|
|
|
|
redonkulus
Mar 10, 2011, 3:48 AM
Post #1 of 14
(7994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2010
Posts: 216
|
Hey guys,
While spacing out in class, I contemplated possible (or not maybe? I dunno, that's why I'm asking you) ways to eliminate a factor 2 fall. Here is what I theorized:
Your climber is 10 feet above the belay station, and has placed no gear. Assuming that you are on a vertical wall, and that there is no chance of the climber hitting a ledge or tree or something after he has fallen past you, would giving the climber a good deal of extra slack be effective in eliminated FF2? I figure it this way:
The climber is 10 feet up. If you give him 10 extra feet of slack, when he falls, he will fall the 10 feet to be even with you, and then will fall those 10 feet, plus the 10 feet of slack you gave him, resulting in a fall of 10 feet to you, and 20 feet past you. The total fall is then 30 feet, but instead of a 20 foot fall, on 10 feet of rope if you are keeping the climber relatively tight, you will be taking the 30 foot fall on 20 feet of rope. Instead of being 20/10 =FF2, it would be 30/20= FF1.5.
Is this correct, or is there some other factor that I am not accounting for? I'm not asking this with the intent of going out and trying it the next day or anything, I was just wondering if this was a legitimate technique that could be used to mitigate a potentially dangerous position.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate your input.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 10, 2011, 4:23 AM
Post #2 of 14
(7965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
redonkulus wrote: Hey guys, While spacing out in class, I contemplated possible (or not maybe? I dunno, that's why I'm asking you) ways to eliminate a factor 2 fall. Here is what I theorized: Your climber is 10 feet above the belay station, and has placed no gear. Assuming that you are on a vertical wall, and that there is no chance of the climber hitting a ledge or tree or something after he has fallen past you, would giving the climber a good deal of extra slack be effective in eliminated FF2? I figure it this way: The climber is 10 feet up. If you give him 10 extra feet of slack, when he falls, he will fall the 10 feet to be even with you, and then will fall those 10 feet, plus the 10 feet of slack you gave him, resulting in a fall of 10 feet to you, and 20 feet past you. The total fall is then 30 feet, but instead of a 20 foot fall, on 10 feet of rope if you are keeping the climber relatively tight, you will be taking the 30 foot fall on 20 feet of rope. Instead of being 20/10 =FF2, it would be 30/20= FF1.5. Is this correct, or is there some other factor that I am not accounting for? I'm not asking this with the intent of going out and trying it the next day or anything, I was just wondering if this was a legitimate technique that could be used to mitigate a potentially dangerous position. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate your input. Will
Sure it's correct. Not sure what the point is.
An even more interesting effect is that you can create a FF larger than 2. All this requires is reeling in slack as the climber is falling.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ToeMoss
Mar 10, 2011, 5:28 AM
Post #3 of 14
(7944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2009
Posts: 12
|
redonkulus wrote: Hey guys, ...there is no chance of the climber hitting a ledge or tree or something after he has fallen past you...
Damn, I was going to pull the sarcastic card and say that decking would be an alternative to a FF2 fall.
|
|
|
|
|
byran
Mar 10, 2011, 5:42 AM
Post #4 of 14
(7938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 266
|
You could also have the belayer tie in with the rope like 10 ft below the anchor. The leader can clip the anchor as the first piece of "pro" and if they fall from 10 ft above the anchor, then it would only be a FF1. Plus the fall would likely lift the belayer up creating a "dynamic catch" which would greatly reduce the FF even further. Probably the biggest concern (assuming the anchor is bomber) would be the climber landing on top of the belayers head.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Mar 10, 2011, 5:42 AM
Post #5 of 14
(7937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
Tips
Bomber anchors don't care how hard the fall is.
a soft hand can reduce impact force.
(This post was edited by skiclimb on Mar 10, 2011, 5:43 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
byran
Mar 10, 2011, 6:07 AM
Post #6 of 14
(7911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 266
|
cracklover wrote: An even more interesting effect is that you can create a FF larger than 2. All this requires is reeling in slack as the climber is falling.
Another way to exceed the infamous FF2 is for your team to rip the entire pitch, rip the anchor, free fall several hundred feet until your rope wraps around the waist of the leader of the party 3 pitches below you. Then their leader, who hasn't put in any gear, their other leader (they are simul-leading), who also hasn't placed any gear, you, and your partner, all fall another two rope-lengths directly onto an unequalized 3 piece gear anchor in sandstone.
|
|
|
|
|
Guran
Mar 10, 2011, 11:25 AM
Post #7 of 14
(7865 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220
|
byran wrote: cracklover wrote: An even more interesting effect is that you can create a FF larger than 2. All this requires is reeling in slack as the climber is falling. Another way to exceed the infamous FF2 is for your team to rip the entire pitch, rip the anchor, free fall several hundred feet until your rope wraps around the waist of the leader of the party 3 pitches below you. Then their leader, who hasn't put in any gear, their other leader (they are simul-leading), who also hasn't placed any gear, you, and your partner, all fall another two rope-lengths directly onto an unequalized 3 piece gear anchor in sandstone.
Oh, you mean the kind of anchor that survives that chockloading, but can't handle the static weight of three climbers later? (though it can handle two climbers)
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Mar 10, 2011, 12:22 PM
Post #8 of 14
(7849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
Guran wrote: byran wrote: cracklover wrote: An even more interesting effect is that you can create a FF larger than 2. All this requires is reeling in slack as the climber is falling. Another way to exceed the infamous FF2 is for your team to rip the entire pitch, rip the anchor, free fall several hundred feet until your rope wraps around the waist of the leader of the party 3 pitches below you. Then their leader, who hasn't put in any gear, their other leader (they are simul-leading), who also hasn't placed any gear, you, and your partner, all fall another two rope-lengths directly onto an unequalized 3 piece gear anchor in sandstone. Oh, you mean the kind of anchor that survives that chockloading, but can't handle the static weight of three climbers later? (though it can handle two climbers)
Yeah, similar to multiple bolts shearing in one fall.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Mar 10, 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #9 of 14
(7837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
redonkulus wrote: Hey guys, While spacing out in class...<snip>
I'd like to hear what enigma has to say on this subject before I chime in.
(This post was edited by sp115 on Mar 10, 2011, 12:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
redonkulus
Mar 10, 2011, 3:41 PM
Post #10 of 14
(7780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2010
Posts: 216
|
I would think the point would be obvious... for a few more feet of fall, you could reduce the dangerous amounts of force on the anchor, equipment, and climber, and also spare yourself from buying a new rope. Again, this is just according to my understanding of what a fall factor does to the amount of force generated on the system.
That other guy's point about just tying the belayer in below the anchor with the rope, and having the climber clip the anchor as the first piece of pro does seem more practical and safe though.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Mar 10, 2011, 4:55 PM
Post #11 of 14
(7733 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
Is there a ledge 25' down that you need to keep them off? Is the route slabby, so they aren't free-falling and generating as large a force so these shenanigans are unnecessary? Is there a reason not to just let the rope slip through a tube style device to reduce impact force, as opposed to let them free fall another 10'? While you're right, it does reduce the fall factor, there are many other factors to consider and just throwing out slack isn't the best way to reduce impact forces in most situations.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
redonkulus
Mar 10, 2011, 5:41 PM
Post #12 of 14
(7701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 2, 2010
Posts: 216
|
I know, I mentioned in the OP that it would only seem viable in a vertical or overhanging setting, with no ledges for them to hit. I agree that it's a very specific situation, but it was really just a question based out of curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Riggs68
Mar 10, 2011, 5:51 PM
Post #13 of 14
(7692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2011
Posts: 2
|
byran wrote: cracklover wrote: An even more interesting effect is that you can create a FF larger than 2. All this requires is reeling in slack as the climber is falling. Another way to exceed the infamous FF2 is for your team to rip the entire pitch, rip the anchor, free fall several hundred feet until your rope wraps around the waist of the leader of the party 3 pitches below you. Then their leader, who hasn't put in any gear, their other leader (they are simul-leading), who also hasn't placed any gear, you, and your partner, all fall another two rope-lengths directly onto an unequalized 3 piece gear anchor in sandstone.
BOOM. Thats from good ol' Vertical Limit. Hiyoooooo
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 10, 2011, 8:29 PM
Post #14 of 14
(7632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
redonkulus wrote: I would think the point would be obvious... for a few more feet of fall, you could reduce the dangerous amounts of force on the anchor, equipment, and climber . . .
You can do this with a dynamic belay, too; and if the fall is factor-2, then the belay is going to be dynamic anyway.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
