UKC

Is it a factor 2 fall if you fall just below your belayer, only due to rope stretch and the belayer being pulled into the air due to the fall?

In reply to ashtond6:

It's the fall distance divided by the rope length out so a 6m fall onto 3 meters of rope i.e. from above to below the belayer = 2. It's only a theoretical number as there is always a reduction due to rope stretch, malleable bodies, loose knots etc etc.

In reply to ashtond6:

Most people would say "no".

In reply to David Coley:

Good news! Thanks

In reply to ashtond6:

That sounds like a little more than factor 1 fall, ie the fall was comparable to the rope length.

In reply to BnB:

why do you say that?

In reply to John Kelly:

Seems obvious to me.

If you fall below your belayer, we can assume you're being belayed from above.

To get a factor two fall, you have to fall from above your belayer to below.

Ergo, it can't be a factor two fall.

In reply to Oceanrower:

ah - got it - thanks

In reply to Oceanrower:

What you describe would be an extremely low factor fall. The scenario as I understand it from the OP was that this was a leader fall with probably one or two pieces of gear, and let's imagine those being 2m above the belay, and the climber having gone 2m or so above the gear. If he then fell to just below the height of his belayer he would have fallen 4m in total on approximately 4m of rope (balancing the twin factors of rope stretch and belayer being lifted). I think that's right but it's easy to get confused with fall factors!?

In reply to ashtond6:

As said above, probably about a factor 1 fall or slightly more. Have a read of this for explanation.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=647

In reply to BnB:

I'm with you, i thought he took leader fall and ended up below belay however as the pull on the belayer was upwards there was some gear and that rules out the classic FF2 from belay situation. What i didn't get was how much rope was involved and therefore couldn't guess at FF

i think oceanrowers alternate reading of OP is also valid

In reply to BnB:

Ah, ok. I see what you mean. I, maybe, misinterpreted it.

So you think the OP meant "Is it a factor 2 fall if you fall TO just below your belayer....."

To the regular UKC pedants, this is why grammar matters

In reply to Oceanrower:

the 'TO' helps

In reply to Oceanrower:




Yes, if the belayer has been lifted upwards, the pull must be from above.

In reply to BnB:

Which it could well be if the belayer found a nice, convenient thread or spike above his head.

In reply to ashtond6:

If you fall just below your belayer then you're either downclimbing from the belay or you're seconding. Neither would produce a factor 2 fall.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes ok, you clearly know more about the situation that me!

About 5m above the belayer with gear below my feet
Slipped unexpectedly off a rest
Belayer is much lighter than me, was pulled in the air
I went lower than them, but only on stretch

Not that complicated

In reply to ashtond6:

I refer you to my post at 10:34.

The "to" changes the whole sentence. As it is, Michael Gordon is correct.

In reply to ashtond6:

However, to answer your question. You fell 5(ish) metres, rope out 5(ish) metres is FF1.

In reply to ashtond6:

ok so i think its a FF1 because you had 5m rope out and fell 5m

i think in reality it would of been less because of the belayer being lifted

In reply to Oceanrower:

beat me to it

In reply to ashtond6:


Nor explained adequately in your unreadable OP.

What you describe is roughly a factor 1 fall.
jk

In reply to ashtond6:

If you want a precise answer the situation still isn't clear enough - is the "5m above the belayer" your feet, harness or head height?

It also depends on your height which I have assumed below to be around 2m, with the harness tied mid way and the gear immediately beneath foot level.

If it's your feet, then there's probably 6m of rope out (5m to your feet plus another 1m to your waist), with 1m of rope above the gear. The unsupported fall is 2m on 6m of rope, or a fall factor of 0.33.

The remainder of the fall ONLY occurs because of the dynamic nature of the system (combinations of rope stretch and belayer movement, reduced by friction). These dynamic effects are specifically EXCLUDED when calculating a fall factor - only the fall BEFORE the rope begins to stretch counts - that's why a fall factor of 2 is the maximum possible, otherwise a classic factor 2 fall from 1m above the belay to 1m below PLUS the stretch would give a higher factor than 2.

The fall factor increases to 0.4 if your 5m is measured at the harness (2m fall, 5m rope out) or to 0.5 if the 5m is measured at your head (2m fall, 4m rope out).

For a factor 2 fall the gear would have to have failed so you fell the whole way back to the belay level and the same distance again beneath before the rope started to catch.

In reply to ashtond6:

i would Agree with JK
Sounds like from your description it was a 2-3m fall FF1
A FF2, 5 meters above the belay would leave you 5m below the stance therefore 10m fall not including rope stretch, belayer moving on stance etc