|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 9, 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #551 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I'm hearing ya Roy, but I still think that this thread is too important to shut down. At some point I or someone else may pull together all of the most important stuff and place that in one post in a new thread. That way the info is pretty much all together in one clear and succint post that can then be discussed in a whole new round of thread posts. Wanna have a go at doing this mate. :wink:
Cheers.
Phil...
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Mar 9, 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #552 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
I've all but given up on this thread. All that is left is naysayers who insist that any new ideas are "too complicated" :roll: or the old way "works". If the several ideas posted here that are actually just as simple, or more so, than the Cordolette are beyond you or anyone, then climbing is beyond you. (given the SAME loop of cord, Biners, and knots, several of these new ideas are able to be rigged in the same time as a Cordolette, the difference is where the knot(s) are and what they are)
As a matter of fact, if you can't rig the Moose, the Gordolette, or the AE, or the Quad, or the Equalette after looking at them for 30 seconds, you can't rig a Cordolette properly either!!!
As to the "no one had died because of a Cordolette"....that's just silly. When a problem is found relating to an automobile, if the manufacturer didn't recall because "hey, it ain't killed nobody!", I don't think I'd like that! The proof is clear and irrefutable...a cordolette doesn't equalize. Not "doesn't equalize well", it doesn't equalize AT ALL!!!
If you don't need equalization (and I agree you don't most of the time because each piece is bomber and could do the job alone) then you don't need a Cordolette. Just tie in with the rope. But if you NEED equalization, use a freaking system that actually equalizes, and the more you need it to equalize, the more you should put into getting it to equalize.
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Mar 9, 2006, 10:45 PM
Post #553 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
Buck, you said it better...thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 9, 2006, 10:46 PM
Post #554 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Assuming these anchors are really better in the lab, the next step is to teach them to 1000 students and teach the cordolette to a 1000 students and follow them over time to see if any of them have anchor failure related accidents. That is the TRUE test!!
What the fuck are you talking about?
This is all about learning the limitations of an establish system and developing more tools for the toolbox.
Keep it real yo!
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 9, 2006, 11:43 PM
Post #555 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
I think some people do not really understand evidence based research. The lab evidence that JL is talking about shows us that this anchor will equalize a load very well and is stonger. But it does not show us if this new system is more likely to fail due to human error. Only ten plus years in the field will show us if the number of anchor failures is going up or down.
One of the key subjects that need to be looked at is the final outcome of making a change. I dont know which anchor is better, old or new. What I am saying is that a labratory outcome is NOT the same thing as reality. Before JL makes a sweeping change by recommeding a new system we need to think about the final outcome we want to reach. In the end the new anchor may be better but we need to ask ourselves if we KNOW it will be better before we make the change. This is NOT a philosphical discussion but hard science and looking at ways to come to a conclusion.
We must compare EVERY aspect of a new system to the gold standard before we make a sweeping change. What I am talking about is exactly how a new drug gets approved, it must prove itself to be safer, at least as effective if not more and be just as simple to comply with. Drop tests DO NOT take all of these factors into account. I am asking that we do a little research before JL writes a book suggesting that change is better. What if it isnt? What if some one dies? What if a professional tries to rig something new because the book said this was better and fails to clip everything perfectly? A death is a death no matter if that anchor was perfect or not, as far as that ONE climber is concerned the anchor failed. Could that death have been prevented by never introducing a new method? These are some of the risks you HAVE to consider when introducing something new like this. User error MAY rise for the first few years, does the X lives lost in those few years outweigh the Y number of lives potentailly saved 30 years down the road? Can you say that and back it up with data? Or are you going from your gut and shooting blindly from the hip?
Never have I said that the cordolette does not fail, I am asking if it fails so much that it is worth introducing a potentially complex system that fails less but may be prone to human error? (Note the words "MAY be prone..." I dont know that it is or isnt ... do you?)
I understand that YOU the reader of RC.com thinks I am an idiot for questioning JL but 1000's of new climbers will change their already shaky habits based on his new book. Nothing in the research so far says that this system is better when looking at the outcome of climber death/injury and in the end that is all that matters to me. So we need to do a little research into this area before we make any changes.
So I have thought of a new experiment-
Take 50 people off the street, teach 25 of them how to build a cordolette anchor then test them a week later to rebuild that anchor with NO prompts then drop test their anchor. Take 25 of them and do the same for the duo-glide system. You need to control for teacher bias so we have to find eqaul teachers who can teach both anchors well and have no bias between the two systems. This might give us some insight into which anchor system is easier to retain, which is more likely to fail more often due to human error and it will also help us with which anchor reaches total failure under a beginners hand.
Repeat these tests with experienced climbers and again see which fails more, the old or the new. This should give us an idea of what will happen when the climbing community tries to change their habits.
If the results are significant we may hesitate to re-write the bible of anchors or we may jump all over the new concepts.
At no point have I suggested that we stop this topic, only that we question our end points of this research.
-pip
Edited to clarify the experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 9, 2006, 11:44 PM
Post #556 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In reply to: My biggest concern is that we're focusing too narrowly on how to connect anchor points perfectly, and that new climbers are not getting the practical education they need in actually placing good gear in the first place.
Thats a valid point, so go start a thread on that.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 10, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #557 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Pip
I think your analogy of drug studies to anchor studies are comparing apples and oranges. Anchors are a tangible physical matter that we can feel and manipulate on sight, and am not nearly as concerned as you of the transition The inter-actions of drugs to the compounds in the human body and other combinations which are ingested, along with other factors such as habits, genetics, geographics, age, sex, etc., makes predicting drug studies a monumental task.
But, you do have a point. I remember the 1st time I was given a cordelette and was told to make an anchor, though I'd seen them made many times, it was a little different doing it all by myself, while being watched, now there second nature. The learning curve is going to be an easier transition for people that are taught a different way from the get go. Now for someone that's got plenty of vertical feet under there belt, I don't see them in my mind's eye trying to fumble through something that their not familiar with if the situation is dire and they need an anchor pronto. I got a feeling they'll go with what they know is safe for the situation.
There's a lot of "what if" in your conjectures in terms of deaths caused by people dying from learning a new anchor. Your concerns, which to an extent I agree with, but IMHO, I think are a little over estimated.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 10, 2006, 1:50 AM
Post #558 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Pip,
That's all a bit over the top. Most people survived the transitions to the cordelette, clean climbing, and all manner of new gear. They'll survive a transition to a better anchor. John and many of the experienced climbers on his team and here in this thread are fully capable of evaluating what constitutes "too complex". These are anchors no advanced chemistry or particle physics. John's "Edisonian Victrola" approach is fine. And I have complete faith in his judgment relative to complexity as he is someone with years of experiece explaining concepts to folks and then getting feedback on how well he did at it.
I wouldn't get to worked up by the fact that we are exploring the boundaries of it all here. In the end it'll more likely be an exercise in common sense more than anything else to sort the grain from the chaff here. And from what I can tell through all this everything John's team has uncovered and proposed looks to be spot on. Besides, I like seeing all these wild rigs...
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Mar 10, 2006, 2:29 AM
Post #559 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Also pip should be reminded that John did absolutely no standardized testing before he put the Cordalette in his book. And i'm guessing he didnt analyze the past 10 years of anchor failures before either.
i agree and have been trying to figure out how FDA drug standards have anything to do with climbing anchors. Though if he insists. Phen phen, Vioxx, and Ephedra all come to mind that have been pulled from the market after being out there for quite some time.
In reply to: to the gold standard
what do you propose is the gold standard? The cordalette? Has been proven to only be gold plated.. if even that.
The number of anchor failures is so low because the falls that are needed to create them are rare (as stated in the first few pages) And tracking individual people is rediculous because skills change.. rock types change, gear will change. What happens if 50% of your group quits climbing or only climbs bolts and never uses a cord again.. it makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 10, 2006, 2:45 AM
Post #560 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
In reply to: Most people survived the transitions to the cordelette, clean climbing, and all manner of new gear. They'll survive a transition to a better anchor. John and many of the experienced climbers on his team and here in this thread are fully capable of evaluating what constitutes "too complex".
These are exactly the assuptions that I was waiting for someone to make. You cannot assume that stronger equals decrease in morbidity and mortality.
Where is the data that says "most people survived the transition"? Do you KNOW that? What about the ones who didnt? Do we know that either? Happy assumptions that fit what you want to hear will get us in trouble, I am just asking that we ask the right questions.
Where is the data that shows what is "too complex"? Have you taught this anchor 50 times then seen it repeated by students? What about the cordolette? Maybe that is too complex also and we would be better off teaching a sliding x all the time, sure it has problems but only .000001% of the time it is due to human error so lives are saved in the end.
I am asking that we DONT make the assumption that this is simple. These rigs are complex, cordolette or dou-glide, but which is more complex? Which is safer to teach to an 18 year old noob? I would think that people who have read 37 pages of postings are very interested experienced climbers so we are a poor sample of what is really going on the world of climbing. Can you honestly say you KNOW the answer to this? I am not kidding when I tell you I dont care which anchor is stronger, I want to know which one saves lives. That should be the end point of this research and I cannot be any clearer on this subject.
I am comparing these tests to drugs/biology because that is what I have studied for the last 6 years but I am sure some engineer can come up with an example of the perfect bridge design that turned out to be too expensive or to difficult to construct correctly by your average engineer firm so it is only used in VERY special circumstances. Maybe we should look at the changes in anchors the same way...DONT ASSUME!!! Just do a test to answer some of these questions.
I am proud that we are questioning the old standard and inventing new concepts but we must be careful introducing a new idea without looking at the end results that we all want to see which is improved climber safety.
I think once JL thinks about these issues he will want to back a little research into this area. It is the proper scientific thing to do and I would like to help!
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
hemp22
Mar 10, 2006, 3:56 AM
Post #561 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 94
|
pip is doing a good job of playing the devil's advocate here, which is useful. (Although I do think it's a bit over-exaggerated - do you really think 90% of new anchors would be incorrectly rigged due to user error? do you really think that a sliding X could get screwed up only 0.000001% of the time?)
The idea of taking into account the complexity of any of these new anchor ideas is a good one. It has also been brought up before (over the last 37 pages, plenty of folks have reminded us that the importance of KISS may sometimes outweigh the importance of equalization).
So, hopefully JL (and others folks currently field testing the new ideas for him) will take that into account about any new systems before publishing them in a book, but I hardly think that testing the knot-tying skills of 50 people is necessary to do that.
Even when they do introduce new anchor system possibilities, it'll still be a matter of preference for each individual as to which one they use, based on their personal opinion of its qualities and costs.
Now, for my non-research-based opinion:
Lots of people, both new and experienced, learned the cordalette system over the last 15 years by reading about it in a book or by seeing it done a couple times, and now they are so proficient at it that they can set one up while blindfolded. But learning to tie a few clove hitches to set up an equalette didn't seem any more difficult to me, and I already feel like I could set up an equalette blindfolded. So, for me personally, I don't see any reason to not use a new system that will equalize better without being any more difficult to set up. (caveat: I'm only talking about the equalette here, since I haven't tried any of the other rigs outside yet).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 10, 2006, 4:31 AM
Post #562 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Pip, if you *really* have been working on drugs then you know you're talking out your ass. New drugs simply must be proven effective and safe in double-blind studies. If they were tested head to head against existing drugs on the market, and had to prove themselves substantively better than the existing options, 90% would never get past testing.
JL has gone one step further, and put at least one new configuration right up, head to head, against the existing methodology... And apparantly (I haven't seen the results yet) it blew the cordelette out of the water.
If people can't rig a fucking sliding-x with a limiter knot or two... I just don't think trad climbing is for them. Trad climbing is not the gym. Try to dumb it down to be safe and easy for all, and you will fail.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
gordo
Mar 10, 2006, 4:38 AM
Post #563 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Posts: 111
|
In reply to: Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,
My god man...do you just like to hear yourself talk or WHAT???????? Give us something to look at, an actual IDEA! If all you got is "you haven't tested it" go climbing, use the Cordolette, have fun. It's worked this long, just leave us the hell alone :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 10, 2006, 5:17 AM
Post #564 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Just to play the devil's advocate on the one playing the devil's advocate;
In reply to: ...DONT ASSUME!!!
Sorry, last off topic post from me.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 10, 2006, 6:43 AM
Post #565 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
There are pages and pages of sensationalism here. Many people claiming that the cordelette is dead long live the [blahblah]lette. I think people have forgotten that this is one thread, on one forum on the internet, it is not the whole rock climbing community. Don't exagerate the impact of the results presented in this thread.
Furthermore many people have a become a little bit too passionate and fanatic about a percieved danger of the cordelette. This is evidenced by the way pipsqueekspire was attacked.
I have been following this thread since it was 2 pages long, it is a pitty that the thread has deteriated as it has grown.
(BTW, I'm sticking with the cordelette as I don't believe that it is a flawed method.)
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Mar 10, 2006, 7:06 AM
Post #566 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
In reply to: JL has gone one step further, and put at least one new configuration right up, head to head, against the existing methodology...
for which it might be helpful to read the FIRST page, ignoring the rest:
that both some of the fears that were generated against the Sliding-X,
and the hype that pushed the cordelette, and esp. one of hi-mod cord,
were DEVOID OF SOLID TESTING FOUNDATION.
And (only) now, many many uses later, someone is finding out that the supposed
equalizing of the latter, and danger of the former, are much less than advertised.
So, to Pip, your demand for whatever rigorous examination of the systems presented
here unfairly misses the point that the cordelette is also in need of such rigor.
But it has been used. Still, while perhaps there have not been tragic failures that
would quickly call it into question, if testing shows that one is operating on a
slimmer margin of safety than believed, and that some other. semi-equalizing
systems would do better, it's reasonable to consider making the change.
The Sliding-X should be able to be completetly forgotten in favor of like structures
that both slide better (no X binding to add friction) and reduce extension (the ELET).
Whether much beyond this proves worthwhile, well, that is the debate.
(To this end, testing the new "dental floss" in a configuration with limiter knots
might show a good yea/nay on that plan--the OOB isn't know for strength,
nor is HMPE when knotted (but it's only on one side of an eye!).)
*knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Mar 10, 2006, 7:23 AM
Post #567 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
In reply to: So, to Pip, your demand for whatever rigorous examination of the systems presented here unfairly misses the point that the cordelette is also in need of such rigor. But it has been used. Still, while perhaps there have not been tragic failures that would quickly call it into question, if testing shows that one is operating on a slimmer margin of safety than believed, and that some other. semi-equalizing systems would do better, it's reasonable to consider making the change.
I think your missing pip's point. That is strength isn't the only consideration when it comes to safety.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 10, 2006, 7:48 AM
Post #568 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Pip,
Hmmm. I think you have climbing confused with something else entirely.
To be blunt - there is no human data. There also is no need for any such data. This is climbing and there will never be valid human data relative to anchor usage or setup. How gear is made has a lot of engineering and science components - how we use gear and under what circumstances isn't about science - it's about craft. There are a myriad of uncontrollable factors involved including the condition of the climber at any given point. And yes, as a climber, educator, and gear freak I'm perfectly capable of determining the [learning] complexity factors with no statistics whatsoever simply by setting up a rig and looking at it. So can any number of folks here. With John's team dropping on them like so many victrolas revealing what really works and what doesn't, that side will be largely in the bag. The same team is eminently capable of determining what configurations are appropriate to publish for what purposes.
And as I said, no one is searching for the "strongest" anchor, or the "xxxxest" of any anchor attribute - we are looking the best option for various anchor configurations that are simple, have minor extension problems, and that equalize "well enough". The only "science" we require is to actually test the anchors to understand how well they perform - the rest can be sorted out with a critical eye and little common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
pipsqueekspire
Mar 10, 2006, 8:38 AM
Post #569 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2003
Posts: 222
|
I want to point out that the cordolette, like it or not, is the gold standard right now. We all have used it and most of us have lived. So JL got lucky and made a suggestion a long time ago that turned out to be great without the research to back it up. Well 15 years of solid use has proved that the cordolette works 99.99% of the time if not more. So the cordolette has been tested, much more than the new system by millions of uses.
We are now smart enough to test before we introduce a new "product" onto the market becuase we don't want to make a mistake. That is why JL is doing this. Unfortunately we are testing the wrong end point- strength. While improving strength would lead us to believe that it improves safety we cannot assume this. We need to test the correct endpoint of improved climber safety.
I do not see why anyone is fighting me on this one. I think anyone with even a college background in engineering or biostats will agree that the only endpoint that matters is improved safety. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to try and test and not very costly.
I am having fun listening to you all blast me but I know and several others have figured out that association does not mean correlation.
-pip
|
|
|
|
|
tedwarski
Mar 10, 2006, 9:56 AM
Post #570 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2002
Posts: 31
|
I haven't seen anyone mention the triple butterfly knot tied into the dynamic climbing rope.
I saw this on-line this last fall and intended to try it out come spring climbing season.
Obviously, it is dynamic. It is self-equalizing. It is simple to tie/inspect. It eliminates extensions.
The only concerns I have are:
1. There is no redundancy (not altogether necessary with a rope though).
2. Upon weighting, I doubt it equalizes easily with a change of force direction.
3. Upon weighting and then a failure of one of the anchor pieces, equalizing would occur but with nylon sliding against nylon.
Does anyone use this?
Comments are appreciated.
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Mar 10, 2006, 11:31 AM
Post #571 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: We are now smart enough to test before we introduce a new "product" onto the market becuase we don't want to make a mistake
:roll: Whats your name, so I can look for it in Long's new book, when you two present your research findings :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
fingertrouble
Mar 10, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #572 of 915
(111253 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 54
|
Before this thread sinks into the abyss I thought I would post and illustrate the only solution that meets John Long's criteria of providing equalization along with a heavy dose of KISS principal.
The instructions are simple (KISS, remember):
Set up the classic 3-anchor equalizer using a slightly shorter cordelette (call it Craig Short)--except give each bight between the carabiners a half twist before clipping them (just as you would with a sliding-X, thus no need to learn new skills) so as to achieve a modicum of extension limiting; you still get perfect equalization under load. This is what's shown in the first and second parts of the illustration on page 152 of my book (The Mountaineering Handbook McGraw-Hill 2005).
If you believe what I've written in my book and what John Long has independently measured and posted ad nauseum in this thread (that so long as there's dynamic rope in the system, shock loading due to extension from a blown placement is a non-issue) YOU'RE DONE!
If you're irreconcilably paranoid or irrationally technoid and insist upon limiting extension, the solution is abysmally simple: connect another, preferably slightly longer cordelette (call it John Long) to the existing placement carabiners, tie an overhand knot in the conventional manner, and clip this cordelette's master loops to the main locker so that the result hangs loosely and takes no force unless a placement fails. Presto! No additional carabiners needed, only one additional piece of soft hardware (another cordelette, which you'll likely want along anyhow), and only one additional knot (an overhand, for a total of one knot in the system). You even get an extra bonus of some redundancy.
It doesn't get simpler, lighter, or more easily checked. No need for the screwball inventiveness, Newtonian rejectionism, or contrived nit-picking that have laced this otherwise informative thread.
http://i2.tinypic.com/r26vt5.jpg
Just a few points:
There's nothing new about the classic, un-named 3-anchor equalizer appearing in this thread; you can see it, for example, in the tie-outs for BD's Fitzroy tent. The first time I've seen it published with limiting half twists in the bights is in my book, but who cares.
Anyone who thinks that the overlapping cords at the master biner might result in excessive friction should simply test their hypothesis: do drop tests and look for evidence of sheath melting in that area. You won't find any.
This approach is readily and simply extrapolated to equalizing four placements, but I think that anyone who thinks they must equalize four placements has lost their grip on physical reality.
Don't forget that a cordelette has uses in addition to equalization and that equalization is not a recipe for success with every anchor problem.
(Thanks to wkswo for helpful PM comments and suggesting naming the two cordelettes.)
Craig Connally
|
|
|
|
|
justus
Mar 10, 2006, 3:42 PM
Post #573 of 915
(111259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2004
Posts: 52
|
Speaking of, when's the eta on the book JL?
justus
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Mar 10, 2006, 4:30 PM
Post #574 of 915
(111259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: I want to point out that the cordolette, like it or not, is the gold standard right now.
In reply to: Well 15 years of solid use has proved that the cordolette works 99.99% of the time if not more. So the cordolette has been tested, much more than the new system by millions of uses.
In reply to: I do not see why anyone is fighting me on this one.
One thing that should be stressed, in my opinion: climbing should never be dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 10, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #575 of 915
(111257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I do not see why anyone is fighting me on this one.
a) Because, as I keep trying to point out, you are totally mischaracterizing what has been going on in this thread. You simply aren't "getting" it.
b) You keep making perposterous statements about the application of usability testing to climbing methods when the are completely unnecessary.
c) You keep making pretty ridiculous claims [without] about cordalettes while insisting on the need for data.
d) "Climber Safety" is not a testable end-point, it's a desirable outcome. It is comprised of many elements and testing any of them collectively or in isolation will tell you about as much about a climber's safety at their next anchor as flipping a coin 99 times will tell you about how it will land on the 100th...
|
|
|
|
|
|
