|
alleyehave
Sep 15, 2008, 12:21 AM
Post #126 of 228
(8020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
billl7 wrote: To this, I'll add some speculation that the two anchor pieces were initially bomber for downward pull.
Even if they were "textbook bomber", the likely hood of a two (or 3 for that matter) piece anchor remaining intact after a grown man falls 35+ ft directly on the anchor itself with no dynamic belay involved is very doubtful.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 12:26 AM
Post #127 of 228
(8018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
That is one ('a') of at least three possible explanations for the anchor pieces failing, the other two being b) crappy placements and c) the two pieces being lifted/jerked up and then out shortly after the leader's fall. More possibilities?
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 15, 2008, 12:27 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2008, 4:56 AM
Post #128 of 228
(7973 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
alleyehave wrote: billl7 wrote: To this, I'll add some speculation that the two anchor pieces were initially bomber for downward pull. Even if they were "textbook bomber", the likely hood of a two (or 3 for that matter) piece anchor remaining intact after a grown man falls 35+ ft directly on the anchor itself with no dynamic belay involved is very doubtful.
I'm not sure I agree. If the leader did indeed hit the belay anchor, he apparently was not seriously injured by hitting it. If his body was able to withstand the force of his hitting the anchor, then the anchor should have been able to withstand the force as well. Remember that the UIAA standards for maximum impact force for a climbing rope is based on the maximum force that the human body can withstand. You're supposed to be able to build an anchor to that degree of strength as well.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Sep 15, 2008, 5:17 AM
Post #129 of 228
(7964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
jt512 wrote: alleyehave wrote: billl7 wrote: To this, I'll add some speculation that the two anchor pieces were initially bomber for downward pull. Even if they were "textbook bomber", the likely hood of a two (or 3 for that matter) piece anchor remaining intact after a grown man falls 35+ ft directly on the anchor itself with no dynamic belay involved is very doubtful. I'm not sure I agree. If the leader did indeed hit the belay anchor, he apparently was not seriously injured by hitting it. If his body was able to withstand the force of his hitting the anchor, then the anchor should have been able to withstand the force as well. Remember that the UIAA standards for maximum impact force for a climbing rope is based on the maximum force that the human body can withstand. You're supposed to be able to build an anchor to that degree of strength as well. Jay
I too have been of the opinion that - while not ideal - two, well-placed, larger pieces (a larger cam/nut) should hold the fall in question. Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 15, 2008, 6:32 AM
Post #130 of 228
(7939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
k.l.k wrote: Look, we just don't have enough info to make any informed judgments on this accident. I read that thread carefully, and the news reports, and there was plenty of contradictory or confused detail, which one would expect given the situation. We'll have to wait for the climbers involved or an incident report, if there is a decent one.
Agreed. Everything else here is merely uninformed speculation.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Sep 15, 2008, 6:51 AM
Post #131 of 228
(7928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
jt512 wrote: alleyehave wrote: billl7 wrote: To this, I'll add some speculation that the two anchor pieces were initially bomber for downward pull. Even if they were "textbook bomber", the likely hood of a two (or 3 for that matter) piece anchor remaining intact after a grown man falls 35+ ft directly on the anchor itself with no dynamic belay involved is very doubtful. I'm not sure I agree. If the leader did indeed hit the belay anchor, he apparently was not seriously injured by hitting it. If his body was able to withstand the force of his hitting the anchor, then the anchor should have been able to withstand the force as well. Remember that the UIAA standards for maximum impact force for a climbing rope is based on the maximum force that the human body can withstand. You're supposed to be able to build an anchor to that degree of strength as well. Jay
Well, yes and no. Only ropes are tested to that philosophy which figures out to be 12kn. That doesn't really apply to the given scenario, but more than likely the chock was rated at 10kn, and i'll give the cam 14kn. Make either one of those improperly placed and those numbers drastically reduce.
I dont think there is a calculator to determine the exact amount of force from a 175lb person falling 35+ feet and hitting a stationary object unhindered (again, not talking about fall factors or dynamic belaying as its irrelevant).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2008, 8:50 AM
Post #132 of 228
(7905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
alleyehave wrote: jt512 wrote: alleyehave wrote: billl7 wrote: To this, I'll add some speculation that the two anchor pieces were initially bomber for downward pull. Even if they were "textbook bomber", the likely hood of a two (or 3 for that matter) piece anchor remaining intact after a grown man falls 35+ ft directly on the anchor itself with no dynamic belay involved is very doubtful. I'm not sure I agree. If the leader did indeed hit the belay anchor, he apparently was not seriously injured by hitting it. If his body was able to withstand the force of his hitting the anchor, then the anchor should have been able to withstand the force as well. Remember that the UIAA standards for maximum impact force for a climbing rope is based on the maximum force that the human body can withstand. You're supposed to be able to build an anchor to that degree of strength as well. Jay Well, yes and no. Only ropes are tested to that philosophy which figures out to be 12kn...
Do you understand that the rest of the belay chain (both climbers' harnesses, the belay device, and the anchor) are supposed to be able to withstand more than the rope's maximum impact force rating? The idea is that the rope protects the belay chain by limiting the force to a magnitude below the failure load of every other element in the chain.
In reply to: That doesn't really apply to the given scenario...
Huh?
In reply to: ...but more than likely the chock was rated at 10kn, and i'll give the cam 14kn. Make either one of those improperly placed and those numbers drastically reduce.
If you build an anchor properly then the total force that the anchor can hold is greater than the forces that the individual pieces can hold. That's the whole idea behind so-called equalization.
In reply to: I dont think there is a calculator to determine the exact amount of force from a 175lb person falling 35+ feet and hitting a stationary object unhindered (again, not talking about fall factors or dynamic belaying as its irrelevant).
The anchor wouldn't have been stationary. The fact that the belayer was not pulled off the ledge suggests that either the leader hit her from behind, pushing her into the wall, or he hit the anchor or her tie-in, pulling her into the wall. The latter seems the more consistent with the anchor failing. If that is the case, then there would have been some energy absorption in the system because the belayer was displaced. But my point is this: if the belayer hit the anchor as hard as you think, then why wasn't he killed when he hit it? Since he was not, the force on the anchor, theoretically, must have been less than 12 kN or so. An anchor that cannot withstand a 12-kN impact is substandard. So, either the anchor was substandard or the leader didn't hit it full-force, but rather glanced off it in some fashion. This could suggest that the impact was in a direction that was not anticipated when the anchor was built, accounting for the failure.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 12:47 PM
Post #133 of 228
(7873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
alleyehave wrote: I dont think there is a calculator to determine the exact amount of force from a 175lb person falling 35+ feet and hitting a stationary object unhindered (again, not talking about fall factors or dynamic belaying as its irrelevant).
Lllama relays that the belayer estimated the leader at 25 feet out from the anchor. Another estimate was 40 feet (the article on our front page quoting the father of the belayer). Also, Llama relayed that the leader fall was at least partially arrested by the piece placed on lead which was about 5 feet below max leader height. That is, the belayer indicated that the rope came tight on that piece (a #1 BD cam), the piece blew, and the leader continued to fall head first before hitting the belayer/anchor.
Assuming the leader took at least a 10 foot fall before coming tight against the #1 BD cam, the fall onto the anchor was effectively anywhere from 15 to 40 feet: 15 if a 25 foot fall was nearly arrested before the #1 BD cam blew and 40 if the #1 BD cam blew with hardly any resistance from a fall starting at 40 feet.
Also, with respect to anchor forces, the effective fall length could have been significantly less due to rope stretch before the #1 BD cam blew. Estimation uncertainies widen this range.
What would be the maximum force on the anchor for a 15 fall? For a 40 foot fall? Again, the actual length of the fall could be on either side of those numbers.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 12:55 PM
Post #134 of 228
(7870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
zeke_sf wrote: Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 15, 2008, 1:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 15, 2008, 2:30 PM
Post #135 of 228
(7843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
Have we thought that the cam could have been in a crack that was good dry but got slippy (cam=uselss) when it started raining? cracks can act like funnels, so the inside of the crack could have become wet and a faster rate then everything else, even though it was only a light rain at first...
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 15, 2008, 3:11 PM
Post #137 of 228
(7814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
cracklover wrote: sungam wrote: Have we thought that the cam could have been in a crack that was good dry but got slippy (cam=uselss) when it started raining? Can you provide any references to back up the idea that cams in wet rock are significantly more likely to fail (track out)? If the rock in question is soft sandstone, then absolutely, but my understanding is that suicide is granite. GO
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Sep 15, 2008, 3:57 PM
Post #138 of 228
(7776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
jt512 wrote: That's the whole idea behind so-called equalization.
Key phrase: so called.
I think you are right when you said the anchor was substandard. More than likely, an anchor with one nut and a cam was not properly set for an upward direction of pull.
When she got yanked upwards, it probably put an unanticipated direction of force on the anchor, likely causing the nut to dislodge and possibly the cam to walk into a far less secure position. A fall directly onto the anchor, or her tie-in or her herself could certainly cause it to fail completely at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 4:15 PM
Post #139 of 228
(7760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
alleyehave wrote: jt512 wrote: That's the whole idea behind so-called equalization. Key phrase: so called. I think you are right when you said the anchor was substandard. More than likely, an anchor with one nut and a cam was not properly set for an upward direction of pull. When she got yanked upwards, it probably put an unanticipated direction of force on the anchor, likely causing the nut to dislodge and possibly the cam to walk into a far less secure position. A fall directly onto the anchor, or her tie-in or her herself could certainly cause it to fail completely at that point.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Sep 15, 2008, 6:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Sep 15, 2008, 4:42 PM
Post #140 of 228
(7736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Hard to believe that Daren (stymingersfink) has died of heart issues since this thread started. They lived and he died. I wasn't going to add to the speculation on the accident, and was hoping some folks with real info would show up. Had to make the point though.
stymingersfink wrote: billl7 wrote:  Maybe rgold will take pity on me and give me some lessons in logic and writing. no offense, but doubtful. jt'll probably school ya in starting your own thread tho.
Later bro. Wish we'd tied in, always respected you. (this goes for JT, Curt and a few of you other yahoos too)
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Sep 15, 2008, 9:23 PM
Post #141 of 228
(7607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
billl7 wrote: alleyehave wrote: jt512 wrote: That's the whole idea behind so-called equalization. Key phrase: so called. I think you are right when you said the anchor was substandard. More than likely, an anchor with one nut and a cam was not properly set for an upward direction of pull. When she got yanked upwards, it probably put an unanticipated direction of force on the anchor, likely causing the nut to dislodge and possibly the cam to walk into a far less secure position. A fall directly onto the anchor, or her tie-in or her herself could certainly cause it to fail completely at that point. It is neither known nor has it been generally accepted in this thread that the belayer was lifted off her stance. Edit: I deleted words written out of frustration about exploring the above (i.e., fall factor). In hindsight, discussions like the above probably go astray from the OP's intent for this thread. My apologies. Probably help if I go get some fresh air.
Even so, depending on where she was belaying from in relation to the anchor itself, just enough tension on the rope when it pulled the first piece may have been enough upward pull to dislodge a piece particularly the nut.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 9:32 PM
Post #142 of 228
(7598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
alleyehave, Your point is worth questioning and exploring even if not in this thread.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 15, 2008, 10:48 PM
Post #143 of 228
(7542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor?
This has been discussed at length, but I'd like to point out that many "classic" routes in places as well-frequented as Tuolomne or Yosemite will find climbers at anchors consisting of two 30-year old quarter inchers at some belays. And climbers occasionally fall on them, usually without incident, despite a fairly low strength.
There is something unusual and probably unknowable about this incident. Perhaps poorly thought-out directionality of anchors. (no LOW upward?) I have no problem with two anchors, if they are sound WRT rock quality and direction of forces.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2008, 11:05 PM
Post #144 of 228
(7516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? This has been discussed at length, but I'd like to point out that many "classic" routes in places as well-frequented as Tuolomne or Yosemite will find climbers at anchors consisting of two 30-year old quarter inchers at some belays. And climbers occasionally fall on them, usually without incident, despite a fairly low strength.
Oh, really? You claim factual knowledge of that. Fine. Then list -- let's make it easy -- just 2 documented incidents in which a climber has taken a factor-2 fall onto an anchor consisting solely of two 30-year-old quarter-inch bolts without incident.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Sep 15, 2008, 11:28 PM
Post #145 of 228
(7496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
billl7 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion. I agree in the context of the overall system. As for the quality of individual placements, it has not been shown that the anchor pieces were poor. Whoever placed them had the opportunity to do so at his/her leisure (approaching weather withstanding). The other person on the team could do likewise. Absense of stress allows both of them uncompromised opportunity to get the placements right (edit: I mean the quality of the individual placements being 'right').
Exactly. You're at the stance, get it right! Of course, we already know the weather conditions there turned to crap around that time, so I guess we may also be dealing with the quick and dirty alpine anchor that was a little too quick and a little too dirty.
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Sep 15, 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #146 of 228
(7483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? This has been discussed at length, but I'd like to point out that many "classic" routes in places as well-frequented as Tuolomne or Yosemite will find climbers at anchors consisting of two 30-year old quarter inchers at some belays. And climbers occasionally fall on them, usually without incident, despite a fairly low strength. Oh, really? You claim factual knowledge of that. Fine. Then list -- let's make it easy -- just 2 documented incidents in which a climber has taken a factor-2 fall onto an anchor consisting solely of two 30-year-old quarter-inch bolts without incident. Jay
Not saying your point isn't valid. But who reports uneventful factor 2 falls? You praise your god/buddha/mother and move on. You wouldn't notify CNN. It'd be hard to gauge the frequency of these, and i'd imagine only a negative outcome of a FF2 on an anchor would be brought to the attention of the climbing community.
Which leads me to another idea, we always focus on injuries and accidents(fatal or otherwise) and try to dissect and learn what went wrong. Just as importantly, if not more importantly, we should analyze rare situations that ultimately go well. Factor 2 falls where gear anchors held, what type of anchor(statically equalized or dynamically equalized, nylon or spectra) did they use, was it multi-directional, was it a redirect, etc. I think these types of reports would be more beneficial than the fruitless speculation of this thread because we would have people with vivid recall of the event, maybe even pictures.
Just an idea. I know that if I ever experience such a situation(fuck I hope not), I will share.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #147 of 228
(7483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
zeke_sf wrote: billl7 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion. I agree in the context of the overall system. As for the quality of individual placements, it has not been shown that the anchor pieces were poor. Whoever placed them had the opportunity to do so at his/her leisure (approaching weather withstanding). The other person on the team could do likewise. Absense of stress allows both of them uncompromised opportunity to get the placements right (edit: I mean the quality of the individual placements being 'right'). Exactly. You're at the stance, get it right! Of course, we already know the weather conditions there turned to crap around that time, so I guess we may also be dealing with the quick and dirty alpine anchor that was a little too quick and a little too dirty.
I don't think that it is too plausible that in the face of threatening weather that they would have tried to save 5 minutes by building a skimpy anchor, and then go and invest an hour or more into doing the second pitch.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Sep 15, 2008, 11:42 PM
Post #148 of 228
(7474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
zeke_sf wrote: billl7 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion. I agree in the context of the overall system. As for the quality of individual placements, it has not been shown that the anchor pieces were poor. Whoever placed them had the opportunity to do so at his/her leisure (approaching weather withstanding). The other person on the team could do likewise. Absense of stress allows both of them uncompromised opportunity to get the placements right (edit: I mean the quality of the individual placements being 'right'). Exactly. You're at the stance, get it right! Of course, we already know the weather conditions there turned to crap around that time, so I guess we may also be dealing with the quick and dirty alpine anchor that was a little too quick and a little too dirty.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 15, 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #149 of 228
(7467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
alleyehave wrote: jt512 wrote: onceahardman wrote: In reply to: Why did they only use a 2-piece anchor? This has been discussed at length, but I'd like to point out that many "classic" routes in places as well-frequented as Tuolomne or Yosemite will find climbers at anchors consisting of two 30-year old quarter inchers at some belays. And climbers occasionally fall on them, usually without incident, despite a fairly low strength. Oh, really? You claim factual knowledge of that. Fine. Then list -- let's make it easy -- just 2 documented incidents in which a climber has taken a factor-2 fall onto an anchor consisting solely of two 30-year-old quarter-inch bolts without incident. Jay Not saying your point isn't valid. But who reports uneventful factor 2 falls?
Well, if Bill Onceahardman has the factual knowledge he claims to have, then he must know some source for this information. Otherwise, he would be bullshitting.
Edit to correct who made the claim.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Sep 16, 2008, 2:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Sep 15, 2008, 11:55 PM
Post #150 of 228
(7979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
jt512 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: billl7 wrote: zeke_sf wrote: Considering three pieces failed, I'm thinking the leader's ability to place gear should be in question. Link that with his inexperience, and that becomes the more likely conclusion. I agree in the context of the overall system. As for the quality of individual placements, it has not been shown that the anchor pieces were poor. Whoever placed them had the opportunity to do so at his/her leisure (approaching weather withstanding). The other person on the team could do likewise. Absense of stress allows both of them uncompromised opportunity to get the placements right (edit: I mean the quality of the individual placements being 'right'). Exactly. You're at the stance, get it right! Of course, we already know the weather conditions there turned to crap around that time, so I guess we may also be dealing with the quick and dirty alpine anchor that was a little too quick and a little too dirty. I don't think that it is too plausible that in the face of threatening weather that they would have tried to save 5 minutes by building a skimpy anchor, and then go and invest an hour or more into doing the second pitch. Jay
There's plenty of implausibility in the genesis of the incident, so I thought I may as well throw that out there. Who knows, perhaps the storm led to the marginal "Jesus nut" placement on lead or the subsequent lack of potentially ass-saving placements afterward (on what we're told isn't listed as an R climb)? Of course, the mindset that led to at least one substandard placement would have to be answered by the party involved and is likely useless speculation on my part.
BTW, I hear report that at least the second is climbing with a cast on now. It would be interesting to hear her take on what happened. Helping all of us avoid this situation, however rare, is a worthy impetus for them to tell the tale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
