|
mntnman1973
Dec 11, 2003, 11:45 PM
Post #26 of 42
(5053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2003
Posts: 46
|
...and I thought that a gri-gri was supposed to be idiot proof....
|
|
|
|
|
salami
Dec 12, 2003, 12:24 AM
Post #27 of 42
(5053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 128
|
I don't give a f--- whether the guy was asking for opinions or not. He posted a patently dangerous and completely unnecessary technique, and that needs to be pointed out to the other clueless gumbies on the site, such as yourself.
-Jay
Hold on Jay, ease up cause your head is swelling. Take a breath and repeat after me Goose-Fa-Baha.
If you would quit tooting your own horn for a minute, he did say something about don't do it if you are not comfortable with it.......
Jay can you tell me how such a wanker became a moderator??
|
|
|
|
|
ryanhos
Dec 12, 2003, 12:25 AM
Post #28 of 42
(5053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 132
|
In reply to: ...and with rope stretch and friction you're likely to be holding far less than what your partner actually weighs. sincerely, your humblest queen moron, slobmonster
I understand how friction between the power point of a TR and the rope causes less force to be translated to the climber's belay device. This makes sense to me..
What does not make sense to me is how rope stretch in a STATIC situation like the one described would cause less force to be translated to the belay device. Someboldy (who understands the laws of physics and not just the random thing they heard off the boards...) please explain.
|
|
|
|
|
dmr
Dec 12, 2003, 12:37 AM
Post #29 of 42
(5053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: What does not make sense to me is how rope stretch in a STATIC situation like the one described would cause less force to be translated to the belay device. Someboldy (who understands the laws of physics and not just the random thing they heard off the boards...) please explain.
It doesn't. There obviously is no force being absorbed by the rope in a static situation. The original poster is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 12, 2003, 12:40 AM
Post #30 of 42
(5053 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If you would quit tooting your own horn for a minute, he did say something about don't do it if you are not comfortable with it.......
If you have any functioning brain cells, try and understand that his level of comfort with his system is a funtion of his ignorance of fundamental climbing safety principles and plain lack of common sense.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 12, 2003, 1:03 AM
Post #31 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: What does not make sense to me is how rope stretch in a STATIC situation like the one described would cause less force to be translated to the belay device. Someboldy (who understands the laws of physics and not just the random thing they heard off the boards...) please explain. It doesn't. There obviously is no force being absorbed by the rope in a static situation. The original poster is incorrect.
Not quite right. In a static situation friction (but not rope stretch) will indeed have an effect. On the climber's side of the rope (as seen by the anchor) there will be the force on the anchor equal to the climber's weight. On the belayer's side of the anchor (as seen by the anchor) there will be a force on the anchor equal to the climber's weight minus the frictional force over the top carabiners. So this could amount to a total force on the anchor carabiners of maybe 170-180% of the climber's weight, as opposed to two times the climber's weight--as you would have in a frictionless situation.
None the less, the comments of jt512 (and most other posters in this thread) are completely correct--in spite of the nonsense posted to the contrary by hide-the-salami.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Dec 12, 2003, 2:43 AM
Post #32 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Anybody with half a brain knows who is right in this thread and who is an idiot.
=-=-=-
Jay: Good job on a thankless job that demands endless patience.
|
|
|
|
|
bustinmins
Dec 17, 2003, 3:35 PM
Post #33 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 507
|
This violates many rules for me. Number one - NEVER OPEN A LOADED BINER. I have to agree with the majority here. I know that the biner is statically loaded and has an "open gate" rating. I truly doubt that the manufacturer really had this in mind when they put that number on the side of the biner.
It violates another one as well: KISS(Keep it simple stupid). This technique, as hazardous as it sounds, additionally sounds easy to screw up in the arrangement. Whether you screwed this up or something else while setting this up - it is way to complicated from what you've been saying.
I'm an airline pilot and we're tasked with making decisions all day that affect the safety of people in the aircraft and on the ground. If we ever utter the phrases, "I think this will work." "This should be safe" - we chuck the whole decision for a much safer one. This whole thread goes against that very grain of safety in my mind. I know that I'll never use this with my gri-gri. I like my gri-gri or sport applications only...but never any trad. Like one of the replies mentioned - what is wrong with the atc/8/reverso or munter hitch? They all seem much safer to me.
JD
|
|
|
|
|
bustinmins
Dec 17, 2003, 3:44 PM
Post #34 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 507
|
In reply to: How about we all have a warm glass of shut the he11 up. why don't the attackers have two. We all have different ways of doing things. it's not like the guy doesn't know about the shearing strength of biners. jt512 why is it that reading your verbal diarrhea reminds me of sitting in the dentists chair? I think the only useful things you have ever had to say were about nutrition. Stick with what you know and keep your infested mouth shut otherwise. This guy was not asking for opinions, he was just stating what he does. blah blah blah I know you were not asking for an opinion either, but i would not consider this an opinion. I am just stating the facts.
I disagree. The reason we comment on it in such a strong way is for the newbies that may read this an apply his logic to "see what that is like". We all know that newbies can do some pretty stupid stuff because they lack the knowledge gained from experience. You also have to assume that some people may be quite young and impressionable. If we don't come out swinging it is like giving our seal of approval. I hope you can see why this is important. I don't like flaming anyone and truly I'm not flaming the author. I'm commenting on his technique that he decided to post for all.
JD
|
|
|
|
|
cantbuymefriends
Dec 17, 2003, 4:40 PM
Post #35 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2003
Posts: 670
|
Regerding the "opening of a loaded biner, and open-gate-strength"-issue:
But, if you can open the gate, isn't the backside of the 'biner already taking the full static load? I mean, there's mostly a little "hook" in the nose that is supposed to engage the gate under load. And if the hook isn't engaged, the gate isn't taking up any load anyway, right?
(Added for clarity: You are still an idiot in my book if you do it!)
|
|
|
|
|
mattiem
Dec 17, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #36 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 104
|
As much as all this intellectual debate about open strength and the physics of static versus dynamic loading, and never openeing a loaded biner and blah blah etc etc, none of this matters because the point is
YOU DON"T OPEN YOUR BELAY BINER WHEN SOMEONE IS ON BELAY.
The fact that the gear can do this does not mean you should do this. The argument that we use lots of gear in ways it was not designed does not mean we should use gear in EVERY way we can, because a lot of those ways are beyond bad ideas. Anyway i'm a bit too stunned and just rambling now so to summarize,
yeah what jt512 said
peas
matt
|
|
|
|
|
jumblej77
Jan 22, 2004, 1:42 AM
Post #37 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2003
Posts: 2
|
I fucking hate you!
|
|
|
|
|
scubasnyder
Jan 22, 2004, 1:51 AM
Post #38 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 1639
|
ive used the gri gri and i do not like it for the simple fact it gives a little before it catches so i stick with my trusty BD atc. THats my opinion on all that, it works great for me.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 22, 2004, 6:42 AM
Post #39 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Is piling on OK here?
Cause that is about the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Can't lower someone with a gri-gri without gloves????
PUULLLLEEEAAAASSSE!
This is way beyond rule breaking, it's MORONIC. Must be a bad dream.
Hey I think I have a clue though,-- probably the reason the guy can't lower with the levelr fully open is because he doesn't have his hand on the break position! DUH! And that is assuming that after the first time he tried with the lever full open he didn't get the hint to slack off on the lever a little, I mean, what, that takes all of about 3 feet of lowering to figure out?
YOu know, they put hte little picture of the climber on the gri-gri so peopel will know hoe to thread the ropw, adn they still screw it up. Hell, they even print what size rope the thing works with right on the device, adn peoipel still post , asking. "what size rope does a gre-gri work with? I have one and need to know."
Isn't gri-gri french for dumb-dumb?
Back to the rum now...
|
|
|
|
|
coylec
Jan 22, 2004, 11:18 PM
Post #40 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Posts: 2024
|
The gri-gri's camming action is designed to SUPPLEMENT a belayer, not replace the belayer. Petzl (as I remember from the instruction sheet) says that you should grab the rope with your right hand and brake it off, then using your left hand, disengage the cam. Slowly let up the brake and lower them slowly.
Remember, the faster and more jerky the lowering, the more stress is put on the anchor. This is especially important when you deal with bad anchors (read cold shuts, fixed pro, bolts, anything that you didn't setup).
Lowering down in 2 minutes versus 5 minutes isn't going to make or break you. Dropping your partner is the quickest way to get them down (and opening your belay biner and compromising the belay system is a good way to do it).
jt512 is right -- don't open a loaded biner, especially when its a link in the chain holding your partner up.
when i read about someone getting killed/injuried doing something stupid like this, it makes me wonder about the sanity of people in this sport.
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Jan 23, 2004, 12:06 AM
Post #41 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Ok,
this thread is a bit scary - so maybe this is a very bad suggestion (belaying is too hard ....)
Good heck, get yourself on a fixed single line and rap it with a grigri.
Notice that if you run the rope straight in line with the line with the way the rope is loaded into the device - you go fast.
now, pull the rope out to a 90 degree angle to the device (along the special rail that is made - guess what - just for this purpose) dang - same hand pressure - but I slow down!
now, pull the rope all the way back, almost inline again with the device, but about 170 degrees back (yes that's right, the normal belay breaking position for any atc)
dang, you all but stop, even with handle all the way open.
Wow, the science of the thing is amazing eh?
Jay, keep up the good work - ignore the knobs.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
timpanogos
Jan 23, 2004, 12:20 AM
Post #42 of 42
(5052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 935
|
Rap experiment - step two,
Now, hopefully you have at least a 80' or so route you are rapping with your grigi,
Now, while you are at about the 75' level - unlock that grigri locker and try the STUPID suggestion given above.
This should solve the "if you feel comfortable" part of the question.
Note, this phase 2 experiment is STUPID and only given here to emphasis the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
