
Oct 13, 2010, 4:47 PM
Post #145 of 225
(6068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2010
Posts: 51
|
jt512 wrote: Perihelion wrote: jt512 wrote: If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. ... Even if we ignore friction, your examples would be valid only if we were to climb on perfectly inelastic rope. The Revolver is not frictionless; it is roughly a 5-10% improvement over a plain biner. (Source: Climbing Self Rescue) What do you mean "even if we ignore friction"? First of all, if we ignore friction, there is nothing to discuss, since the essential difference between the Revolver and ordinary biners is that the former reduces friction. Secondly, my entire conclusion is due to considerations of friction, so we can hardly ignore it. And, no, I'm not ignoring the elasticity of the rope. My conclusions assume that the rope has the same elastic properties regardless of which biner is being used. As to the improvement in friction being only 5-10%, I'm shocked that it is so small, and frankly, I don't believe it; and, perhaps worse, if your claim is true, I am undecided whether that makes this silly device more or less worthless! Jay
You began with the words "If the Revover were frictionless..." and then proceeded to base several apocryphal examples on that premise. Thus my comment "even if we ignore friction". Your examples read like a first semester Newtonian physics problem: "Assume a frictionless pulley and no air resistance...".
I can't see how you are allowing for the dynamic properties of a rope, because among other things, that is dependent on FF. If our hypothetical 200 lb climber falls on 30' of rope we will get different results than if the climber fell on 60' of rope. Of course the total energy is the same in both cases, but the climber and belayer will experience different peak forces.
Also, I don't expect the relationship between the 170 lb and 200 lb climbers to be linear. This is an integration problem. A statement such as "If the climber weighs X, the belayer will feel Y" is only valid for a specific set of circumstances. You can't extrapolate from that without a more info. As they said back in that first Engineering Physics class "Show your work."
As for the Revolver's efficiency: That isn't my claim, it is the claim made on pg 136 of Climbing Self-Rescue. I think it is probably valid. The efficiency of a pulley is related to the ratio of rope diameter to sheave diameter, and the Revolver has a tiny, 10mm pulley that runs on a really tiny axle and a plain bearing. DMM isn't forthcoming with efficiency rating, probably because the number is underwhelming.
Personally, I don't see the problem with using a Revolver in the MP for a TR rig. It's a non-issue, if you have $60 to throw at a couple of baubles for use on your TR rig. It seems to me that there might actually be an advantage to reducing MP friction, but if that is a goal, then the money is better spent on a beefy rescue pulley. I'd climb on that, if everything else were up to snuff. In fact, now I am curious, to the point where I might experiment the next time an opportunity presents.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevthecoffeeguy
Oct 13, 2010, 5:24 PM
Post #146 of 225
(6046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2010
Posts: 149
|
hafilax wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Most worthless piece of gear in general: stick clip. Sigh. Burnsie, you don't know what you're talking about. I have a regularly use a stickclip. And I don't think we need to debate about my trad/soloing/r/x/headspace abilities, either, so don't even go there. then why use it? Why place gear?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2010, 4:40 AM
Post #147 of 225
(5999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Perihelion wrote: jt512 wrote: Perihelion wrote: jt512 wrote: If the revolver were frictionless it would increase the force on the belayer by about 50%. ... Even if we ignore friction, your examples would be valid only if we were to climb on perfectly inelastic rope. The Revolver is not frictionless; it is roughly a 5-10% improvement over a plain biner. (Source: Climbing Self Rescue) What do you mean "even if we ignore friction"? First of all, if we ignore friction, there is nothing to discuss, since the essential difference between the Revolver and ordinary biners is that the former reduces friction. Secondly, my entire conclusion is due to considerations of friction, so we can hardly ignore it. And, no, I'm not ignoring the elasticity of the rope. My conclusions assume that the rope has the same elastic properties regardless of which biner is being used. As to the improvement in friction being only 5-10%, I'm shocked that it is so small, and frankly, I don't believe it; and, perhaps worse, if your claim is true, I am undecided whether that makes this silly device more or less worthless! Jay I can't see how you are allowing for the dynamic properties of a rope, because among other things, that is dependent on FF.
I'm using the so-called Wexler, or standard, model of impact force, in which the rope is modeled as an undamped, Hooke's Law spring. Hence, the elasticity of the rope is represented by a spring constant that is not a function of the fall factor. But, regardless, your criticism is nearly irrelevant in the circumstances we are discussing—a toprope fall—which, assuming that there is no slack, is always a fall-factor-0 fall.
In reply to: Also, I don't expect the relationship between the 170 lb and 200 lb climbers to be linear.
Under the standard model my claim is correct: for a fall-factor-0 fall, reducing the "friction factor" from the generally-assumed-to-be-correct value of 1/3 to 0 is equivalent to increasing the weight of the climber by 50%.
In reply to: "Show your work."
The model is explained here: The Standard Model of Impact Force
In reply to: As for the Revolver's efficiency: That isn't my claim, it is the claim made on pg 136 of Climbing Self-Rescue.
I know it is not your claim per se. However, the idea that the Revolver would only decrease the friction in a toprope setup by 5–10% seems preposterous to me. I could certainly be wrong, but my guess would be that either your source is wrong or that you've misinterpreted it.
In reply to: Personally, I don't see the problem with using a Revolver in the MP for a TR rig.
Whether you see it or not, the problem is that it reduces the friction between the rope and the anchor, resulting in a direct increase in the impact force on the belayer. If there really is no problem using the Revolver for the master biner a toprope set up, it would only be because it really is as worthless as you claim; ie, that it only reduces friction by 5–10%. The more effective it is at doing its job, the more detrimental it is as the top-rope master point biner.
In reply to: It's a non-issue, if you have $60 to throw at a couple of baubles for use on your TR rig. It seems to me that there might actually be an advantage to reducing MP friction, but if that is a goal, then the money is better spent on a beefy rescue pulley. I'd climb on that, if everything else were up to snuff.
You've gotten it completely backwards. If anything, you want to increase the friction in the toprope anchor. Why else do you think that so many gyms use thick pipes as their toprope anchors, and wrap the rope around them twice.
In reply to: In fact, now I am curious, to the point where I might experiment the next time an opportunity presents.
Please do. And enjoy the ride, no matter which end of the rope you're on.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 16, 2010, 4:57 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jbro_135
Oct 14, 2010, 4:07 PM
Post #148 of 225
(5936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2009
Posts: 662
|
i like to use revolvers to reduce impact force when i'm top-roping on a sketchy single-micronut anchor
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 14, 2010, 4:17 PM
Post #149 of 225
(5932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jbro_135 wrote: i like to use revolvers to reduce impact force when i'm top-roping on a sketchy single-micronut anchor
Too bad, because when you reduce the friction on the anchor, you increase the impact force on it.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Oct 14, 2010, 4:39 PM
Post #150 of 225
(5918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
jt512 wrote: jbro_135 wrote: i like to use revolvers to reduce impact force when i'm top-roping on a sketchy single-micronut anchor Too bad, because when you reduce the friction on the anchor, you increase the impact force on it.
A belayer getting pulled off the ground doesn't produce lower peak forces?
|
|
|
|
|
|
