This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
An accident happened at the Westway Sports Centre climbing wall on the 15th of January involving a red-point auto-belayer made by the USA company, MSA Rose A climber was injured.
This was the first accident involving the apparent failure of a red-point machine at the Westway. The climber fell 8m to the ground. Four witnesses........
More in the news at.. http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
This was the first accident involving the apparent failure of a red-point machine at the Westway. The climber fell 8m to the ground. Four witnesses........
More in the news at.. http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Wingman: semantics Wingman - semantics
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Idle speculation: obviously autobelays are only safe for climbers within a certain weight range. Fasten a kitten to one and the poor bugger would be hurtled skywards, clip T Rex in and when it let go it'd crash to the ground. Elsewhere someone mentions this guy as climbing wearing a rack and rope (on another occasion) ... if this is correct then he's presumably in training.
So.... he wasn't like, wearing a rucksack with a lot of weight in it, for example? And how big was he? And does anyone know the upper safety limit of human weight for autobelays?
Also, does anyone know how the 'slickness' of autobelays is adjusted? I climbed on one that lowered me a lot faster than I'm used to the other day and we speculated it might have been recently serviced and adjusted.
I hope the guy in question makes a full recovery very soon.
Idle speculation: obviously autobelays are only safe for climbers within a certain weight range. Fasten a kitten to one and the poor bugger would be hurtled skywards, clip T Rex in and when it let go it'd crash to the ground. Elsewhere someone mentions this guy as climbing wearing a rack and rope (on another occasion) ... if this is correct then he's presumably in training.
So.... he wasn't like, wearing a rucksack with a lot of weight in it, for example? And how big was he? And does anyone know the upper safety limit of human weight for autobelays?
Also, does anyone know how the 'slickness' of autobelays is adjusted? I climbed on one that lowered me a lot faster than I'm used to the other day and we speculated it might have been recently serviced and adjusted.
I hope the guy in question makes a full recovery very soon.
In reply to gingerkate:
At Leeds the kit is labelled as ok to people upto 320lb i think... definitely over 300 anyway.
At Leeds the kit is labelled as ok to people upto 320lb i think... definitely over 300 anyway.
In reply to VS4b:
So even a huge guy with a huge backpack stuffed with gear should be fine.
So stuff that theory.
More idle speculation: if you're doing moves off line of teh tape you can fall off with quite a swing. Is there any chance that rather than a lowering failure this guy actually took a big swing, crashed into wall, hit head, was lowered normally but obviously stunned and in much pain?
ie Did the witnesses see the tape unraveling fast, or did they only witness a thump and a screaming climber?
So even a huge guy with a huge backpack stuffed with gear should be fine.
So stuff that theory.
More idle speculation: if you're doing moves off line of teh tape you can fall off with quite a swing. Is there any chance that rather than a lowering failure this guy actually took a big swing, crashed into wall, hit head, was lowered normally but obviously stunned and in much pain?
ie Did the witnesses see the tape unraveling fast, or did they only witness a thump and a screaming climber?
Ps And was so stunned he had no memory that that was how it happened...
OK, not very likely...
OK, not very likely...
In reply to gingerkate:
keep it coming...i don't think there's been enough speculation about this incident.
> Ps And was so stunned he had no memory that that was how it happened...
keep it coming...i don't think there's been enough speculation about this incident.
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Yep, that's what I said I was doing. Sorry if it's a sin in your book, it isn't in mine.
Yep, that's what I said I was doing. Sorry if it's a sin in your book, it isn't in mine.
In reply to gingerkate:
it is a bit of a sin kate because people will be sure to take the idle speculation as facts and chinese whispers will ensue...is usually better to wait until some facts come out...am sure there are plenty of people desperate to appear important who will let us know exactly what happened in due course.
> (In reply to Morgan Woods)
>
> Yep, that's what I said I was doing. Sorry if it's a sin in your book, it isn't in mine.
>
> Yep, that's what I said I was doing. Sorry if it's a sin in your book, it isn't in mine.
it is a bit of a sin kate because people will be sure to take the idle speculation as facts and chinese whispers will ensue...is usually better to wait until some facts come out...am sure there are plenty of people desperate to appear important who will let us know exactly what happened in due course.
In reply to Tobias at Home:
Understandably people will have lots of questions and this is a good place to ask them.
I'm sure though that most can filter out the rumours from the facts. The facts are in the news report and have been checked.
There will be a further report at UKClimbing.com as soon as the manufacturer of the machine in the US talks to Enterprise.
Mick
Understandably people will have lots of questions and this is a good place to ask them.
I'm sure though that most can filter out the rumours from the facts. The facts are in the news report and have been checked.
There will be a further report at UKClimbing.com as soon as the manufacturer of the machine in the US talks to Enterprise.
Mick
In reply to gingerkate:
don't take it too hard....it just seemed like you were going to keep dreaming up ever more unlikely scenarios.
I don't think that's a sin....i just don't think it's helpful.
don't take it too hard....it just seemed like you were going to keep dreaming up ever more unlikely scenarios.
I don't think that's a sin....i just don't think it's helpful.
In reply to Morgan Woods:
ps I'm just freaked out (as I'm sure many people are) by the fact this appears to be an intermittent fault. I use autobs to train, as do many. I lap on one 100 times in succession. I envisage them being unable to figure out waht went wrong ... seems to me that scenario spells the end of autobelays. Major training shift.
ps I'm just freaked out (as I'm sure many people are) by the fact this appears to be an intermittent fault. I use autobs to train, as do many. I lap on one 100 times in succession. I envisage them being unable to figure out waht went wrong ... seems to me that scenario spells the end of autobelays. Major training shift.
In reply to Morgan Woods: I think Kate is asking sensible questions, not speculating, some of which have had answers which may help get to the bottom of the incident.
In reply to gingerkate:
no worries...just re-read your post and thought of Monty Python's parrot sketch:
(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.
Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
> (In reply to Morgan Woods)
> You're probably right, I'm being a bit touchy.
> You're probably right, I'm being a bit touchy.
no worries...just re-read your post and thought of Monty Python's parrot sketch:
(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.
Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
In reply to Al Evans:
Except that it is blatantly obvious that the belays would be able to take a weight that was far in excess of anything normal (as a safety margin) so adding a rack and a pack (although he didn't) wouldn't have made any difference.
Secondly, if he had banged his head and been lowered to the ground the accident wouldn't be being reported as autobelay failure. (in fact it would have been doing it's job)
> (In reply to Morgan Woods) I think Kate is asking sensible questions, not speculating, some of which have had answers which may help get to the bottom of the incident.
Except that it is blatantly obvious that the belays would be able to take a weight that was far in excess of anything normal (as a safety margin) so adding a rack and a pack (although he didn't) wouldn't have made any difference.
Secondly, if he had banged his head and been lowered to the ground the accident wouldn't be being reported as autobelay failure. (in fact it would have been doing it's job)
In reply to Al Evans:
Question: Does anyone happen to know why some autobs lower you much faster than others?
Question: Does anyone happen to know why some autobs lower you much faster than others?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Out of interest (I've never seen one let alone used one)... how do they work?
I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb?
Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons?
If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall?
Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go?
Just trying to get an idea of what you're discussing really. Hope the guy's ok, sounds like he will be.
jk
Out of interest (I've never seen one let alone used one)... how do they work?
I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb?
Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons?
If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall?
Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go?
Just trying to get an idea of what you're discussing really. Hope the guy's ok, sounds like he will be.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
They pull you up a bit. If you then lead same route you def feel the difference.
Pretty constant.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
Just clip in to a screwgate at the end of a tape.
> I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
>
> If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb?
>
> Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons?
> If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb?
>
> Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons?
They pull you up a bit. If you then lead same route you def feel the difference.
>
> If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall?
Yep!
> If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall?
>
> Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go?
> Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go?
Pretty constant.
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Out of interest (I've never seen one let alone used one)... how do they work?
>
> I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
I think it's like a car seat belt (inertia reel or something) - so when they are moved slowly they move easily but if there is a jerk/acceleration the braking mechanism kicks in.
>
> Out of interest (I've never seen one let alone used one)... how do they work?
>
> I don't mean what's the braking mechanism etc, more, how do you use them and how do they function in normal use?
>
> If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb? No, but if you are holding one it does require a bit of effort to stop it pinging up the wall
>
> Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons? There is a a gentle upward pull when you climb. (can't quantify it though sorry.)
>
> If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall? Yes
>
> Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go? when you let go there is a short drop (feels like maybe 1/2m) and then a constant speed lowering to the ground.
>
> Just trying to get an idea of what you're discussing really. Hope the guy's ok, sounds like he will be.
>
> jk
> If they're rated for 300lbs then presumably there's not anywhere near a 1300N upward pull when you clip on and climb? No, but if you are holding one it does require a bit of effort to stop it pinging up the wall
>
> Do they pull you up? How much, a few tens of Newtons? There is a a gentle upward pull when you climb. (can't quantify it though sorry.)
>
> If you let one go at the bottom do they just whiz away up the wall? Yes
>
> Do they lower you at a constant rate or accelerate/decelerate as you go? when you let go there is a short drop (feels like maybe 1/2m) and then a constant speed lowering to the ground.
>
> Just trying to get an idea of what you're discussing really. Hope the guy's ok, sounds like he will be.
>
> jk
In reply to gingerkate: The manufacturer's web site for the Redpoint descender is here: http://www.redpointdescender.com/ It includes the Operation and Maintenance manual as a downloadable pdf. The specifications page states: Decent rate is 1.6 ft/s (0.5 m/s) minimum to 6.6 ft/s (2m/s) maximum. Descent rate will increase for heavier climbers.
As to how it works, I suspect it is a centrifugal brake. One reason for the same climber experiencing varying descent rates between different devices could therefore be wear in the braking surfaces, which I would imagine should be checked for during periodic maintenance by the manufacturer/distributor (the manual makes it pretty clear that anything inside the housing is not user-servicable). I suspect that the mechanism includes a separate backup braking mechanism in case the main one fails, to prevent runaway descents. However, all of this paragraph is largely speculation.
The device does carry a CE mark.
There was apparently a recall on these devices in 2005 due to faulty bearings: http://www.outdoored.com/anm/templates/template1.aspx?articleid=1660&zo...
As to how it works, I suspect it is a centrifugal brake. One reason for the same climber experiencing varying descent rates between different devices could therefore be wear in the braking surfaces, which I would imagine should be checked for during periodic maintenance by the manufacturer/distributor (the manual makes it pretty clear that anything inside the housing is not user-servicable). I suspect that the mechanism includes a separate backup braking mechanism in case the main one fails, to prevent runaway descents. However, all of this paragraph is largely speculation.
The device does carry a CE mark.
There was apparently a recall on these devices in 2005 due to faulty bearings: http://www.outdoored.com/anm/templates/template1.aspx?articleid=1660&zo...
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Interested to see there is no comment by the manufacturer yet. I own one of these.
Cheers,
FT.
Cheers,
FT.
In reply to Fume Troll:
Interesting in what sense? Why on earth would they comment until its clear what actally happened.
Interesting in what sense? Why on earth would they comment until its clear what actally happened.
In reply to Offwidth:
That's pretty common when something fails.
Cheers,
FT.
> Why on earth would they comment until its clear what actally happened.
That's pretty common when something fails.
Cheers,
FT.
In reply to Fume Troll:
In the case of any reported failure / malfunction, all the m/f needs to say is that they are investigating the incident fully.
Any more could leave them open to legal action at a future date.
The apparent failure by the M/F to comment on the incident in any way after it has been reported does not look very good for their PR image.
In the case of any reported failure / malfunction, all the m/f needs to say is that they are investigating the incident fully.
Any more could leave them open to legal action at a future date.
The apparent failure by the M/F to comment on the incident in any way after it has been reported does not look very good for their PR image.
In reply to Lord of Starkness: According to the article, the device is currently in the hands of the local Environmental Health people, so the manufacturers probably can't be doing much in the way of investigation.
In any case, this is a single incident involving a single device which is used by a relatively limited proportion of the population. I wouldn't expect a manufacturer to respond that way that you might expect, for example, Beoing to do if 737s started dropping out of the sky left, right and centre.
In any case, this is a single incident involving a single device which is used by a relatively limited proportion of the population. I wouldn't expect a manufacturer to respond that way that you might expect, for example, Beoing to do if 737s started dropping out of the sky left, right and centre.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Question: Can any of the witnesses confirm that the tape reeled in as it should, or is it possible that this is a combination of machine error (failing to reel in) and user error (failure to spot that it wasn't taking in)?
Question: How common is failure to reel in? (Autobs have warnings at bottom advising user to check that the tape is taking in.)
Question: Can multiple twists in the tape (very common) ever cause failure to reel in?
Question: Can any of the witnesses confirm that the tape reeled in as it should, or is it possible that this is a combination of machine error (failing to reel in) and user error (failure to spot that it wasn't taking in)?
Question: How common is failure to reel in? (Autobs have warnings at bottom advising user to check that the tape is taking in.)
Question: Can multiple twists in the tape (very common) ever cause failure to reel in?
In reply to Martin W:
Cheers for that info.
Cheers for that info.
In reply to gingerkate:
I'm waiting patiently for the reports to come back, but like Gingerkate, I've been using the auto's to train. they are convienient, negating the need to arrange to meet up with a partner so i can fit in a half hour run up and down between work an home. I am thinking now of attempting to use the bouldering area as a training session. Thoughts go to the climber who fell, hope that he's doing ok.
> (In reply to Morgan Woods)
> ps I'm just freaked out (as I'm sure many people are) by the fact this appears to be an intermittent fault. I use autobs to train, as do many. I lap on one 100 times in succession. I envisage them being unable to figure out waht went wrong ... seems to me that scenario spells the end of autobelays. Major training shift.
> ps I'm just freaked out (as I'm sure many people are) by the fact this appears to be an intermittent fault. I use autobs to train, as do many. I lap on one 100 times in succession. I envisage them being unable to figure out waht went wrong ... seems to me that scenario spells the end of autobelays. Major training shift.
I'm waiting patiently for the reports to come back, but like Gingerkate, I've been using the auto's to train. they are convienient, negating the need to arrange to meet up with a partner so i can fit in a half hour run up and down between work an home. I am thinking now of attempting to use the bouldering area as a training session. Thoughts go to the climber who fell, hope that he's doing ok.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Is the route being examined, as well as the autobelay?
If a hold wasn't fastened right tight against the wall it might be possible for the tape to get snugly trapped behind it, which could then stop the tape from reeling in. A subsequent fall could then jerk the tape free, leaving a functioning autobelay and no sign of what had happened.
Obviously this is only relevant if there is a possibility that the tape didn't reel in properly.
Is the route being examined, as well as the autobelay?
If a hold wasn't fastened right tight against the wall it might be possible for the tape to get snugly trapped behind it, which could then stop the tape from reeling in. A subsequent fall could then jerk the tape free, leaving a functioning autobelay and no sign of what had happened.
Obviously this is only relevant if there is a possibility that the tape didn't reel in properly.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Hmm, catching up. . . .
Thought you might be interested to hear that I've used an inertia reel type belay device that's failed (I don't know what type or make). It was a couple years ago in Milton Keynes. The problem according to the on site 'instructor' was that the cable inside the drum sometimes crosses over itself - most usually when it has been allowed to reel in v quickly typically when someone (small, daft or clumsy) has let it go without tethering. Effectively it failed 'safe' . . though of course there was nothing to stop me climbing effectively unprotected.
Hmm, catching up. . . .
Thought you might be interested to hear that I've used an inertia reel type belay device that's failed (I don't know what type or make). It was a couple years ago in Milton Keynes. The problem according to the on site 'instructor' was that the cable inside the drum sometimes crosses over itself - most usually when it has been allowed to reel in v quickly typically when someone (small, daft or clumsy) has let it go without tethering. Effectively it failed 'safe' . . though of course there was nothing to stop me climbing effectively unprotected.
In reply to PeterR:
Thank you for posting that and shedding some light on how autobelays cam malfunction. I understand you to mean that it didn't take in? But that you were ok because you noticed?
Has anyone any evidence in the Westway case that the tape had reeled in like it should?
Thank you for posting that and shedding some light on how autobelays cam malfunction. I understand you to mean that it didn't take in? But that you were ok because you noticed?
Has anyone any evidence in the Westway case that the tape had reeled in like it should?
In reply to gingerkate: Correct, it didn't take in - nor give out. It was fixed by jerking the cable in and out till the over lap straightened out. And yes you were also right about noticing.
Of course I wouldn't have been the first person who failed to notice a belayer not taking in - and with a auto belay device there's no one to shout at!
Of course I wouldn't have been the first person who failed to notice a belayer not taking in - and with a auto belay device there's no one to shout at!
In reply to gingerkate: Ok ive read some of this thread and I just want to say I work at the Milton keynes climbing wall peterR (my dad)lol just mentioned and as far as im aware weight is never an issue unless ur the one ton man and im pretty sure he cant walk let alone climb....Also we have two types of auto belay one with the typical wire and the other with a rope type line...the rope type does let you down at a much slower speed to the wire so this could be why certain people say it feels different...Another thing to take into concern is that if u say pull on one of the wire lines and get a length of slack, if you let go of it it takes quite a while to reel in thats why they arent good for dynos. Im not sure if he was doing that and if so why he was doing it but it is just a possibility...Hope this helps, il let you know if I hear anymore
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
i think this thread started on the wrong forum, and should be moved to indoor climbing.
brixton climber
i think this thread started on the wrong forum, and should be moved to indoor climbing.
brixton climber
In reply to gingerkate:
I wouldn't worry too much about one failure. Last year I whitnessed a guy deck it at my local climbing wall when a fixed quickdraw snapped at the mailon. I've not seen an alternative for quickdraws appear yet.
I hope the wall never gets an autobelay, as wear and tear isn't as easy to spot in these.
> seems to me that scenario spells the end of autobelays. Major training shift.
I wouldn't worry too much about one failure. Last year I whitnessed a guy deck it at my local climbing wall when a fixed quickdraw snapped at the mailon. I've not seen an alternative for quickdraws appear yet.
I hope the wall never gets an autobelay, as wear and tear isn't as easy to spot in these.
In reply to Baz47:
I'm not that worried about one failure, especially seeing as I've not heard any evidence yet that it wasn't just the (known) problem of the autobelay failing to reel in for some reason, combined with human error (ie climber not noticing that it hadn't reeled). But I don't have any choice, as my local wall's autobelays are now out of service until this is resolved. I don't blame the wall for this ... I'd have taken the same decision if it was up to me ... but it does mean it's not a matter of personal choice.
Seems to me that unless they can work out exactly why this accident happened ... a potentially impossible task ... many autobelays will stay decommissioned.
Anyway stuff 'em, climbing with my new partner is infinitely better for my leading head, which is easily my weakest point, so I'm not that fussed on reflection.
> (In reply to gingerkate)
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about one failure.
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about one failure.
I'm not that worried about one failure, especially seeing as I've not heard any evidence yet that it wasn't just the (known) problem of the autobelay failing to reel in for some reason, combined with human error (ie climber not noticing that it hadn't reeled). But I don't have any choice, as my local wall's autobelays are now out of service until this is resolved. I don't blame the wall for this ... I'd have taken the same decision if it was up to me ... but it does mean it's not a matter of personal choice.
Seems to me that unless they can work out exactly why this accident happened ... a potentially impossible task ... many autobelays will stay decommissioned.
Anyway stuff 'em, climbing with my new partner is infinitely better for my leading head, which is easily my weakest point, so I'm not that fussed on reflection.
In reply to gingerkate:
If we (as a species) can identify why an aicraft falls out of the sky, burns and fragments into 100,000 bits on the sea floor i'm sure an autobelay with two or three moving parts wont be a big deal. It'll just take time.
jk
> Seems to me that unless they can work out exactly why this accident happened ... a potentially impossible task ... many autobelays will stay decommissioned.
If we (as a species) can identify why an aicraft falls out of the sky, burns and fragments into 100,000 bits on the sea floor i'm sure an autobelay with two or three moving parts wont be a big deal. It'll just take time.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
But unlike the aircraft, the autobelay was apparently working normally straight after the accident. So... maybe there was nothing wrong with it at all, apart from a mucked up reeling in system (see above) which then righted itself in the course of the fall ... in which case, there will be nothing interesting to see inside the autobelay ... and yet no proof that it was just that.
But unlike the aircraft, the autobelay was apparently working normally straight after the accident. So... maybe there was nothing wrong with it at all, apart from a mucked up reeling in system (see above) which then righted itself in the course of the fall ... in which case, there will be nothing interesting to see inside the autobelay ... and yet no proof that it was just that.
In reply to gingerkate:
I suppose the question is, who inspected it.
Aircraft servicing teams don't do air accident investigations.
Not a dig at anyone BTW.
> (In reply to jkarran)
>
> But unlike the aircraft, the autobelay was apparently working normally straight after the accident. So... maybe there was nothing wrong with it at all, apart from a mucked up reeling in system (see above) which then righted itself in the course of the fall ... in which case, there will be nothing interesting to see inside the autobelay ... and yet no proof that it was just that.
>
> But unlike the aircraft, the autobelay was apparently working normally straight after the accident. So... maybe there was nothing wrong with it at all, apart from a mucked up reeling in system (see above) which then righted itself in the course of the fall ... in which case, there will be nothing interesting to see inside the autobelay ... and yet no proof that it was just that.
I suppose the question is, who inspected it.
Aircraft servicing teams don't do air accident investigations.
Not a dig at anyone BTW.
In reply to mike swann:
It's with H&S isn't it? And has to be opened with six people looking on or something? I'm sure they'll do a great job.
It's with H&S isn't it? And has to be opened with six people looking on or something? I'm sure they'll do a great job.
In reply to Baz47:
This really shouldn't happen if fixed gear is checked regularly.
> Last year I whitnessed a guy deck it at my local climbing wall when a fixed quickdraw snapped at the mailon. I've not seen an alternative for quickdraws appear yet.
This really shouldn't happen if fixed gear is checked regularly.
In reply to Jamie B.:
Thinking laterally one of the big advantages over having a real person on the other end of the rope is that 4 eyes are 100% more eyes for spotting unsecured buckles etc. than jus 2! (even ones like my mate's who's eyes drift girlwise too often for real comfort!)
> (In reply to Baz47)
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
Thinking laterally one of the big advantages over having a real person on the other end of the rope is that 4 eyes are 100% more eyes for spotting unsecured buckles etc. than jus 2! (even ones like my mate's who's eyes drift girlwise too often for real comfort!)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...