|
bearbreeder
Apr 19, 2013, 4:19 PM
Post #76 of 84
(4454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
again ... lets quantify it ...
how many documented accidents are there of a properly set up autoblock slipping to the point of a serious failure ... not a lower accident or a missetup one ...
we need numbers to gauge the "risk"
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Apr 19, 2013, 4:26 PM
Post #77 of 84
(4449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: again ... lets quantify it ... how many documented accidents are there of a properly set up autoblock slipping to the point of a serious failure ... not a lower accident or a missetup one ... we need numbers to gauge the "risk"
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Apr 19, 2013, 4:34 PM
Post #78 of 84
(4447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
redlude97 wrote: There are plenty of risks in climbing that don't have a lot of documented evidence. We all agree here the risk is small. But it is easily reproduced. Take 2 ropes of varying diameter, set up a guide/reverso in autoblock mode, weight one rope and then weight the other rope, it doesn't always catch the second rope. I've verified this mode of failure. Does that mean I expect this to happen on a regular basis and won't bring up 2 climbers on an autoblock? No. It just means I realize that there is a potential there of it not locking to keep in mind of.
theres literally millions of pitches climbed since the gigi/reverso/guide came out ... guides use em all the time on screaming hanging clients
im looking for actual accidents where the serious failure is from the autoblock slipping ...
theoretically 2 opposed draws are not as "safe" as lockers, an old school locker isnt as "safe" as a fancy gridlock megatron, and tons of other things that arent as "safe"
theres many things in climbing that ACTUALLY kill you, and with some FREQUENCY
id like to know how often this particular situation does since we have a massive RC thread on it now ...and since RC experts know best, i expect actual real accidents with some frequency
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Apr 19, 2013, 4:35 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Apr 19, 2013, 4:45 PM
Post #79 of 84
(4443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
bearbreeder wrote: redlude97 wrote: There are plenty of risks in climbing that don't have a lot of documented evidence. We all agree here the risk is small. But it is easily reproduced. Take 2 ropes of varying diameter, set up a guide/reverso in autoblock mode, weight one rope and then weight the other rope, it doesn't always catch the second rope. I've verified this mode of failure. Does that mean I expect this to happen on a regular basis and won't bring up 2 climbers on an autoblock? No. It just means I realize that there is a potential there of it not locking to keep in mind of. theres literally millions of pitches climbed since the gigi/reverso/guide came out ... guides use em all the time on screaming hanging clients im looking for actual accidents where the serious failure is from the autoblock slipping ... theoretically 2 opposed draws are not as "safe" as lockers, an old school locker isnt as "safe" as a fancy gridlock megatron, and tons of other things that arent as "safe" theres many things in climbing that ACTUALLY kill you, and with some FREQUENCY id like to know how often this particular situation does since we have a massive RC thread on it now ...and since RC experts know best, i expect actual real accidents with some frequency
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Apr 19, 2013, 5:46 PM
Post #81 of 84
(4416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
curt wrote: ...This is what RC.n00b is famous for... ...reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte... ...your fundamental lack of comprehension... ...You're a real crack-up...or insane..."
curt wrote: I haven't insulted you yet....
That took me a few minutes to cut and paste together, but the chuckle was well worth the effort.
In reply to: You're not interested in a debate at all....
Quite the opposite, I love a good debate. I haven't responded in a while because I was away enjoying rock and whitewater. My hope was that in that time you would formulate a cogent response.
In reply to: The only argument you have put forth thus far for inattentive belaying is greater speed. And, you make it sound as though it's a regular occurrence for you to need the additional few minutes that you may save by inattentive belaying in order to save yourself from frostbite, rockfall, unplanned bivvying, potential death in the mountains, etc. Perhaps you just get in over your head a little too often? That would be consistent with your arrogant attitude.
I have been spanked soundly in the mountains for sure. Sometimes I walk away proud to have completed a route, sometimes I retreat in fear, and sometimes changes in weather, ice/snow conditions, etc, make the margin of safety at the end of the day be far smaller than I had planned. That is all just a normal part of the game.
In reply to: In reality, if you are setting out to do a route where time may be that critical, others have pointed out to you that there are probably better ways to save time than to multi-task while belaying--such as climbing as a two man party. So, the time argument is pretty much moot as far as I'm concerned.
You say there are better ways to save time, but the baseline is that you are already doing everything you can to increase speed and efficiency. You are already using the lightest ropes you can, carrying a minimal rack, wearing the lightest boots you can, starting the approach in the middle of the night, etc.
In reply to: You've stubbornly insisted on defending inattentive/distracted/multi-tasking (i.e. poor) belaying, and this has not been a debate since that point. It's not as though I'm going to change your mind--at this point I'm merely pointing out to others that your arguments for cutting corners while belaying are BS.
Curt I agree with you within most every climbing context, but not from within the one I've stated.
Mountains are constantly shedding their skin of rock and ice, it is not a matter of if those things are going to happen, only a matter of when. You time your passage through the most dangerous sections as best you can, but in the end the only way to completely avoid the risk is to stay off the mountain.
Mountains also make their own local weather, so even when you have done everything "right", planning to end the day with a comfortable margin of safety, forces way beyond your control can change the situation while you are on the route.
The risk that scares me the most is avalanche. The list of great climbers (which I am not) who have died that way is long. Their prodigious amounts of talent and experience were no match for a mass of sliding snow. I choose and plan my climbs accordingly, doing everything I can to avoid avalanche prone slopes. That is especially true for the descents, which have to be found at the end of the day when fatigue and failing light are additional risks.
From the perspective of few pitches of rock on a sunny summer day, taking your hands off an autoblock to save time (or even using an autoblock at all) makes no sense. But from the perspective of a long alpine climb, where you are not fully in control of your largest risks, saving time is one of the single best things you can do to increase your margin of safety.
When you start the climb you don't know for sure whether or not you will need that extra time, but once it has passed you can't reach back to retrieve it, so your best plan is to stack the odds in your favor and save it while you can. That is not BS.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 19, 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #82 of 84
(4381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
sandstone wrote: I wasn't impressed when he went so quickly to the tired old "...reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte..." thing.
After reading the rest of this thread I disagree with your above impression and am convinced of Curt's assertion.
Had you of simply let Curt's statement I quoted have time to soak in you might have avoided the rest of your convoluted posts.
All I quoted was him saying that he didn't trust someone belaying him that wasn't giving their full attention to that task. You alone opened all the other avenues.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Apr 20, 2013, 12:12 AM
Post #83 of 84
(4365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
moose_droppings wrote: ... you might have avoided the rest of your convoluted posts.
And what would be the fun in that?
In reply to: All I quoted was him saying that he didn't trust someone belaying him that wasn't giving their full attention to that task. You alone opened all the other avenues.
I've encouraged folks to think about some aspects of climbing that are probably well outside of their familiar experiences and assumptions. It's an awful thing I've done here.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Apr 20, 2013, 12:33 AM
Post #84 of 84
(4360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
sandstone wrote: moose_droppings wrote: ... you might have avoided the rest of your convoluted posts. And what would be the fun in that? In reply to: All I quoted was him saying that he didn't trust someone belaying him that wasn't giving their full attention to that task. You alone opened all the other avenues. I've encouraged folks to think about some aspects of climbing that are probably well outside of their familiar experiences and assumptions. It's an awful thing I've done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
