/ Paracord Quickdraws

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
Hi Guys,

Just wanted some advice, do you guys think you could make quickdraw dogbones out of paracord? I know you can't use it for a replacement climbing rope, but simple as a replacement for webbing do you guys think it would work?

Thanks
andic - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

sounds like death on a stick
Jamie B - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Is paracord the sanme as prussik cord? Nylon kernmantle? If so I've used 6mm prussiks as emergency extenders more than once, but don't think I'd be using it for front-line draws.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to andic: If you took a high fall, maybe, but for normal stuff I reckon it would hold up?
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Jamie B: Yeah it similar stuff, it's used to connect a parachuter to their parachute so it's pretty strong stuff, 550lb minimum breaking strength. It can definitely hold me, but I'm wondering about taking falls on it.
Jamie B - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Quickdraw dogbones aren't expensive.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Jamie B: Yeah, your right there, I just have 300ft of paracord lying around that I'd prefer to use than buy more equipment. That's probably the right call though.
needvert on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

That's 2.5kN

Presuming a tied loop, with a foe or double fishermans, we might lose 20% of the strength of the cord...Leaving

4kN, at best.

That kinda sucks, slings are 22kN.
andic - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert:

Struggling with your numbers there?

TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert: Well I can't argue with science, fair enough. Guess I'll have to us ethe paracord for other stuff.

Any other climbing related uses for strong, thin, light, high-friction cord?
Jamie B - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Abseil retrieval cord?
needvert on 05 May 2013
In reply to andic:
> (In reply to needvert)
>
> Struggling with your numbers there?

Ahh, well 550lb = 2.5kN.

One ties it in a loop - 5kN - that's 2.5kN per strand.

But, due to the knot in one strand reducing the strength of that strand to 2kN, the loop only holds 4kN.
Oceanrower - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert: Hmm. It might be looped, but unless its doubled and tied at both ends, it's surely still only one strand?
rocky57 - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Just wanted some advice, ...... do you guys think it would work?
>
There's only one way to find out, get out and try it. Report back on what happens.
andic - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert:

still don't get it
needvert on 05 May 2013
Think of a normal extended trad draw with a dyneema sling.

Now clip one end to a bolt, and the other to a harness and sit on it with your 80kg.

You'll see there are two strands holding you up. We can also say that the tension in the dyneema sling is the same everywhere (a reasonable approximation).

Ergo each strand is only holding 40kg.

That makes the strength of a loop of material, presuming its not clove hitched etc to the biners, about twice that of the weakest point of that loop.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to rocky57: Looks like I'm buying some, but I'll do some experimentation and report back anyway. Now to work out how high I'm willing to fall :).
andic - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert:

nah
Martin W on 05 May 2013
In reply to andic: Instead of just saying"nah", why not explain where you think he's gone wrong?

I make 550lbf ~= 2.5kN, and so does this: http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/force.html
ablackett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:
> (In reply to rocky57) Looks like I'm buying some, but I'll do some experimentation and report back anyway. Now to work out how high I'm willing to fall :).

It's not about how high you fall, it's about the fall factor.

A fall from 5m up onto a quick draw which is 2m below you has a much higher fall factor than a fall from 25m up with a quick draw which is 5m below you. Fall factor is calculated by the length of fall divided by the amount of rope available to absorb the shock. Put simply, a bigger fall factor puts more strain on the quick draw, so is more likely to snap it.

You could easily generate 4kN of force taking a lead fall, so snap the paracord and die.

Are you sure you want to experiment? If you do, you might not be reporting back to us.
ablackett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Martin W: Is it because the bit at the top, ie the bit running over the quick draw has 40kg pulling it left and 40kg pulling it right so has a weight of 80kg on it. Each vertical strand has half the weight, like the chap says.
Ron Walker - on 05 May 2013
In reply to needvert:

That fits in with the Beal figures for static cord at http://www.bealplanet.com/notices/cordelettes/index-us.html and the 20% strength reduction due to the loops knot!

to andic:

On trad I often use 60cm and 120cm 6mm cord loops for extenders, bandoliers and for abseil tat.

Cheers Ron
TimH - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest: use it to tie your chalkbag on really, really securely?

Otherwise ab retrieval line is all that springs to mind. Fair to say that it'll be less than 1/4 the strength of a proper extender or sling so put me down as another one in the don't do it camp.

Tim
Martin Bennett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to needvert) Hmm. It might be looped, but unless its doubled and tied at both ends, it's surely still only one strand?

I'm with you, Oceanrower.

I must be missing something. Can someone enlighten me as to how making a loop out of a piece of cord, rope, tape or anything, doubles it's strength - it's still just one strand. It seems to me if it started out as 2.5 kN, once you've made the loop it's still the same, minus whatever strength the knot costs you???

And: in the case of a qd sling, rather than each "side" of the loop, as you look at it when hanging from it, taking half the weight (force), what's actually happening is the original, still single, strand, is still taking the whole force at the point where it interacts with the carabiners - no?

TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to ablackett: If I was going to do any experimentation it would be hanging from a topline whilst simultaneously being on a shorter paracord quickdraw line, so that the brunt would be taken by the paracord and if it failed I would still be attached to the topline. When I get hold of some real quickdraws I might test them with my car against the paracord quickdraw to see which broke first in reality. Thanks for the concern, and fall factors wasn't something I'd heard of before! Cool!
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Martin Bennett: I think the quickdraws you guys are imagining are like this G)-----G), with a single strand connecting the two. But if you go with two strands of the same lengths, G)=====(G then the force is equally balanced between the strands so effectively the load on each is halved. Though it still only takes one to break and you have a problem, the working load is halved between them so twice the force would be needed to break the paracord.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TimH: Yeah that sprang to mind with me too, a jug knot could also give you a nice secure bottle holder that leaves you room to manoeuvre. Thanks for the advice.
ablackett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:
> (In reply to ablackett) If I was going to do any experimentation it would be hanging from a topline whilst simultaneously being on a shorter paracord quickdraw line, so that the brunt would be taken by the paracord and if it failed I would still be attached to the topline. When I get hold of some real quickdraws I might test them with my car against the paracord quickdraw to see which broke first in reality. Thanks for the concern, and fall factors wasn't something I'd heard of before! Cool!


I'm not taking the p1ss here, but if you haven't heard of fall factors, you should probably leave the experimenting to the professionals. Slings have a breaking strength of 22kn, that is approx 2200kg, para cord apparantly has a breaking strength of about 2.5kN, (or if you believe some people on here doubled up it would be 4kN) that's about 250kg. You don't need to experiment to know which is best. You can easily generate a force of 4kN in a lead fall.

To experiment you would need to look at worst case scenarios, single pitch that is fall factor 1, which relates to falling the same distance as the rope is out, say clipping at 4m, climbing to 8m, then falling to within a few cm of the ground (an 8m fall onto 8m of rope). Nobody could rig a top rope that would act as back up if the para quick draw failed in that scenario - you just have to trust that it will hold, otherwise you die. Not worth the risk in my book when all you are going to save is a few quid.

Climbing gear costs a bit of cash for a few reasons - one of which is that someone has already done the experiments and simulated worst case scenarios.
rocky57 - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Am I alone here in thinking that this thread is being taken too seriously? Or am I missing something?
ablackett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to rocky57: How is it being taken too seriously? Someone asks a question, some people think it could be dangerous and try and explain why.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to rocky57: I see what you mean, maybe yeah, but I understand why, safety comes before what you have lying around :).
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 05 May 2013
In reply to ablackett: I'm kinda new to this stuff, the reason I don't already have quick draws is because I'm just starting out. The science of climbing is all knew to me, I'm a scientist by trade but not physics. I'm sure you're right, but if there's one thing I know it's experiments, and if I'm testing a fall factor one I'm definitely not going to be using a human. I will shell out more cash at some point, but although scientist sounds flashy my job isn't the best paid one out there, so the good stuff will have to wait until then. In the meantime it looks like I'll need to make some more climber friends with spare equipment :).
Fredt on 05 May 2013
In reply to ablackett:
> (In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest)
> [...]
>
>
> I'm not taking the p1ss here, but if you haven't heard of fall factors, you should probably leave the experimenting to the professionals.

If he/she hasn't heard of fall factors, they shouldn't be lead climbing.
ablackett - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to ablackett)
> [...]
>
> If he/she hasn't heard of fall factors, they shouldn't be lead climbing.

Rubbish.

Everyone learns as they go along, understanding fall factors makes multi pitch safer, but there are 101 other things which are more important (picking the right route, conditions, staying on route, knowing when to back off, knowing how to back off) and we all learn as we go along. Them Victorians were pretty handy lead climbers and i'm pretty sure when they were sitting at Wasdale Head gazing up at the Napes they weren't thinking about fall factors!

It sounds to me like the OP has asked a sensible question, received some advice, taken it on board and made his decisions based on that, all very sensible.
mike kann - on 05 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest: This is a daft idea, mainly cos quick draw tape are cheap as. To get to a strength worth thinking about you'd need many strands of it, making it messy and easy to cock up. For the sake of 30 quid, why bother taking the risk? I'm not saying it can't work... Patently it could. More why bother...
mike kann - on 05 May 2013
In reply to mike kann: also, as you're starting out, it's worth mentioning that the minimum force you will generate in a fall is 2.5 kN. generally a fall will be in the 5-7 kN range but cam be as much as 13kN. I.e. to be on the safe side you'd need 10 or so loops... Just not worth it.
needvert on 05 May 2013
In reply to Ron Walker:
> (In reply to needvert)
>
> That fits in with the Beal figures for static cord at http://www.bealplanet.com/notices/cordelettes/index-us.html and the 20% strength reduction due to the loops knot!

Ahh, thanks for finding that :)

Hopefully it'll convince a few of the strength of loops!
RichardP - on 05 May 2013
In reply to Ron Walker:
> On trad I often use 60cm and 120cm 6mm cord loops for extenders, bandoliers and for abseil tat.

I agree in priciple.
I have No. 6 Hex on 6mm cord

as the cord is ok for the gear it must be pok foer an extender.

Once again in principle because I use sewn slings on extenders

JLS on 05 May 2013
In reply to ablackett:

>"22kn, that is approx 2200kg... ...4kN that's about 250kg."

I was never great a maths either...
Lurking Dave - on 06 May 2013
In reply to needvert:
> (In reply to andic)
> [...]
>
> Ahh, well 550lb = 2.5kN.
>
> One ties it in a loop - 5kN - that's 2.5kN per strand.
>
> But, due to the knot in one strand reducing the strength of that strand to 2kN, the loop only holds 4kN.

Comedy gold.
Cheers
LD
Jack Loftus - on 06 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Good user name...
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to Jack Loftus: Thanks man. Obviously I didn't know Jack shit about this when I came here, and some of the information totally Loftus along the way, so it had to be re-explained, but I know more now.

I realise that wasn't particularly quick :).
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to mike kann: Fair enough, thanks for the facts and figures, 10 loops would make it thicker than a standard quickdraw so I think I'll buy a set instead. Thanks!
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to ablackett: Thanks for the backup there, I'm just trying to get the kit together to start off seriously so some of the information hasn't yet reached me as you said :).
timjones - on 06 May 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to ablackett)
> [...]
>
> If he/she hasn't heard of fall factors, they shouldn't be lead climbing.

Absolute rubbish. You could be perfectly safe without knowing about fall factors. You don't need to know the geeky stuff in order to follow basic good practices.

bpmclimb - on 06 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

It would be ok as long as you didn't fall off - ever :)
SteveRi - on 06 May 2013
Reasonable question, not a great idea. Point of tedious geekiness: fall factor 1 isn't your worst case scenario, it's double that, but admittedly hard to achieve on a single pitch climb :)
henwardian - on 06 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest: +1 for "don't do it"
+1 for "abseil retrieval cord"

If you are insane you could carry it for emergency abseil retreats/tension traverse/swing when soloing but google tells me paracord is only 4mm so even for this sort of application it sounds woefully thin and lacking in durability (if you think of it scratching over rock), so, you would need to be crazy and insane I think.

If you were on a long 1 day overhanging multipitch where you wanted to haul your rucksacks and shoes (NOT your 80kg haul bag!), you could use it as a trail/hauling line with care.

To put the breaking strength into perspective: The very worst, smallest pieces of climbing protection available are wedges of metal about 3mm across designed to be wedged in cracks, they have a breaking strength of 2 to 2.5KN. I broke one just by sitting down heavily on it and I don't know anyone who would honestly trust one to take a fall.
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb: Well, as a professional amateur, I don't see why that couldn't be the case ;)
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to SteveRi: Just to clarify, would that be a fall factor half? Thanks for weighing in :)
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 06 May 2013
In reply to henwardian: Probably a good call, I'm surprised no-one has heard of paracord before! It's great survival stuff, but yeah scratching it over a rock could definitely cut it. Reckon you could carry that haul bag with 3+ strands of paracord braided together? Then what are we worried about, if the smallest piece of kit is less good ;)
Jonny2vests - on 06 May 2013
In reply to mike kann:
> (In reply to mike kann) also, as you're starting out, it's worth mentioning that the minimum force you will generate in a fall is 2.5 kN. generally a fall will be in the 5-7 kN range but cam be as much as 13kN. I.e. to be on the safe side you'd need 10 or so loops... Just not worth it.

I think you're a bit on the high side there Mike.
xplorer on 06 May 2013
In reply to Fredt:

If he/she hasn't heard of fall factors, they shouldn't be lead climbing.

Unbelievable
krikoman - on 06 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest: You could use some cotton, it's cheaper than pararcord and you can carry loads of it on a small real. Do let us know how you get on.
SteveRi - on 06 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:
Fall factor 2 is where you fall past your belayer with no gear in, eg 3m above belay, fall 6m... 6/3=2. Example fall factor 0.5 is a 3m fall - 1.5m above gear - with 6m rope out... 3/6=0.5
bpmclimb - on 06 May 2013
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> Absolute rubbish. You could be perfectly safe without knowing about fall factors. You don't need to know the geeky stuff in order to follow basic good practices.

I wouldn't say absolute rubbish. It's not strictly necessary to be familiar with the actual term "fall factor" but it is necessary to have some appreciation of the forces in a fall, and what makes some falls much more potentially serious than others.
timjones - on 06 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't say absolute rubbish. It's not strictly necessary to be familiar with the actual term "fall factor" but it is necessary to have some appreciation of the forces in a fall, and what makes some falls much more potentially serious than others.

You would be equally well served if you follow the principle of placing good solid gear as frequently as possible.
bpmclimb - on 06 May 2013
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to bpmclimb)
> [...]
>
> You would be equally well served if you follow the principle of placing good solid gear as frequently as possible.

Yes, that would probably serve you, if you needed a really simple rule of thumb, and lacked the wit or inclination to consider the matter more closely.
krikoman - on 07 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb: That's all bollocks though isn't it, a dog doesn't need to know about ballistics and gravity to catch a ball, it just does it.

You can do exactly the same in climbing a few simple rules and you can be safe enough.

Personally I like all the geeky stuff but that's because I'm an engineer and that's the sort of stuff I like anyhow, but you don't need it to be safe.
bpmclimb - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

I'm not talking about geeky stuff. I'm talking about important, basic things like knowing you should aim for a really early runner when leading off a stance, to avoid a factor 2 fall. I don't think one can rely on instinct for some of that stuff - it has to be learned in some way.

It's really not that complicated, but if it really is such a problem for some climbers to use the standard fall factor terminology, then they don't have to - they can call it bananas if they like - as long as they know it's important to put that early runner in.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fredt on 08 May 2013
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to bpmclimb)
> [...]
>
> You would be equally well served if you follow the principle of placing good solid gear as frequently as possible.

Well, how do you define 'good solid gear'? A certain placement may be 'solid' when you're 1 metre above it, but it becomes less 'solid' the higher up above it you go. Understanding the principals of fall factors tells you this.

And sometimes you can't place 'solid' gear. So you place a less 'solid' piece, which again, may be 'solid' enough for the next move, but not 'solid' after that until you get your next piece in.

And what's your definition of 'as frequently as possible', how does that work with a finite amount of gear?

You have to manage a number of variables, and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this.

krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb:
> (In reply to krikoman)
>
> I'm not talking about geeky stuff. I'm talking about important, basic things like knowing you should aim for a really early runner when leading off a stance, to avoid a factor 2 fall.

Adding the "factor 2 fall" is redundant, why not just say or you might die?

My point being you don't need to know about a ďfactor 2 fallĒ, you do need to know, you need gear when leaving the belay and to not ignore chances for gear as you climb, all this can be taught and is to a large extent intuitive to a lot of people. "If I'm this far above my last piece of gear and I fall it's going to end badly"

I know people who Iíve tried to explain fall factors to and they havenít a clue of what Iím talking about as itís all ďscienceĒ to them. Iím still happy to climb with them because they follow the rules and know thing like get a bit of gear in before leaving the belay, or as soon as possible, donít waste opportunities to place gear. Try not to run out, too much.

What you seem to be suggesting is to use a car analogy is that we should know about friction coefficients, momentum and velocity to be able to put the brakes on while driving a car.
krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>

> You have to manage a number of variables, and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this.

Isn't that general knowledge you are talking about, If I'm higher up on a piece of dodgy gear it might not be as safe as it might be if I'm closer to it?
LJC - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to bpmclimb)
> [...]
>
> Adding the "factor 2 fall" is redundant, why not just say or you might die?
>
Factor 2s don't kill you, I'm living proof.
Fredt on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Isn't that general knowledge you are talking about, If I'm higher up on a piece of dodgy gear it might not be as safe as it might be if I'm closer to it?

That's exactly what I said.

krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to LJC: do you see the word MIGHT up there somewhere?
krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Fredt: you said "and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this."

bpmclimb - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

Why is the first piece after leaving a stance particularly important? If you can answer that question then you have an appreciation of the principle of fall factors. It is possible to explain it without using the term "fall factor" but if you explain it correctly then you are talking about the same thing.
You can't adequately answer that question with "don't ignore chances for gear" because it doesn't explain why that piece is of particular importance.

It is possible to apply a bit of intelligence to these things without being "geeky". The basic principle behind fall factors is pretty simple, and I would imagine most people are capable of understanding it. Obviously, when explaining it to climbers who are intimidated and confused by any hint of technical language, one would need to use more everyday language. This is easily done. It is the basic principle that matters.

Neil Williams - on 08 May 2013
In reply to RichardP:

That's an interesting point. All my gear is either on wire or sewn slings because it's quite new, but I've seen plenty of people with hexes on cord. How's that different? Should they, I guess, cut said cord off and have them properly reslung?

Neil
bpmclimb - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to bpmclimb)
> [...]

>
> What you seem to be suggesting is to use a car analogy is that we should know about friction coefficients, momentum and velocity to be able to put the brakes on while driving a car.

Just to pick up on your car analogy - no I'm not suggesting that. But neither do I want to be a passenger if the driver seems to have an oversimplified view of braking and how it works in practice. A little more discernment is needed than just "press pedal, car slows down". I would expect them to know that braking takes longer in the wet, takes longer the faster you're going, and that braking while cornering isn't always the best mix. I would expect their instructor to have pointed out these things, rather than leave them to gradually filter through at an intuitive level.
Monkey_Alan - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
Proper climbing cord is stronger than the OP's paracord - Needlesports has 6mm cord at 7.5kN.
Fredt on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> (In reply to Fredt) you said "and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this."

I said:
"A certain placement may be 'solid' when you're 1 metre above it, but it becomes less 'solid' the higher up above it you go."

Then you said:
"If I'm higher up on a piece of dodgy gear it might not be as safe as it might be if I'm closer to it?"

That's why I said:"
"That's exactly what I said".
deanstonmassif on 08 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb:
> (In reply to krikoman)

> Just to pick up on your car analogy - no I'm not suggesting that. But neither do I want to be a passenger if the driver seems to have an oversimplified view of braking and how it works in practice. A little more discernment is needed than just "press pedal, car slows down". I would expect them to know that braking takes longer in the wet, takes longer the faster you're going, and that braking while cornering isn't always the best mix. I would expect their instructor to have pointed out these things, rather than leave them to gradually filter through at an intuitive level.

Well put. My friend is an arts graduate and even he can understand the concept of fall factors. It's a 5 minute conversation or read of a book; where's the difficulty? And it is probably the most important bit of 'science' governing our protection system in this sport.
krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to deanstonmassif:
> (In reply to bpmclimb)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Well put. My friend is an arts graduate ...

My friend left school with no cse's and has worked as a "packer" in various warehouses. He has trouble reading and writing. He's not interested in the science behind it just in the rule that it's a good idea.

He knows how to break in the wet and not around corners, he doesn't care that he pushes his foot on the brake this pushes hydraulic fluid into the braking circuits pushing the brake pads onto the disks, the resulting friction slows the momentum of the car down in proportion to the force acting on the brake and the momentum and mass of the car. The energy from this force is released as heat.

What I told him about leaving the belay is, "put some gear in, preferably before you leave, that way if you fall off I get pulled upwards rather than down with you.

That was all he needed to know, it makes sense to him, he does it every time and passes this info on to people he climbs with, job done.

Like I said above it's useful for those that like that sort of thing. It's not essential or even necessary to know about a factor 2 fall.

He has the self preservation knowledge that I think is built into most people that the longer the fall the more itís likely to hurt and so he climb accordingly.

krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Fredt: but what about this "and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this."??

Who said that?
andic - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:

Or to put it another way you simply cannot assume everyone has had your advantages and make allowances for that. I would not try to stop anyone leading who wanted to because they are too "thick".
lithos on 08 May 2013
In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

save the paracord and use plastic bags free from supermarket of your choice

http://www.kakibusok.plus.com/Equipment/CTDQ1/CTDQ1.htm
Fredt on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Fredt) but what about this "and a knowledge of fall factors is a valuable tool in this."??
>
> Who said that?

Yes, I said that too. I was merely pointing out that we had said the same things.

It is obvious from your posts, especially your reply to deanstonmassif, that you do not understand fall factors, and their importance, and as you obviously refuse to listen to the advice of others, I shall cease trying to educate you.
I wish you the best of luck in your climbing.
krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Fredt: I understand fall factors just fine, thank you. As I've been en engineer for most of my life I understand forces, loads and a myriad of other scientific methods, formulas and theories.

My argument was that you don't need to know about fall factors to be a safe climber. You need to know how to climb, and protect yourself, and your partner.


Thanks for TRYING to educate me though I do appreciate it.

If you read my post earlier I did say that I enjoy the theory behind falls and the forces crated during a fall, but thatís because Iím that sort of person thatís interesting in most things scientific.

My friend knows nothing about fall factors, while I do, he does how to keep himself and me safe while climbing which is why I still climb with him.


Know something does not make you safe, safe practice makes you safe(r).

bpmclimb - on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to deanstonmassif)
> [...]

>
> He has the self preservation knowledge that I think is built into most people that the longer the fall the more itís likely to hurt and so he climb accordingly.

Not good enough, sorry. This is at best a potentially dangerous half-truth. Longer falls can be safer if on steep ground and with plenty of runners clipped than short falls with fewer clipped (or none at all). The reason for this is that the longer fall can have a smaller fall factor. This is a very important principle in climbing, which is initially counter-intuitive and therefore needs to be learned. Not necessarily the jargon and arithmetic, but the basic principle. This is something all climbers should be aware of.
EeeByGum - on 08 May 2013
In reply to lithos:
> (In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest)
>
> save the paracord and use plastic bags free from supermarket of your choice
>
> http://www.kakibusok.plus.com/Equipment/CTDQ1/CTDQ1.htm

You are like so out of date! Mark two paracords are also out!

http://www.kakibusok.plus.com/Equipment/CTDQ2/CTDQ2.htm
krikoman - on 08 May 2013
In reply to bpmclimb: and is the same reason why we don't climb on static ropes.

I realise what you are getting at but as I was trying to get across you only need a few simple rules not an in-depth knowledge of fall factors.

1. Don't leave any slack in slings tying you to the belay.
2. Put some gear in before leaving the belay or as soon as you can.
3. Possibly if there might not be any gear for some time ( on a hanging belay )belay on a long cord and use the belay as the first clip for the leader.
the closer you are to the belay the more important it is to put some gear in.
4. Run outs lower down are more dangerous than run outs further away.
5. Even a small amount of slack in a sling can very dangerous.

I live under the aegis all knowledge is power, but itís not for everyone, some people like a set of rules they can live by and then adjust them to suit each situation.
Martyn Maltby on 08 May 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to bpmclimb) and is the same reason why we don't climb on static ropes.
>
> I realise what you are getting at but as I was trying to get across you only need a few simple rules not an in-depth knowledge of fall factors.
>
> 1. Don't leave any slack in slings tying you to the belay.
> 2. Put some gear in before leaving the belay or as soon as you can.
> 3. Possibly if there might not be any gear for some time ( on a hanging belay )belay on a long cord and use the belay as the first clip for the leader.
> the closer you are to the belay the more important it is to put some gear in.
> 4. Run outs lower down are more dangerous than run outs further away.
> 5. Even a small amount of slack in a sling can very dangerous.
>
> I live under the aegis all knowledge is power, but itís not for everyone, some people like a set of rules they can live by and then adjust them to suit each situation.

I'd never remember all those!

If your friend simply understood fall factors, he wouldn't need to remember all that lot.


Neil Williams - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Martyn Maltby:

> 1. Don't leave any slack in slings tying you to the belay.
> 2. Put some gear in before leaving the belay or as soon as you can.
> 3. Possibly if there might not be any gear for some time ( on a hanging belay )belay on a long cord and use the belay as the first clip for the leader.
> the closer you are to the belay the more important it is to put some gear in.
> 4. Run outs lower down are more dangerous than run outs further away.
> 5. Even a small amount of slack in a sling can very dangerous.

> I'd never remember all those!

Those can be simplified to:-
1. Never take a fall of any kind, not even a short one, on any system that does not contain a dynamic rope.
2. The more rope out, the safer a fall of a given length will be (ignoring other factors like quality of gear).
3. When on multipitch always ensure something above the belayer is clipped as soon as possible.

That said, fall factor isn't hard to understand, so I don't see why anyone would ignore it.

Neil
Martyn Maltby on 08 May 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
>
> That said, fall factor isn't hard to understand, so I don't see why anyone would ignore it.
>
That was my point!
lithos on 08 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

yeah but placcy bags are free !
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 08 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: Cool link!
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 08 May 2013
In reply to lithos: That's pretty cool :). If only I didn't have 300ft of paracord sitting behind me :).
Gwilymstarks on 08 May 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Martyn Maltby)
>
> [...]
> > 2. Put some gear in before leaving the belay or as soon as you can.
> > 3. Possibly if there might not be any gear for some time ( on a hanging belay )belay on a long cord and use the belay as the first clip for the leader.
> > the closer you are to the belay the more important it is to put some gear in.
> > 4. Run outs lower down are more dangerous than run outs further away.
> > 5. Even a small amount of slack in a sling can very dangerous.
>
> [...]
>
> Those can be simplified to:-
> 1. Never take a fall of any kind, not even a short one, on any system that does not contain a dynamic rope.
> 2. The more rope out, the safer a fall of a given length will be (ignoring other factors like quality of gear).
> 3. When on multipitch always ensure something above the belayer is clipped as soon as possible.
>
> That said, fall factor isn't hard to understand, so I don't see why anyone would ignore it.
>
> Neil

or simplified even more to

1. Never take a fall of any kind.


In reply to TheFastestPunInTheWest:

Maybe you could use your paracord to make some ebay worthy products (para cord bracelets and key rings) and sell said products to fund your investment in some quick draws.

Alternatively I reckon Bear Grylls would happily test your para cord quick draw idea :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
TheFastestPunInTheWest - on 10 May 2013
In reply to Little Dave of Sheffield: That's a good call Dave! Maybe the paracord can still be the answer to obtain some quick draws.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.