|
|
|
|
gazhbo
Apr 17, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #1 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 16
|
Ideally, I'd like not to get too much grief for this post because i's only something a climbing partner told me after we had been climbing some multi-pitch routes. He said that it is possible to climb routes (sport or trad) that are supposedly a fair few pitches without ever having to stop and set up belay anchors. The idea being that the leader climbs until he or she has reached a full rope length at which point the belayer, who is already tied into the other end of the rope follows, and the two then proceed to climb, a ropelength apart ensuring that sufficient pro is kept between them until, the leader tops out, when he belays from the top. I can see that this method would work, on the same principle as two climbers negotiotaing a ridge with a rope tied between them. I can also imagine that provided gear was good and there were no huge runouts, there would be no obvious safety issues, beyond those which exist in multipitch climbing anyway. It might even be good for speed reasons, and climbers being able to test their ability to climb big walls in on hit, without having to solo them. I can also see a down side; consequenses of an error and the need for both climbers to be of near identical ability. Has anyone heard or experienced this method or have I been wound up?
|
|
|
|
|
gazhbo
Apr 17, 2006, 6:43 PM
Post #2 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 16
|
Ideally, I'd like not to get too much grief for this post because i's only something a climbing partner told me after we had been climbing some multi-pitch routes. He said that it is possible to climb routes (sport or trad) that are supposedly a fair few pitches without ever having to stop and set up belay anchors. The idea being that the leader climbs until he or she has reached a full rope length at which point the belayer, who is already tied into the other end of the rope follows, and the two then proceed to climb, a ropelength apart ensuring that sufficient pro is kept between them until, the leader tops out, when he belays from the top. I can see that this method would work, on the same principle as two climbers negotiotaing a ridge with a rope tied between them. I can also imagine that provided gear was good and there were no huge runouts, there would be no obvious safety issues, beyond those which exist in multipitch climbing anyway. It might even be good for speed reasons, and climbers being able to test their ability to climb big walls in on hit, without having to solo them. I can also see a down side; consequenses of an error and the need for both climbers to be of near identical ability. Has anyone heard or experienced this method or have I been wound up?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Apr 17, 2006, 6:49 PM
Post #3 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Simul-climbing. Not for beginners. I have not tried it or even considered it, so I can't give you first hand experience, but the idea behind it is to save time. Generally it is done over easier terrain, and (correct me if I am wrong), you would want the stronger climber to go second. This is (in theory) to prevent the second from pulling the leader off.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 17, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #5 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
You've got the basic idea right, but it is far more dangerous than standard belayed climbing. The second MUST NOT FALL. Consider simulclimbing as soloing with your life and your partner's life in your hands.
Simulclimbing really pays off on routes that are mostly easy enough for you to solo but have short sections of climbing that you'd want a rope for. At the hard parts, you can stop, set a quick belay, then once past the difficulties go back into simul-solo mode again.
|
|
|
|
|
tradclmbr
Apr 17, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #6 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2002
Posts: 238
|
simul climbing. Im sure its covered elsewhere. I wouldnt (personally) do it unless Im very confident on the terrain. Might be counter-intuitive at first, but the strong climber should second - because if the second falls he/she will pull the leader off. General I would only simul-climb where Im not going to fall and need to move quick (many pitches on Royal Arches).
It is really fun to move quickly. Safer than solo'ing, but not nearly as safe as stopping in belaying (unless moving quick is a factor in safety, then maybe its even safer than stopping and belaying each pitch!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
mowz
Apr 17, 2006, 6:56 PM
Post #7 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1495
|
In addition to what crotch said, if the leader falls then he would be yanking the second up which can be quite dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 17, 2006, 6:59 PM
Post #8 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In normal multipitch climbing it is very very unusual for the belayer to fall and pull the leader off with her.
That would be the number one difference. It is imperitive that the 2nd not fall, as it could have catastrophic consequences for the leader. Conventional wisdom dictates the strongest climber goes 2nd.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
musicman
Apr 17, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #9 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 828
|
couldn't the leader place a tibloc on some solid gear so that if the second was to fall he/she wouldn't pull the leader off?
|
|
|
|
|
davidji
Apr 17, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #10 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1776
|
In reply to: I can also imagine that provided gear was good and there were no huge runouts, there would be no obvious safety issues, beyond those which exist in multipitch climbing anyway. |
|
|
|
|
up_for_a_good_time
Apr 17, 2006, 7:25 PM
Post #12 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 111
|
Interesting topic...too bad I can't stop watching mowz's little video.
|
|
|
|
|
jcasper
Apr 17, 2006, 7:32 PM
Post #13 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108
|
I'm probably not the best to explain this, but I'm bored so I thought I'd give it a go in case someone is wondering "why can't the second fall and pull the leader off, won't the leader just fall down to his last piece?" like (I shamefully admit) I did in my n00b-ier days when I was new to climbing and heard of simul-climbing:
Think what would happen when the leader hits that last piece: the pro and static sling would catch the fall, not the dynamic rope, meaning a completely static catch. So the only way the leader wouldn't be snapped in half from the sudden stop would be if the top piece blew before the leaders back snapped, but then he would just fall to the next piece and they'd be right back where they started. Unless, of course, there is no next piece, in which case both climbers are falling to the ground.
Thus the equation of simul-climbing with soloing with both you and your partner's life in your hands.
|
|
|
|
|
gazhbo
Apr 17, 2006, 8:13 PM
Post #14 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Posts: 16
|
I wasn't actually interested in trying simuil climbing (as I've discovered it is called.) And thank fuck as well, because having read the resposes, and re- considering the consequenses of taking a 20 footer onto a static wires, or a bolt, I realise I did underestimate the safety issues. Having said that, i am now interest in what tiblocs are. Is this like attaching a screamer to every piece of pro or something else entirely? Would a screamer, or something similar reduce the force anywher near enough to prevent the leader's back being broken if pulled onto pro? Am I thinking about this way too much for something I just said I've no intention of getting involved in?
|
|
|
|
|
alexnees
Apr 17, 2006, 8:14 PM
Post #15 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 78
|
^^^^^^
Note: I've never simul-climbed. This is just my thought-process as I read jcasper's post and asked, "Then why bother doing simul-climbing at all?"
jcasper's explanation makes perfect sense when you're talking about simulclimbing a vertical or near-vertical wall, where a falling climber falls unimpeded. In this case, yeah, if the second falls then they'll pull the leader off, the two will fall with equal acceleration until the leader's crotch slams into his last piece of protection. Not a pretty picture.
It seems to me, though, that simul-climbing is most commonly done in alpine/broken terrain, where the angle is significantly less than vertical and the difficulty is slight, yet the consequences of a fall could be deadly. A long ridgeline or something of the sort. In this situation, if the second falls the leader will be pulled off, of course, but the angle of the pitch is such that the leader is not directly above their last protection, maybe not even *predominantly* above it (lateral distance exceeds vertical distance). The falling leader will end up BELOW their last piece of protection before the rope gets sucked all the way through, and both climbers are caught by the dynamic rope.
Yeah, yeah, that's a nasty, swinging fall and you're probably gonna get really messed up. But as I understand it, the system WILL function to keep you attached to the mountain, which is the point. Simul-climbing is a protection strategy for terrain of low difficulty but high exposure. You should not be anticipating a fall if you're simulclimbing.
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Apr 17, 2006, 8:51 PM
Post #17 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
I love simul climbing! Its a great way to rocket up easy ground, I like to use this system when ever I can to save time on long routes. That being said, It does require knowledge and experience to use safely. It is safer then soloing, but more dangerous then normal lead / second style, so It should only be done on grades that you and your partner feel very comfortable on.
When simul climbing, both climbers should keep their belay devices on the rope and ready to go. The leader should anticipate the hard spots, and be able to set a temporary belay to help the second up if needed. Communication is key, the climbers should have 80 to 100 feet of rope between them, so they stay close enough to communicate and feel how tight the rope between them is. I like to double up one rope, climbing on it like it was 2 twins or half's.
Try to keep the rope as tight as possible. Second falls do carry the potential for disaster (for the leader), but if the rope is tight enough, and the leader is not on a cruxy spot, it could be possible to hold a second’s fall with your stance alone. I know this may sound ridiculous to allot of you, but it is possible. On two separate occasions I have had to pull people off rocks that they had no business climbing with out any equipment. I don’t recommend it as a form of rescue, but It can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Apr 17, 2006, 9:06 PM
Post #18 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Always anticipate a fall when simulclimbing. Don't do it if you expect one.
Don't use this thread to decide whether or not to do it.
If you have to ask...
|
|
|
|
|
mhabicht
Apr 17, 2006, 9:19 PM
Post #19 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2006
Posts: 51
|
Tiblocs- (minor hijack)
Has anyone here ever fallen on a simul climb onto a tibloc and NOT yanked the leader off his/her stance?
I started to think about this for a minute and realized that a tibloc would be nearly useless on a multipitch. The only way for a tibloc to advance the rope is if the lead climber is pulling tension on the rope- meaning that there is zero slack between the leader and the tibloc. This most likely will leave room for the tibloc to bounce up and down a little on the draw/runner. If the second fell and was caught by the tibloc he/she would have to pull tension down on the rope, this would cause the runner attached to the tibloc to pull down and thus pull on the leader. All it would take is a good tug of about 10 inches to yank off a leader. What this would do is keep the leader from feeling 100% of the fall but it is very likely that the leader would still get yanked from his/her stance defeating the purpose.
One way to avoid this is to rig an up and down pull piece at the same time with no play in the placement- ie no draw or runner. But this would create a LOT of drag in the system.
SOOO- maybe you should not be simul climbing if you think the tibloc is needed- maybe when you get that spider sense telling you to insert a tibloc maybe you should actually set up a belay.
My feeling about simul climbing is that there must be ZERO chance I am going to just fall on the climb due to my own lack of skill but I might get knocked off by a broken hold or falling rock so I use a rope to safeguard against that small chance.
Yes, for me, that means I am only simulclimbing 5.4 but thats ok with me.
-michael
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Apr 17, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #20 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
There's alot of good info here about simulclimbing, one way to not have to sacrifice safety and still move a little faster, is to link pitches, alot of routes (especially older ones) don't require a full length of 60m or 70m rope. Some times if you have a 60-70 meter rope you can climb two "pitches" in one rope length, or if you don't have enought rope to make it to the second belay, but there looks like a good gear belay anchor opportunity halfway through the second pitch, you can belay there.
pretty much the only downsides to doing pitches like this are rope drag, and it can be difficult to communicate sometimes, but it does save time, and avoid sacrificing any safety.
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Apr 17, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #21 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
mhabicht :
In reply to: SOOO- maybe you should not be simul climbing if you think the tibloc is needed- maybe when you get that spider sense telling you to insert a tibloc maybe you should actually set up a belay.
I agree, If you have to use tiblocs to safely simul a climb, you probably shouldn't be simul climbing it.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 17, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #22 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
And anyway, tiblocs have to be watched all the time to ensure they actually engage, as opposed to just shredding the rope. Some other things to remember when simuling:
1) Now is always a good time to set a belay. If you if you feel sketched while simuling, the route is too hard for the technique.
2) Don't stop when you run out of pro, stop when you are nearly out of pro and reach a good stance. Better to have the gear for an anchor at a ledge, than have to belay off a hand jam. Simuling until you run out of gear is a good way to have an epic.
3) Plan your stops. Inspect the topo before hand, and try to simul only on routes you know. If you know there's an excellent belay ledge 4 pitches up, plan to belay from there. Don't pass it just because you have the extra pro.
4) Avoid simuling on multipitch routes that are less than two rope's lengths. You don't see many sizable speed advantages simuling over running pitches together for something that short. In addition, it exposes you to more risk, since you don't have a continuous belay when simulclimbing.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Apr 17, 2006, 10:14 PM
Post #23 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
For you theorists out there, you could also avoid the "leader falls until his crotch slams into the top piece" event by simul'ing only on severely overhung terrain. Shiver...
|
|
|
|
|
mitguy
Apr 17, 2006, 10:44 PM
Post #24 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 84
|
I think some of you are in some ways missing the point of simuling...speed climbing. It is a given that in order to gain more speed, you are cutting corners, and thus must be prepared to accept the additional risk.
I was taught the tiblock simul method by Renan Ozturk, who has put up some huge speed ascents and link-ups. The tiblock is not supposed to be acting in place of a belay, it is to protect against shit happening and the second taking a fall. Not only is this bad for the above mentioned static catch reasons, but you are also putting 2 climber's falls on that top piece. That's a lot of force.
Yes, the tiblock WILL shred your rope if the second takes a fall on it. The question you have to ask yourself at that point is this: would you rather have a shredded rope or be pulled from the mountain?
The point is this. If your goal is speed, you are going to have to sacrifice safety to some extent. Techniques like simulclimbing and the Pakistani Death Loop have allowed huge link-ups and amazing feats of big wall and alpine climbing, HOWEVER, you must be comfortable with the additional risk you are taking. If you are worried about the problems pointed out in the thread so far, your goal probably isn't a speed ascent, and if you think you are a speed climber, there's no reason you should be learning about this stuff for the first time on rc.com. Bottom line: these are ADVANCED techniques that use gear in different ways than intended by the manufactuer, are more dangerous than traditional techniques, and the only way you should be using them is if you are prepared to accept the risk and are taught by an experienced speed climber! You should be learning these techniques because that is where your climbing is naturally taking you, out there doing it, from an experienced partner, and come with the disclaimer: Kids, don't try this at home!
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 18, 2006, 7:17 AM
Post #25 of 37
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: I think some of you are in some ways missing the point of simuling...speed climbing. It is a given that in order to gain more speed, you are cutting corners, and thus must be prepared to accept the additional risk. I was taught the tiblock simul method by Renan Ozturk, who has put up some huge speed ascents and link-ups. The tiblock is not supposed to be acting in place of a belay, it is to protect against s--- happening and the second taking a fall. Not only is this bad for the above mentioned static catch reasons, but you are also putting 2 climber's falls on that top piece. That's a lot of force. Yes, the tiblock WILL shred your rope if the second takes a fall on it. The question you have to ask yourself at that point is this: would you rather have a shredded rope or be pulled from the mountain? The point is this. If your goal is speed, you are going to have to sacrifice safety to some extent. Techniques like simulclimbing and the Pakistani Death Loop have allowed huge link-ups and amazing feats of big wall and alpine climbing, HOWEVER, you must be comfortable with the additional risk you are taking. If you are worried about the problems pointed out in the thread so far, your goal probably isn't a speed ascent, and if you think you are a speed climber, there's no reason you should be learning about this stuff for the first time on rc.com. Bottom line: these are ADVANCED techniques that use gear in different ways than intended by the manufactuer, are more dangerous than traditional techniques, and the only way you should be using them is if you are prepared to accept the risk and are taught by an experienced speed climber! You should be learning these techniques because that is where your climbing is naturally taking you, out there doing it, from an experienced partner, and come with the disclaimer: Kids, don't try this at home! Ian
Not everyone is going for a big wall speed ascent, or a huge alpine linkup. Simuling means you can send the easy pitched in a short amount of time so you can focus on the hard stuff. And quite simply put, if you're not looking to set records, the additional risk of using a tibloc, or allowing the slightest risk of falling while simul-climbing, is unnacceptable for the average schmoe. Would you suggest that everyone who isn't looking to set records belay on every pitch of the Third Flatiron? Should every person who attempts any of the LONG ridge traverses in the Sierras belay every pitch if they aren't looking to expand the boundaries of Sierras climbing?
My point about the tibloc is this: if it shreds your rope, that means it fails to engage, which means you're getting pulled from the mountainside anyway. And your rope is thrashed too. How is this better than not using the tibloc at all? The only way to make sure it'll work everytime is to watch it continuously. Better to operate on the principle "the second must not fall" than to trust a piece of equipment. And that's experience talking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
