This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So it's been a week since an accident that involved a lot of gear failure and resulted in a broken arm for the climber, a whiplash-like injury for me (the belayer) and numerous cuts and scrapes. Having spent a fair bit of time considering the sequence of events, it's probably time to open it up to the masses, I guess we're looking for closure, hoping to learn something for the future and maybe helping others avoid a similar situation.
The crag and route are:
Black Crag (Wrynose) Yellow Fever (E2 5b)
The facts, as best I remember them (all values are approximate):
The climb starts from a ledge, about 2 m above the ground. The ground slopes downwards to the right. I was belaying from below the ledge.
The climb then goes up for about 4 m, takes a couple of steps left, before continuing up a crack system.
There were 5 pieces of gear (P1-P5, starting from the bottom). P1-3 were on the right, directly above the start, P4+5 were in the crack system on the left.
All the gear was wires with 15/18 cm quickdraws, P1 was about 2.5 m above the ledge, P2 was maybe 0.7 m above that and P3 was at about 4 m.
P4 was maybe 1.2-1.4 m to the left of P3 and maybe 1.5 m above, P5 was probably less than a metre directly above P4.
P1 was placed virtually from the ground, P3 was placed at a rest and I am convinced was a good piece of gear at the time of placement. P4 was maybe placed under duress, but was rested on shortly after placement, P5 was definitely placed under duress.
We were climbing on a single rope as this is probably the only route in the book without a straight up line, so had left the doubles behind.
So the accident:
After placing P5, the climber decided to lower off, I think he was pretty pumped. Anyway, I took in tight and he weighted the gear. I looked down to check the belay was locked off, not sure why I looked down, it's just something I do. At this point I heard the unmistakeable ping of gear failure, looking up I heard more pings and was pretty much instantly hit on the left side of my head/shoulder by the climber, who then swung rightwards as the rope came tight on P1. He ended up maybe 2 m to my right, down the slope a bit. When he came to rest, he was suspended just above the floor, we were both bleeding and probably slightly in shock.
So a few bits of speculation:
Mainly, why did 4 pieces of gear fail? Especially P4 that had already been weighted and P3 that was placed from a rest and I'm fairly sure was good. We think that the kink in the rope was enough to lift out P3 from the sidewards pull and maybe P4, bearing in mind that this is a kink of maybe 20-30 degrees, it was not something I'd normally worry about, but resting on P4 may have loosened P3, then weighting the system again may have pulled it/them out. Then the resulting shock load, may have been too much for P5 and I'm willing to accept that P2 may have just been rubbish.
I don't know if this sounds feasible, and if anyone has an comments on whether this sort of angle is enough to lift out gear, they'd be greatly appreciated.
The accident may have been very different if I was stood on the ledge, less rope, less fall distance, but higher impact force. Also, if I hadn't taken some of the force out of the swing, maybe he'd be in worse shape now. So I don't know if I'd do anything differently in the future.
Next, I was using a mega jul and this may have been a good thing as I'd be very surprised if I'd kept control of the rope after being hit by the falling climber. However if it hadn't been locked off, maybe he would have fallen to the soft floor, rather than being swung rightwards into the rock below the ledge (I think this is where the arm got broken), although this could still have resulted in worse injuries.
I think we were very lucky, if it hadn't been for the ledge, he'd have hit the deck from 6 odd metres with full force, P1 did hold and that was enough to keep him off the ground, just. Finally, we'd got complacent and weren't wearing our helmets at the time (they were left below a previous route), if he'd hit his head, this could have been so much worse, so we've learnt our lesson there.
So what have I learnt. Belaying is not necessarily safe, just because he was a long way above me, didn't mean I was out the fall line. I'll probably never climb trad on a single rope again. The response of fellow climbers, and the MRT was amazing, everyone just wanted to help and make sure he was ok. Although it is quite difficult to persuade injured climbers to wait (he was insistent that he wanted to walk to the road, but obviously I didn't want to move and the MRT not be able to find us).
Anyway thanks again to everyone involved, all of the injuries will heal and hopefully we won't make the same mistakes again.
If you've got this far, thanks for reading, we'll welcome constructive criticism, but I'm not trying to portion blame here, it was just an accident and I want it to remain as such.
Finally I do have a little rant, sorry but to the road biker who nearly ran me over when I stepped out of the ambulance to get into our car:
You, sir are an inconsiderate waste of space, a barely audible OY OY as you flew past was not fair warning, people like you give road bikers a bad name and I hope you realise that. Your friend certainly did, he had a look of shame on his stupid face as he meekly followed you past me. There is no excuse, it was an ambulance, there was no need to pass at such a speed!
There, rant over, sorry about that.
The crag and route are:
Black Crag (Wrynose) Yellow Fever (E2 5b)
The facts, as best I remember them (all values are approximate):
The climb starts from a ledge, about 2 m above the ground. The ground slopes downwards to the right. I was belaying from below the ledge.
The climb then goes up for about 4 m, takes a couple of steps left, before continuing up a crack system.
There were 5 pieces of gear (P1-P5, starting from the bottom). P1-3 were on the right, directly above the start, P4+5 were in the crack system on the left.
All the gear was wires with 15/18 cm quickdraws, P1 was about 2.5 m above the ledge, P2 was maybe 0.7 m above that and P3 was at about 4 m.
P4 was maybe 1.2-1.4 m to the left of P3 and maybe 1.5 m above, P5 was probably less than a metre directly above P4.
P1 was placed virtually from the ground, P3 was placed at a rest and I am convinced was a good piece of gear at the time of placement. P4 was maybe placed under duress, but was rested on shortly after placement, P5 was definitely placed under duress.
We were climbing on a single rope as this is probably the only route in the book without a straight up line, so had left the doubles behind.
So the accident:
After placing P5, the climber decided to lower off, I think he was pretty pumped. Anyway, I took in tight and he weighted the gear. I looked down to check the belay was locked off, not sure why I looked down, it's just something I do. At this point I heard the unmistakeable ping of gear failure, looking up I heard more pings and was pretty much instantly hit on the left side of my head/shoulder by the climber, who then swung rightwards as the rope came tight on P1. He ended up maybe 2 m to my right, down the slope a bit. When he came to rest, he was suspended just above the floor, we were both bleeding and probably slightly in shock.
So a few bits of speculation:
Mainly, why did 4 pieces of gear fail? Especially P4 that had already been weighted and P3 that was placed from a rest and I'm fairly sure was good. We think that the kink in the rope was enough to lift out P3 from the sidewards pull and maybe P4, bearing in mind that this is a kink of maybe 20-30 degrees, it was not something I'd normally worry about, but resting on P4 may have loosened P3, then weighting the system again may have pulled it/them out. Then the resulting shock load, may have been too much for P5 and I'm willing to accept that P2 may have just been rubbish.
I don't know if this sounds feasible, and if anyone has an comments on whether this sort of angle is enough to lift out gear, they'd be greatly appreciated.
The accident may have been very different if I was stood on the ledge, less rope, less fall distance, but higher impact force. Also, if I hadn't taken some of the force out of the swing, maybe he'd be in worse shape now. So I don't know if I'd do anything differently in the future.
Next, I was using a mega jul and this may have been a good thing as I'd be very surprised if I'd kept control of the rope after being hit by the falling climber. However if it hadn't been locked off, maybe he would have fallen to the soft floor, rather than being swung rightwards into the rock below the ledge (I think this is where the arm got broken), although this could still have resulted in worse injuries.
I think we were very lucky, if it hadn't been for the ledge, he'd have hit the deck from 6 odd metres with full force, P1 did hold and that was enough to keep him off the ground, just. Finally, we'd got complacent and weren't wearing our helmets at the time (they were left below a previous route), if he'd hit his head, this could have been so much worse, so we've learnt our lesson there.
So what have I learnt. Belaying is not necessarily safe, just because he was a long way above me, didn't mean I was out the fall line. I'll probably never climb trad on a single rope again. The response of fellow climbers, and the MRT was amazing, everyone just wanted to help and make sure he was ok. Although it is quite difficult to persuade injured climbers to wait (he was insistent that he wanted to walk to the road, but obviously I didn't want to move and the MRT not be able to find us).
Anyway thanks again to everyone involved, all of the injuries will heal and hopefully we won't make the same mistakes again.
If you've got this far, thanks for reading, we'll welcome constructive criticism, but I'm not trying to portion blame here, it was just an accident and I want it to remain as such.
Finally I do have a little rant, sorry but to the road biker who nearly ran me over when I stepped out of the ambulance to get into our car:
You, sir are an inconsiderate waste of space, a barely audible OY OY as you flew past was not fair warning, people like you give road bikers a bad name and I hope you realise that. Your friend certainly did, he had a look of shame on his stupid face as he meekly followed you past me. There is no excuse, it was an ambulance, there was no need to pass at such a speed!
There, rant over, sorry about that.
23
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Without knowing exactly what the gear was like, though you done a good job describing it, it's impossible to say exactly what went wrong but ,as you too surmise, it'll most likely to be the use of a single rope pulling the gear out sideways/outwards. It's surprising how little it takes sometimes and, judging by the comments, the gear is fiddly on this climb.
Without knowing exactly what the gear was like, though you done a good job describing it, it's impossible to say exactly what went wrong but ,as you too surmise, it'll most likely to be the use of a single rope pulling the gear out sideways/outwards. It's surprising how little it takes sometimes and, judging by the comments, the gear is fiddly on this climb.
In reply to Oliver Houston:
If it was all wires I would be a bit worried especially if the first wasn't a directional piece ie can take upwards force. A cam is usually good for this. Maybe they zippered from the bottom?
Hope you're both on the mend anyway.
If it was all wires I would be a bit worried especially if the first wasn't a directional piece ie can take upwards force. A cam is usually good for this. Maybe they zippered from the bottom?
Hope you're both on the mend anyway.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Get well soon to everyone involved.
With that said, I'm no expert but 5 pieces of gear in the first 6metres of an E3 "they just can't have been good."
Get well soon to everyone involved.
With that said, I'm no expert but 5 pieces of gear in the first 6metres of an E3 "they just can't have been good."
2
2
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Good to see people on here both trying to learn from their own mishaps and giving others the opportunity to do so too.
Sounds to me like – as you said – the route wasn’t the optimal line for a single rope. P3 & P4 probably should have been extended. I think we can rule out zippering from below given that P1 was the piece that held.
I haven’t climbed trad on a single rope for many, many years, but I get the impression from what I read on the US forums that if the route is anything other than a ruler-straight crack you really have to think carefully about extending gear and keeping the rope line as straight as possible.
Good to see people on here both trying to learn from their own mishaps and giving others the opportunity to do so too.
Sounds to me like – as you said – the route wasn’t the optimal line for a single rope. P3 & P4 probably should have been extended. I think we can rule out zippering from below given that P1 was the piece that held.
I haven’t climbed trad on a single rope for many, many years, but I get the impression from what I read on the US forums that if the route is anything other than a ruler-straight crack you really have to think carefully about extending gear and keeping the rope line as straight as possible.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
So the top 4 bits of gear popped including one (p4) which had been sat on already?
P1 stayed in so it's not likely to be a case of standing too far out (sometimes can't be helped but should always be considered) unzipping nuts from the bottom.
It seems to me there are two potential causes and that a combination of them is probably the what actually happened. Your mate's nut placements, even the 'good' ones maybe aren't quite as good as you both think and or the nuts were lifted by a zig-zag rope or a concave rockface/rope-run. It's not unusual for the odd nut to pop as the rope straightens even with reasonably good placements and half ropes, the only real defense is careful planning and willingness to use very long extenders (or multi-directional gear) where required.
Hope you both heal well,
jk
So the top 4 bits of gear popped including one (p4) which had been sat on already?
P1 stayed in so it's not likely to be a case of standing too far out (sometimes can't be helped but should always be considered) unzipping nuts from the bottom.
It seems to me there are two potential causes and that a combination of them is probably the what actually happened. Your mate's nut placements, even the 'good' ones maybe aren't quite as good as you both think and or the nuts were lifted by a zig-zag rope or a concave rockface/rope-run. It's not unusual for the odd nut to pop as the rope straightens even with reasonably good placements and half ropes, the only real defense is careful planning and willingness to use very long extenders (or multi-directional gear) where required.
Hope you both heal well,
jk
Post edited at 11:06
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Have a read of the quality of the gear placements here:
Yellow Fever (E2 5b)
Mostly described as fiddly, small and very average in nature. Not only can these placements tend to fail more often they often also lift or get flicked out more easily.
Have a read of the quality of the gear placements here:
Yellow Fever (E2 5b)
Mostly described as fiddly, small and very average in nature. Not only can these placements tend to fail more often they often also lift or get flicked out more easily.
Post edited at 10:55
In reply to Morgan Woods:
As the first piece held that seems unlikely.
> If it was all wires I would be a bit worried especially if the first wasn't a directional piece ie can take upwards force. A cam is usually good for this. Maybe they zippered from the bottom?
As the first piece held that seems unlikely.
In reply to Oliver Houston:
+1 for using sling draws.
Hope you both have a speedy recovery. And, given the very measured and candid tone you've adopted, hope the thread continues in the same constructive way.
+1 for using sling draws.
Hope you both have a speedy recovery. And, given the very measured and candid tone you've adopted, hope the thread continues in the same constructive way.
3
In reply to CurlyStevo:
You're right....I overlooked that. It seems both odd and unlucky then.
> As the first piece held that seems unlikely.
You're right....I overlooked that. It seems both odd and unlucky then.
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Especially P4 that had already been weighted and P3 that was placed from a rest and I'm fairly sure was good
I have drawn out your gear positions on graph paper, I am that nerdy.
Resting on P4, the load is down and right.
Lowering from P5, the load on P4 is up and right.
I doubt the leader tested the placement for an upward pull.
Especially P4 that had already been weighted and P3 that was placed from a rest and I'm fairly sure was good
I have drawn out your gear positions on graph paper, I am that nerdy.
Resting on P4, the load is down and right.
Lowering from P5, the load on P4 is up and right.
I doubt the leader tested the placement for an upward pull.
8
In reply to Oliver Houston:
I know the route and think your analysis and learning is probably spot on (I have recently started using the mega jul and gloves following a similar experience). Hope you both get over this quickly and thanks for sharing your experience.
I know the route and think your analysis and learning is probably spot on (I have recently started using the mega jul and gloves following a similar experience). Hope you both get over this quickly and thanks for sharing your experience.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
So it would seem likely that when P5 was loaded (leader resting), P4 lifted out or unseated, P5 then failed, as did P4, P3 and P2.
I see there are notes about poor gear in the route comments, not sure if the leader was aware of this. Obviously the gear was (in hindsight) poor.
As the OP is aware, double ropes may have prevented the accident (left rope P4 & P5, right rope P1-P3), as P4 would not have been lifted out, and hopefully held in the event of P5 failing.
Proper extension of P2,P3 and P4 using the single rope might have had the same effect, as well.
So this was probably a nasty combination of poor/unreliable gear and not enough extension of the various bits of pro.
Thanks to the OP for sharing, its always good to discuss in a constructive fashion and try to learn what went wrong. Hope you are both back on the rock soon.
> Resting on P4, the load is down and right.
> Lowering from P5, the load on P4 is up and right.
So it would seem likely that when P5 was loaded (leader resting), P4 lifted out or unseated, P5 then failed, as did P4, P3 and P2.
I see there are notes about poor gear in the route comments, not sure if the leader was aware of this. Obviously the gear was (in hindsight) poor.
As the OP is aware, double ropes may have prevented the accident (left rope P4 & P5, right rope P1-P3), as P4 would not have been lifted out, and hopefully held in the event of P5 failing.
Proper extension of P2,P3 and P4 using the single rope might have had the same effect, as well.
So this was probably a nasty combination of poor/unreliable gear and not enough extension of the various bits of pro.
Thanks to the OP for sharing, its always good to discuss in a constructive fashion and try to learn what went wrong. Hope you are both back on the rock soon.
3
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Wishing you both a fast and complete recovery.
Thanks a lot for sharing, that's very helpful.
My only comment is, and I hope you take this well, is that I personally wouldn't climb on anything except double ropes on British rock.
Wishing you both a fast and complete recovery.
Thanks a lot for sharing, that's very helpful.
My only comment is, and I hope you take this well, is that I personally wouldn't climb on anything except double ropes on British rock.
2
In reply to Oliver Houston:
I wouldn't write off climbing trad with a single rope (everywhere else in the world seems to manage it), but I would write off trad with a single rope and short quickdraws (18cm is my shortest). Another +1 for slingdraws (and 25cm draws).
Quick recovery to both of you.
> All the gear was wires with 15/18 cm quickdraws
> [...] I'll probably never climb trad on a single rope again.
I wouldn't write off climbing trad with a single rope (everywhere else in the world seems to manage it), but I would write off trad with a single rope and short quickdraws (18cm is my shortest). Another +1 for slingdraws (and 25cm draws).
Quick recovery to both of you.
Post edited at 12:19
6
In reply to Oliver Houston:
How long is this route? Is it less than half your rope, so that doubling up your single rope would have been an option?
> We were climbing on a single rope as this is probably the only route in the book without a straight up line, so had left the doubles behind.
How long is this route? Is it less than half your rope, so that doubling up your single rope would have been an option?
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Hi everyone,
I was the climber and would like to thank everyone for the constructive comments received so far. I feel incredibly lucky and grateful to the support of everyone involved in the rescue: Langdale MRT; Penrith Air team (i believe); paramedics and NHS staff and to my belayer Oliver (also brother) and to the climber's to our right for getting an emergency call out for us.
His assessment of the climb is pretty spot on and I will climb with less trust in small pieces of metal from now on and two ropes (and a helmet). Although, with the estimates of height he's given I'm pretty sure I would have decked on the ledge if P1 was the surviving piece (perhaps P1 is a bit higher and P4 and 5 a bit lower, as he says, there was some tension left on the lonely piece and my final position of rest was the ledge to his right pretty much on the floor/ledge but with tension still in the rope). The swing rightwards suggests some pivoting around P3 ,2 or 1, which really points the blame at the top two pieces. My suspicion, is that P5 failed and P4 took a harder hit than being gently weighted beforehand and therefore ripped out (Damn you P4! For your falsely provided sense of security). But I don't remember the fall only the moments before and after it. And perhaps will never truly understand my failures.
A broken arm is the worst of it and is starting to heal well. I am sure the lessons I have learned are more valuable to me in future climbing than the rest of this seasons climbing. I hope everyone enjoys their climbing and takes whatever they can from this.
Sorry, sharpnose could you please explain with a little more detail how there would be an upwards and force on P4 (do your calculations allow ~20cm for quickdrawers at P3 and 4, theoretically, reducing this gap to about 80 cm)? If this was the case could the freed rope be enough to jeopardize P5? My questions are to learn not to argue as a good understanding of the failure of my system may protect me in future and I thank you for taking the time to drawer out this system. (although my brother's estimates cant be correct as there would be more rope between P1 and 5 than between P1 and the ledge).
Jkarran, curious about multidirectional gear, could you point to an article or explain a bit more, thanks.
Oliver would like to thank you for sharing this and for being a great climbing partner. We both welcome continued discussion and constructive criticism.
Thanks again everyone and stay as safe as you can out there, a fall is a humbling experience.
Oh! Even my fall required more adhesive dressings than we were carrying (3), recommend a dozen... assorted sizes!
Sam
Hi everyone,
I was the climber and would like to thank everyone for the constructive comments received so far. I feel incredibly lucky and grateful to the support of everyone involved in the rescue: Langdale MRT; Penrith Air team (i believe); paramedics and NHS staff and to my belayer Oliver (also brother) and to the climber's to our right for getting an emergency call out for us.
His assessment of the climb is pretty spot on and I will climb with less trust in small pieces of metal from now on and two ropes (and a helmet). Although, with the estimates of height he's given I'm pretty sure I would have decked on the ledge if P1 was the surviving piece (perhaps P1 is a bit higher and P4 and 5 a bit lower, as he says, there was some tension left on the lonely piece and my final position of rest was the ledge to his right pretty much on the floor/ledge but with tension still in the rope). The swing rightwards suggests some pivoting around P3 ,2 or 1, which really points the blame at the top two pieces. My suspicion, is that P5 failed and P4 took a harder hit than being gently weighted beforehand and therefore ripped out (Damn you P4! For your falsely provided sense of security). But I don't remember the fall only the moments before and after it. And perhaps will never truly understand my failures.
A broken arm is the worst of it and is starting to heal well. I am sure the lessons I have learned are more valuable to me in future climbing than the rest of this seasons climbing. I hope everyone enjoys their climbing and takes whatever they can from this.
Sorry, sharpnose could you please explain with a little more detail how there would be an upwards and force on P4 (do your calculations allow ~20cm for quickdrawers at P3 and 4, theoretically, reducing this gap to about 80 cm)? If this was the case could the freed rope be enough to jeopardize P5? My questions are to learn not to argue as a good understanding of the failure of my system may protect me in future and I thank you for taking the time to drawer out this system. (although my brother's estimates cant be correct as there would be more rope between P1 and 5 than between P1 and the ledge).
Jkarran, curious about multidirectional gear, could you point to an article or explain a bit more, thanks.
Oliver would like to thank you for sharing this and for being a great climbing partner. We both welcome continued discussion and constructive criticism.
Thanks again everyone and stay as safe as you can out there, a fall is a humbling experience.
Oh! Even my fall required more adhesive dressings than we were carrying (3), recommend a dozen... assorted sizes!
Sam
11
In reply to Oliver Houston:
I just wish to thank you for sharing your experience and I hope you have speedy recoveries. My preference for Trad is halves but failing that all of my quickdraws for trad are at lest 12 inches and I prefer my sling draws. I have been considering moving to slingdraw only.
I just wish to thank you for sharing your experience and I hope you have speedy recoveries. My preference for Trad is halves but failing that all of my quickdraws for trad are at lest 12 inches and I prefer my sling draws. I have been considering moving to slingdraw only.
1
In reply to sjsh:
I have allowed for the 20cm QDs. When the rope becomes tight between P3 & P5, the
shortest distance from P4 to the line made by the now tight rope from P3-P5 is at ~30 degrees above horizontal.
I suggest you do the drawing or mock up the rope & QDs on the ground using tentpegs as gear placements.
I didn't know any of this stuff when I started out and made many errors, any which could have been serious/fatal.
I have allowed for the 20cm QDs. When the rope becomes tight between P3 & P5, the
shortest distance from P4 to the line made by the now tight rope from P3-P5 is at ~30 degrees above horizontal.
I suggest you do the drawing or mock up the rope & QDs on the ground using tentpegs as gear placements.
I didn't know any of this stuff when I started out and made many errors, any which could have been serious/fatal.
5
In reply to sjsh:
I also sketched out the position of the gear relative to each other on a bit of paper, and I can see how you could generate an upward force on P4. Essentially, when you weighted P5, the rope below P5 was trying to pull itself into a straight line between the highest piece of gear (P5), and the belayer and/or the cluster of gear at P1 - P3, which result in P4 being pulled up and to the right.
I made no allowance for any extension, as I was just treating it as a rough estimation to help visualise the forces involved, and incorporating this might change the direction or extent of movement involved. Its easy enough to draw out yourself, just scale it on a bit of graph paper. Maybe worth doing just to help you visualise what may have happened.
A multi-directional bit of gear is any bit of gear that can resist a force in any direction, or at least more than one direction. A single nut is usually only any good for a pull in one direction. Cams are quite often placed as multi-directional pieces, but that does depend to some extent upon the orientation of the placement (i.e. horizontal or vertical crack etc).
> Sorry, sharpnose could you please explain with a little more detail how there would be an upwards and force on P4 (do your calculations allow ~20cm for quickdrawers at P3 and 4, theoretically, reducing this gap to about 80 cm)? If this was the case could the freed rope be enough to jeopardize P5? My questions are to learn not to argue as a good understanding of the failure of my system may protect me in future and I thank you for taking the time to drawer out this system. (although my brother's estimates cant be correct as there would be more rope between P1 and 5 than between P1 and the ledge).
I also sketched out the position of the gear relative to each other on a bit of paper, and I can see how you could generate an upward force on P4. Essentially, when you weighted P5, the rope below P5 was trying to pull itself into a straight line between the highest piece of gear (P5), and the belayer and/or the cluster of gear at P1 - P3, which result in P4 being pulled up and to the right.
I made no allowance for any extension, as I was just treating it as a rough estimation to help visualise the forces involved, and incorporating this might change the direction or extent of movement involved. Its easy enough to draw out yourself, just scale it on a bit of graph paper. Maybe worth doing just to help you visualise what may have happened.
A multi-directional bit of gear is any bit of gear that can resist a force in any direction, or at least more than one direction. A single nut is usually only any good for a pull in one direction. Cams are quite often placed as multi-directional pieces, but that does depend to some extent upon the orientation of the placement (i.e. horizontal or vertical crack etc).
In reply to Oliver Houston:
I have just had a look at the photo on your profile page and I think I understand why your accident happened. It is a good example of how not to protect a route. When climbing with singles or twins it is important to use long extenders so that the rope is in as straight a line as is practical. If you look at the picture many of those lower runners may have looked fine when you placed them but as you ascend the rope is pulling them in another direction and a fall on the top runner could result in an almost horizontal pull on the lower runners which they may not be able to withstand. Unless they are "twins", which I would very much doubt, you should have clipped them separately and wherever possible alternately or used very long extenders to straighten out the line.
I hate to sound like a boring old fart but I suspect that you have achieved your relatively high technical standard indoors and on sport without learning the appropriate skills for trad climbing. Apologies if I'm wrong about this.
Al
I have just had a look at the photo on your profile page and I think I understand why your accident happened. It is a good example of how not to protect a route. When climbing with singles or twins it is important to use long extenders so that the rope is in as straight a line as is practical. If you look at the picture many of those lower runners may have looked fine when you placed them but as you ascend the rope is pulling them in another direction and a fall on the top runner could result in an almost horizontal pull on the lower runners which they may not be able to withstand. Unless they are "twins", which I would very much doubt, you should have clipped them separately and wherever possible alternately or used very long extenders to straighten out the line.
I hate to sound like a boring old fart but I suspect that you have achieved your relatively high technical standard indoors and on sport without learning the appropriate skills for trad climbing. Apologies if I'm wrong about this.
Al
4
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Sorry to hear about such an accident. Never nice to learn about and hope both of u recover well!
If it's been covered already then I apologise but if possible don't let the above accident put u off climbing trad with a single rope. Double ropes are only really required on routes which zig zag a lot from left to right. Slight sideways movements can be compensated for by extending gear to eliminate rope drag very easily, also preventing the gear from popping out also.
I've read the route description too and the reviews of it and it looks like a pretty good one!
Take care,
Jamie
Sorry to hear about such an accident. Never nice to learn about and hope both of u recover well!
If it's been covered already then I apologise but if possible don't let the above accident put u off climbing trad with a single rope. Double ropes are only really required on routes which zig zag a lot from left to right. Slight sideways movements can be compensated for by extending gear to eliminate rope drag very easily, also preventing the gear from popping out also.
I've read the route description too and the reviews of it and it looks like a pretty good one!
Take care,
Jamie
In reply to sjsh:
It's just another way of saying the same thing Lowersharpnose is saying, with the right (wrong!) combination of zig-zags and too-short extenders you can end up with loads on the gear that are nothing like the downward pull we anticipate when looking for placements, they can be pulled sideways, out, up or any combination of those. A nut well set in a shallow tapered, rough crack might resist it but one less keyed in in an otherwise excellent seeming V shaped placement or a keyhole might just lift out.
By multi-directional gear I mean things like bolts, threads and pegs, placement's that won't fail whichever way you pull the quickdraw. Some nut and many cam placements will resist a variety of load directions but it does depend on the shape of the placement. If it's important enough you can tie opposed bits of gear together so the pair in combination can resist an upward or a downward pull. Some tie-offs can dramatically increase the load on one or both of the nuts through pulley effect or forming a wide angled V (think about why we keep belay rigging <120deg) so some careful thought is needed.
jk
> Jkarran, curious about multidirectional gear, could you point to an article or explain a bit more, thanks.
It's just another way of saying the same thing Lowersharpnose is saying, with the right (wrong!) combination of zig-zags and too-short extenders you can end up with loads on the gear that are nothing like the downward pull we anticipate when looking for placements, they can be pulled sideways, out, up or any combination of those. A nut well set in a shallow tapered, rough crack might resist it but one less keyed in in an otherwise excellent seeming V shaped placement or a keyhole might just lift out.
By multi-directional gear I mean things like bolts, threads and pegs, placement's that won't fail whichever way you pull the quickdraw. Some nut and many cam placements will resist a variety of load directions but it does depend on the shape of the placement. If it's important enough you can tie opposed bits of gear together so the pair in combination can resist an upward or a downward pull. Some tie-offs can dramatically increase the load on one or both of the nuts through pulley effect or forming a wide angled V (think about why we keep belay rigging <120deg) so some careful thought is needed.
jk
2
In reply to sjsh:
I hope you and you partner make a full recovery, glad you guys weren't more seriously injured.
I can remember belaying my friend Pat on that route many years ago, the gear wasn't particularly inspiring from what I can remember.
Lowesharpnoses analysis seems pretty accurate - try the tent peg demo, it's very illuminating, it soon becomes obvious that unless the rope is running in a completely straight line, that you can get sideways and even upwards pulls on pro.
The best kind of multi-directional gear is a thread. Cams are good in that you can place one below a nut to make the pull on the nut come from below and hence stop it lifting out, but don't place a cam thinking it will take a load from any angle - if you expect it to hold a fall the stem should be in line with the load.
Long extenders and double ropes help solve many problems with gear lifting out. Your aim should be to minimise any changes of angle in the rope through the pro - straight lines mean less drag, less lifting and also a minimised force on your top runner in a fall because the whole rope can stretch unimpeded by friction.
I hope you and you partner make a full recovery, glad you guys weren't more seriously injured.
I can remember belaying my friend Pat on that route many years ago, the gear wasn't particularly inspiring from what I can remember.
Lowesharpnoses analysis seems pretty accurate - try the tent peg demo, it's very illuminating, it soon becomes obvious that unless the rope is running in a completely straight line, that you can get sideways and even upwards pulls on pro.
The best kind of multi-directional gear is a thread. Cams are good in that you can place one below a nut to make the pull on the nut come from below and hence stop it lifting out, but don't place a cam thinking it will take a load from any angle - if you expect it to hold a fall the stem should be in line with the load.
Long extenders and double ropes help solve many problems with gear lifting out. Your aim should be to minimise any changes of angle in the rope through the pro - straight lines mean less drag, less lifting and also a minimised force on your top runner in a fall because the whole rope can stretch unimpeded by friction.
2
In reply to GridNorth:
Sometimes routes go round corners and just running ropes in a straight line is not possible but the key thing then is to extend to round off corners and try and ensure gear is placed for the expected pulls - which is not always downwards. Cams are potentially better for this as they can be more omnidirectional than a nut...
I have sometimes clipped half ropes as twins (rated as twins but I would probably do it anyway) when I am mostly worried about protecting two seconds on a traversing route (the seconds each unclip only their own rope); you then have to carefully guide the rope to avoid rope drag! I remember doing this on Zig Zag on Bosi and having to place gear purely to keep the rope off the various cracks in overhanging rock it would otherwise embed itself in...
When in doubt, extend!
Sometimes routes go round corners and just running ropes in a straight line is not possible but the key thing then is to extend to round off corners and try and ensure gear is placed for the expected pulls - which is not always downwards. Cams are potentially better for this as they can be more omnidirectional than a nut...
I have sometimes clipped half ropes as twins (rated as twins but I would probably do it anyway) when I am mostly worried about protecting two seconds on a traversing route (the seconds each unclip only their own rope); you then have to carefully guide the rope to avoid rope drag! I remember doing this on Zig Zag on Bosi and having to place gear purely to keep the rope off the various cracks in overhanging rock it would otherwise embed itself in...
When in doubt, extend!
Post edited at 14:16
In reply to jkarran & Gridnorth:
Basically I just sketched a similar scenario. I think the angle of the force on to the gear placement will always bisect the angle formed by the rope going in to and coming out of quickdraw attached to it.
This means if you load the top runner and then when the rope tightens the second top runner is directly below the top one and the rope then leaves the second top runner at an angle (to the third runner), irrelevant of the angle there will always be an upward force on the second to top runner.
Basically I just sketched a similar scenario. I think the angle of the force on to the gear placement will always bisect the angle formed by the rope going in to and coming out of quickdraw attached to it.
This means if you load the top runner and then when the rope tightens the second top runner is directly below the top one and the rope then leaves the second top runner at an angle (to the third runner), irrelevant of the angle there will always be an upward force on the second to top runner.
Post edited at 14:35
In reply to SenzuBean:
No answer yet - but according to the OP's previous thread: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=620173
the only bit that held was a brass offset. All hail the brass offset!
> Out of interest - do you know what the 5 bits of gear put in were?
No answer yet - but according to the OP's previous thread: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=620173
the only bit that held was a brass offset. All hail the brass offset!
Post edited at 14:37
1
In reply to GridNorth:
That's a different route I think. Looks like Croton Oil.
> I have just had a look at the photo on your profile page
That's a different route I think. Looks like Croton Oil.
2
In reply to mikeski:
Yes, but GridNorth's comments still apply - a single rope used, little extension and lots of angles.
Yes, but GridNorth's comments still apply - a single rope used, little extension and lots of angles.
2
In reply to GridNorth:
Oliver surely must have put that profile picture up as a wind-up!?
Protecting routes well is sometimes way trickier than most British trad climbers that I witness seem to think. I think there is a bit much gung-ho climbing from those a bit out of their depth on making the best of gear placements. Its OK taking lead falls and resting on the rope if you really know what you are doing but, if you don't, a bit of bad luck (like the top piece blows) and you are possibly facing a nasty accident. However good technically climbers are unless all gear placements are effectively as easy and multi-directional as bolts, those learning the ropes should follow the 'old school' adage... the leader must never fall (and try and avoid ever resting on gear). Not using double rope technique on routes where a fall is fairly likely and gear placements don't all line up is just daft. If you only have a single rope: double it up! There is nothing stopping someone using 3 ropes with two belayers (or more) if it helps.
One good tip is every time the rope changes direction through gear (and the placement isn't too strenuous) is to always try and get a multi-directional piece (if a single one isn't available combine pieces). I often see numerous climbers use a nut in a V slot in a vertical crack at the end of a traverse where a route starts to go up again... great if the climbing is easy above, otherwise silly as any force on a runner above will just lift it out.
Oliver surely must have put that profile picture up as a wind-up!?
Protecting routes well is sometimes way trickier than most British trad climbers that I witness seem to think. I think there is a bit much gung-ho climbing from those a bit out of their depth on making the best of gear placements. Its OK taking lead falls and resting on the rope if you really know what you are doing but, if you don't, a bit of bad luck (like the top piece blows) and you are possibly facing a nasty accident. However good technically climbers are unless all gear placements are effectively as easy and multi-directional as bolts, those learning the ropes should follow the 'old school' adage... the leader must never fall (and try and avoid ever resting on gear). Not using double rope technique on routes where a fall is fairly likely and gear placements don't all line up is just daft. If you only have a single rope: double it up! There is nothing stopping someone using 3 ropes with two belayers (or more) if it helps.
One good tip is every time the rope changes direction through gear (and the placement isn't too strenuous) is to always try and get a multi-directional piece (if a single one isn't available combine pieces). I often see numerous climbers use a nut in a V slot in a vertical crack at the end of a traverse where a route starts to go up again... great if the climbing is easy above, otherwise silly as any force on a runner above will just lift it out.
Post edited at 14:48
5
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Hey Oliver,
Sorry to hear about your accident. Sound like have had a lucky escape.
I don't want to getting into online theorizing about what could have happened. However I noticed from your profile that you are also based in Sheffield. If you would like to meet up one evening and go through rope work and placing gear I'd be more than happy to.
I should note that I'm not qualified to do this in anyway, but I have climbed a lot of trad routes (in the region of 2000 I would have thought) and I always make sure I place plenty of bombproof runners.
Drop me a mail if you are interest.
Tom
Hey Oliver,
Sorry to hear about your accident. Sound like have had a lucky escape.
I don't want to getting into online theorizing about what could have happened. However I noticed from your profile that you are also based in Sheffield. If you would like to meet up one evening and go through rope work and placing gear I'd be more than happy to.
I should note that I'm not qualified to do this in anyway, but I have climbed a lot of trad routes (in the region of 2000 I would have thought) and I always make sure I place plenty of bombproof runners.
Drop me a mail if you are interest.
Tom
5
In reply to Offwidth:
Excellent post - but the idea to use a doubled-up single rope might need to be qualified a bit more. Only some single ropes are also rated as half ropes (generally the thinner ones around 9mm, Beal Joker for example) - a fatter single, doubled up, would give a harsher fall arrest (and possibly fall outside of the UIAA guidelines for peak force loading) as there's less rope stretch.
Excellent post - but the idea to use a doubled-up single rope might need to be qualified a bit more. Only some single ropes are also rated as half ropes (generally the thinner ones around 9mm, Beal Joker for example) - a fatter single, doubled up, would give a harsher fall arrest (and possibly fall outside of the UIAA guidelines for peak force loading) as there's less rope stretch.
2
2
5
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
It wouldn't be a problem on a single pitch route, you can't generate enough force.
Most the difference you see in the max impact numbers on half ropes is down to the 55kg test weight (rather than 80kg). If you go and look at the max force stats for a triple rated single rope you'll note they aren't much different than any other single ropes, sometimes more even!
It wouldn't be a problem on a single pitch route, you can't generate enough force.
Most the difference you see in the max impact numbers on half ropes is down to the 55kg test weight (rather than 80kg). If you go and look at the max force stats for a triple rated single rope you'll note they aren't much different than any other single ropes, sometimes more even!
Post edited at 15:29
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
...unless it never loads up because you have a big floppy slingdraw on it and your top runner stays in
Sometimes it's good enough knowing there's a risk a piece of gear will lift, you can double up placements above it and factor in a bit more air-time when working out where you might end up or rearrange which rope's clipped to what or you might decide you really really need to go back and extend it a bit!
jk
> This means if you load the top runner and then when the rope tightens the second top runner is directly below the top one and the rope then leaves the second top runner at an angle (to the third runner), irrelevant of the angle there will always be an upward force on the second to top runner.
...unless it never loads up because you have a big floppy slingdraw on it and your top runner stays in
Sometimes it's good enough knowing there's a risk a piece of gear will lift, you can double up placements above it and factor in a bit more air-time when working out where you might end up or rearrange which rope's clipped to what or you might decide you really really need to go back and extend it a bit!
jk
In reply to SenzuBean:
Assuming we're discussing using a folded full rope as a half (clipped to alternate ish runners) rather than a twin (both strands in every runner) why would you care if it's rated as a half? There's nothing more reassuring than a nice fall onto a full rope baby-bouncer; redundant gear, tough ropes, soft catch and the swing under control... perfect.
jk
> Excellent post - but the idea to use a doubled-up single rope might need to be qualified a bit more. Only some single ropes are also rated as half ropes (generally the thinner ones around 9mm, Beal Joker for example) - a fatter single, doubled up, would give a harsher fall arrest (and possibly fall outside of the UIAA guidelines for peak force loading) as there's less rope stretch.
Assuming we're discussing using a folded full rope as a half (clipped to alternate ish runners) rather than a twin (both strands in every runner) why would you care if it's rated as a half? There's nothing more reassuring than a nice fall onto a full rope baby-bouncer; redundant gear, tough ropes, soft catch and the swing under control... perfect.
jk
7
In reply to Offwidth:
As you know, ropes absorb energy via stretching. As a boundary case - consider if you had 100 ropes attached to you and you fell - they would not stretch at all, and it would be like falling onto a static rope - you'd stop instantly (and you'd probably be severely dead too).
This is pretty much the issue, but unfortunately I don't have numbers to say how bad it might be (it might not be bad at all, some research I just did shows that half ropes have similar impact forces to singles when tested with an 80kg mass - http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/ ) - it's probably fine, but to be on the safe side, a single rope that's rated for use as a half-rope is probably the prudent idea if you are going to do that.
As you know, ropes absorb energy via stretching. As a boundary case - consider if you had 100 ropes attached to you and you fell - they would not stretch at all, and it would be like falling onto a static rope - you'd stop instantly (and you'd probably be severely dead too).
This is pretty much the issue, but unfortunately I don't have numbers to say how bad it might be (it might not be bad at all, some research I just did shows that half ropes have similar impact forces to singles when tested with an 80kg mass - http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/ ) - it's probably fine, but to be on the safe side, a single rope that's rated for use as a half-rope is probably the prudent idea if you are going to do that.
4
In reply to SenzuBean:
So long as each half of the single rope is being used as a half rope rather than a twin this should not be an issue I guess. However, what is the appropriate method for tying in a single as a double? Presumably the two halves should ideally be independent?
So long as each half of the single rope is being used as a half rope rather than a twin this should not be an issue I guess. However, what is the appropriate method for tying in a single as a double? Presumably the two halves should ideally be independent?
In reply to herbe_rouge:
Tie onto two ends, not the middle.
That way, if you run out of rope, you can untie from one end and carry on/construct a belay etc.
Tie onto two ends, not the middle.
That way, if you run out of rope, you can untie from one end and carry on/construct a belay etc.
8
In reply to lowersharpnose:
+1
the "etc" ending your post includes numerous advantages.
The only time I would consider tying in to the centre of a rope is to bring up two seconds on a short single pitch crag.
Single, double , twin, half, single rope test, half rope test... so much confusion.
> Tie onto two ends, not the middle.
> That way, if you run out of rope, you can untie from one end and carry on/construct a belay etc.
+1
the "etc" ending your post includes numerous advantages.
The only time I would consider tying in to the centre of a rope is to bring up two seconds on a short single pitch crag.
Single, double , twin, half, single rope test, half rope test... so much confusion.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Thanks..... for saving me from myself..... I would have intuitively gone for the middle!
Thanks..... for saving me from myself..... I would have intuitively gone for the middle!
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
What you're talking about might be theoretically true in some circumstances, but a lot of the time on half rope systems - especially in the situation the OP describes - you're basically falling on one of the ropes anyway so it's a non-issue.
What you're talking about might be theoretically true in some circumstances, but a lot of the time on half rope systems - especially in the situation the OP describes - you're basically falling on one of the ropes anyway so it's a non-issue.
3
In reply to SenzuBean:
The only downside to using two single ropes for half-rope technique (only one rope clipped at a time) is the weight of the ropes on the leader. There is no penalty in terms of impact, as no test (you mentioned one yourself) has ever shown that peak impacts for half ropes used singly are any different, essentially, than the peak impacts for single ropes.
It is an extremely popular myth, especially among ice climbers in the US, that half ropes have lower impact ratings. Presumably, this is mostly because because of a misunderstanding about how the impact ratings for half ropes are calculated, but two other issues that do lead to impact reduction may be at work. (1) Properly used, half ropes allow for straighter rope paths and so less carabiner friction, thereby reducing system stiffness. (2) Half ropes are thinner and, being harder to grip, are likely to slide a little more through the belay plate, thereby contributing to fall energy absorbtion without stretching.
As an almost full-time half-rope user for over 30 years in a country that more or less eschews them, I agree that half ropes, properly used, might have alleviated sideways and/or upward loads on the gear. But US climbers have managed wandering leads with a single ropes since the dawn of time by appropriate slinging, even though I and presumably most you think half ropes are a better solution. The point is that single ropes can be properly managed most of the time.
Part of that management is that if you look at what a typical US trad climber has on their rack, you will find relatively few if any sport draws. (I myself have none and I'm using half ropes.) Most trad climbers here carry what we call "trad draws" and I think you folks call "sling draws," i.e. draws made up by tripling a thin full-length runner. These are easily extended when the situation requires---even if the leader has to reach down to do it after realizing that the draw is too short. In addition to being extendable, trad draws are much more flexible than sport draws and so, even unextended, will be less likely to move gear around.
In brief: single ropes + sport draws, particularly the thick stiff kind, are a bad combination, especially when the gear consists of small nuts that are easily dislodged by rope motions.
The only downside to using two single ropes for half-rope technique (only one rope clipped at a time) is the weight of the ropes on the leader. There is no penalty in terms of impact, as no test (you mentioned one yourself) has ever shown that peak impacts for half ropes used singly are any different, essentially, than the peak impacts for single ropes.
It is an extremely popular myth, especially among ice climbers in the US, that half ropes have lower impact ratings. Presumably, this is mostly because because of a misunderstanding about how the impact ratings for half ropes are calculated, but two other issues that do lead to impact reduction may be at work. (1) Properly used, half ropes allow for straighter rope paths and so less carabiner friction, thereby reducing system stiffness. (2) Half ropes are thinner and, being harder to grip, are likely to slide a little more through the belay plate, thereby contributing to fall energy absorbtion without stretching.
As an almost full-time half-rope user for over 30 years in a country that more or less eschews them, I agree that half ropes, properly used, might have alleviated sideways and/or upward loads on the gear. But US climbers have managed wandering leads with a single ropes since the dawn of time by appropriate slinging, even though I and presumably most you think half ropes are a better solution. The point is that single ropes can be properly managed most of the time.
Part of that management is that if you look at what a typical US trad climber has on their rack, you will find relatively few if any sport draws. (I myself have none and I'm using half ropes.) Most trad climbers here carry what we call "trad draws" and I think you folks call "sling draws," i.e. draws made up by tripling a thin full-length runner. These are easily extended when the situation requires---even if the leader has to reach down to do it after realizing that the draw is too short. In addition to being extendable, trad draws are much more flexible than sport draws and so, even unextended, will be less likely to move gear around.
In brief: single ropes + sport draws, particularly the thick stiff kind, are a bad combination, especially when the gear consists of small nuts that are easily dislodged by rope motions.
Post edited at 17:28
10
In reply to rgold:
That's my view too. In particular I can't see any significant issue with using a single rope doubled up other than weight (unless you are stupid and use it as a twin when the extra risk of cross loading gates and shock loads to maginal gear are more of an issue). I'm also sticking to double ropes in my US adventures... less rope drag and easier rope-work for improved safety margins... what really makes me wonder is the biggish rucksack with the abseil rope many US climbers use on multipitch... I simply can't climb that well anywhere near my limit with the extra weight/moment on my back.
That's my view too. In particular I can't see any significant issue with using a single rope doubled up other than weight (unless you are stupid and use it as a twin when the extra risk of cross loading gates and shock loads to maginal gear are more of an issue). I'm also sticking to double ropes in my US adventures... less rope drag and easier rope-work for improved safety margins... what really makes me wonder is the biggish rucksack with the abseil rope many US climbers use on multipitch... I simply can't climb that well anywhere near my limit with the extra weight/moment on my back.
3
In reply to AlanLittle:
H
I think it s non issue for more modern ropes. Check out this elderid triple rated rope http://www.edelrid.de/en/sports/ropes/swift-8-9-mm-oasis.html max impact force as a single of 8.8kn and can be used doubled up as a twin. Most modern single ropes coming in under 8.8kn max force (or only a tiny bit above). I suspect the reason most single ropes aren't triple rated is because it costs money to triple rate them and the manufactures don't expect you to use a 10mm single rope as one of a twin!
H
> What you're talking about might be theoretically true in some circumstances, but a lot of the time on half rope systems - especially in the situation the OP describes - you're basically falling on one of the ropes anyway so it's a non-issue.
I think it s non issue for more modern ropes. Check out this elderid triple rated rope http://www.edelrid.de/en/sports/ropes/swift-8-9-mm-oasis.html max impact force as a single of 8.8kn and can be used doubled up as a twin. Most modern single ropes coming in under 8.8kn max force (or only a tiny bit above). I suspect the reason most single ropes aren't triple rated is because it costs money to triple rate them and the manufactures don't expect you to use a 10mm single rope as one of a twin!
Post edited at 18:36
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
What's interesting is that twice the ropes through the gear does not stop you in half the distance / double the impact force it is actually much much less than that. Having a gander at the single vs twin rope figures shows that its only about 20% more (twin rope test is 80 kg the same as a single but on both ropes).
The rope stats regarding maximum allowable impact force for a UIAA fall are the same as a single (but tested with both strands) and must be less than 12kn with a 1.7 factor fall and an 80 kg mass. You'd never get close to this single pitch cragging and even if you did manage a 1.7 factor fall when multi pitching loading both strands of a single rope equally you'd still be fine on most modern singles (the single rope stats would have to be at least 10kn)
As a fun exercise I'm going to guess the impact force of your 100 ropes example as only 10 times the max impact force of a single strand! I'm probably wrong on that tho'.
> As you know, ropes absorb energy via stretching. As a boundary case - consider if you had 100 ropes attached to you and you fell - they would not stretch at all, and it would be like falling onto a static rope - you'd stop instantly (and you'd probably be severely dead too).
> This is pretty much the issue, but unfortunately I don't have numbers to say how bad it might be (it might not be bad at all, some research I just did shows that half ropes have similar impact forces to singles when tested with an 80kg mass - http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/ ) - it's probably fine, but to be on the safe side, a single rope that's rated for use as a half-rope is probably the prudent idea if you are going to do that.
What's interesting is that twice the ropes through the gear does not stop you in half the distance / double the impact force it is actually much much less than that. Having a gander at the single vs twin rope figures shows that its only about 20% more (twin rope test is 80 kg the same as a single but on both ropes).
The rope stats regarding maximum allowable impact force for a UIAA fall are the same as a single (but tested with both strands) and must be less than 12kn with a 1.7 factor fall and an 80 kg mass. You'd never get close to this single pitch cragging and even if you did manage a 1.7 factor fall when multi pitching loading both strands of a single rope equally you'd still be fine on most modern singles (the single rope stats would have to be at least 10kn)
As a fun exercise I'm going to guess the impact force of your 100 ropes example as only 10 times the max impact force of a single strand! I'm probably wrong on that tho'.
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Hi Oliver, sorry to hear about your accident. Everyone here has focused on gear/rope issues and there is some good advice and plausible explanations as to why the gear failed. Lets not forget though that the accident occurred because the climber fell off. I know this might seem a little contrite but no fall = no accident. The climber also had to rest on gear at about 5 m? It seems from the Grade and from reading the comments in the logbook that the route is bold with fiddly gear. I think sometimes in these discussions in can be forgotten that the best safety net a trad climber has, especially on bold routes is not to fall off. Also the ability to place gear well when pumper and/or scared, keep your head together so you can make rational decisions etc.
Maybe double ropes would have helped. Maybe placing better runners/extending them better would have helped?
Not falling off definitely would have helped. Retreating when pumped with the knowledge that the gear isn't great, I'm at my limit, gear above doesn't look good and the route is bold definitely would have helped.
Hope you both heal fast
Rory
Hi Oliver, sorry to hear about your accident. Everyone here has focused on gear/rope issues and there is some good advice and plausible explanations as to why the gear failed. Lets not forget though that the accident occurred because the climber fell off. I know this might seem a little contrite but no fall = no accident. The climber also had to rest on gear at about 5 m? It seems from the Grade and from reading the comments in the logbook that the route is bold with fiddly gear. I think sometimes in these discussions in can be forgotten that the best safety net a trad climber has, especially on bold routes is not to fall off. Also the ability to place gear well when pumper and/or scared, keep your head together so you can make rational decisions etc.
Maybe double ropes would have helped. Maybe placing better runners/extending them better would have helped?
Not falling off definitely would have helped. Retreating when pumped with the knowledge that the gear isn't great, I'm at my limit, gear above doesn't look good and the route is bold definitely would have helped.
Hope you both heal fast
Rory
4
In reply to CurlyStevo:
The issue is that if you get anywhere near 12kn, a lot of the gear placements will fail anyway.
> The rope stats regarding maximum allowable impact force for a UIAA fall are the same as a single (but tested with both strands) and must be less than 12kn with a 1.7 factor fall and an 80 kg mass. You'd never get close to this single pitch cragging and even if you did manage a 1.7 factor fall when multi pitching loading both strands of a single rope equally you'd still be fine on most modern singles (the single rope stats would have to be at least 10kn)
The issue is that if you get anywhere near 12kn, a lot of the gear placements will fail anyway.
3
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Thanks for the honest appraisal. It would be really helpful if more people were open about accidents in this way, seeing as the BMC don't investigate accidents (whereas I gather that in the US accidents are investigated and results are published). As others have said, it sounds like a combination of fiddly gear and using a single rope on a wandering line with insufficient extension resulted in the gear ripping.
Using half ropes for trad is a no brainer in most cases. I'm not qualified to comment on the science of fall factors but a thinner half rope will stretch more than a thicker single, so you'd expect it to absorb more energy from a fall. Of course that can be a bad thing and sometime you might want to use a single where the gear is good but sparse - however that will be pretty rare.
Using two ropes or one rope doubled up also reduces rope drag and the risk of runners being loaded from random directions. Extenders help with minimising drag but equally it's useful to carry a few short quickdraws when you want to minimise the length of the fall and rope drag isn't an issue.
Even on straight up routes I'd generally use two ropes because it's safer to alternate the ropes on the runners - imagine falling off when you're about to clip a runner above your head, that's a lot of slack out if you're using one rope, whereas with two ropes there should be a lot less rope above the runner if your belayer is on the ball.
Thanks for the honest appraisal. It would be really helpful if more people were open about accidents in this way, seeing as the BMC don't investigate accidents (whereas I gather that in the US accidents are investigated and results are published). As others have said, it sounds like a combination of fiddly gear and using a single rope on a wandering line with insufficient extension resulted in the gear ripping.
Using half ropes for trad is a no brainer in most cases. I'm not qualified to comment on the science of fall factors but a thinner half rope will stretch more than a thicker single, so you'd expect it to absorb more energy from a fall. Of course that can be a bad thing and sometime you might want to use a single where the gear is good but sparse - however that will be pretty rare.
Using two ropes or one rope doubled up also reduces rope drag and the risk of runners being loaded from random directions. Extenders help with minimising drag but equally it's useful to carry a few short quickdraws when you want to minimise the length of the fall and rope drag isn't an issue.
Even on straight up routes I'd generally use two ropes because it's safer to alternate the ropes on the runners - imagine falling off when you're about to clip a runner above your head, that's a lot of slack out if you're using one rope, whereas with two ropes there should be a lot less rope above the runner if your belayer is on the ball.
2
In reply to Misha:
All fair comment Misha.
Other factors to consider, not yet mentioned I think are..
most forces quoted are for test falls, far more severe than most trad route lobs. Here the variation between ropes, runner quality and belay technique will be far more drastic.
Also a lot of the US experience will be on open , clean fall sweeps of rock, not the ground fall potential of short single pitch routes where the incident happened. Unless the gear is very good and close, nothing else goes wrong, expect to deck out from five metres.
All fair comment Misha.
Other factors to consider, not yet mentioned I think are..
most forces quoted are for test falls, far more severe than most trad route lobs. Here the variation between ropes, runner quality and belay technique will be far more drastic.
Also a lot of the US experience will be on open , clean fall sweeps of rock, not the ground fall potential of short single pitch routes where the incident happened. Unless the gear is very good and close, nothing else goes wrong, expect to deck out from five metres.
In reply to Misha:
Hi everyone, thanks for the comments, I think I've probably been focused on the wrong gear placement as P4 was more likely to take the odd force than P3, I may also have overestimated some of the distances involved, . I normally climb on doubles anyway (and mostly on grit), so don't feel the need for a full rack of slingdraws (there's usually a few, mixed with 15-25 cm draws) most of the time.
While a multidirectional piece would have helped - and normally there in abundance on grit - I don't think it was an option on this climb.
I will clarify that we had no prior knowledge of the route (or crag) before turning up at the crag, so couldn't have known about fiddly gear, I guess E2 5B should have set alarm bells off, but it looked more sustained than bold to me.
Re. the Crotol oil pics, that was taken 5 years ago, about the same time I created/updated my profile. My ropework has improved vastly since then.
Hi everyone, thanks for the comments, I think I've probably been focused on the wrong gear placement as P4 was more likely to take the odd force than P3, I may also have overestimated some of the distances involved, . I normally climb on doubles anyway (and mostly on grit), so don't feel the need for a full rack of slingdraws (there's usually a few, mixed with 15-25 cm draws) most of the time.
While a multidirectional piece would have helped - and normally there in abundance on grit - I don't think it was an option on this climb.
I will clarify that we had no prior knowledge of the route (or crag) before turning up at the crag, so couldn't have known about fiddly gear, I guess E2 5B should have set alarm bells off, but it looked more sustained than bold to me.
Re. the Crotol oil pics, that was taken 5 years ago, about the same time I created/updated my profile. My ropework has improved vastly since then.
In reply to Misha:
>but equally it's useful to carry a few short quickdraws when you want to minimise the length of the fall and rope drag isn't an issue.
The " Kendal Clip" involves using a screwgate on the first good low gear. The old, only bold when necessary , wise old souls living there quite like it.
>but equally it's useful to carry a few short quickdraws when you want to minimise the length of the fall and rope drag isn't an issue.
The " Kendal Clip" involves using a screwgate on the first good low gear. The old, only bold when necessary , wise old souls living there quite like it.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Also think about the position of the belayer.
We often climb down and reposition the belayer when the quality and position of the runners becomes apparent.
Also think about the position of the belayer.
We often climb down and reposition the belayer when the quality and position of the runners becomes apparent.
1
In reply to Misha:
That's not really the point at all. The point is that the diameter of a climbing rope and how it's been rated don't generally have a significant effect on the maximum impact force.
> The issue is that if you get anywhere near 12kn, a lot of the gear placements will fail anyway.
That's not really the point at all. The point is that the diameter of a climbing rope and how it's been rated don't generally have a significant effect on the maximum impact force.
In reply to Misha:
I used to think like this however realistically given your average half rope belaying skills on a typical device I'm less convinced. I still prefer half ropes on most routes that aren't obviously a straight up crack with good gear though.
> Even on straight up routes I'd generally use two ropes because it's safer to alternate the ropes on the runners - imagine falling off when you're about to clip a runner above your head, that's a lot of slack out if you're using one rope, whereas with two ropes there should be a lot less rope above the runner if your belayer is on the ball.
I used to think like this however realistically given your average half rope belaying skills on a typical device I'm less convinced. I still prefer half ropes on most routes that aren't obviously a straight up crack with good gear though.
Post edited at 21:35
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Maybe so.. But have you any data on relative stretch, impact load and plate slippage for varying rope diameter for small fall factors ?
> That's not really the point at all. The point is that the diameter of a climbing rope and how it's been rated don't generally have a significant effect on the maximum impact force.
Maybe so.. But have you any data on relative stretch, impact load and plate slippage for varying rope diameter for small fall factors ?
In reply to Rick Graham:
By definition small fall factors are less of a problem. There is no uiaa requirements of twin ropes under 1.7 fall factor for good reason.
In any case id never advocate using a single as a twin, but the max impact force stats says a lot. Also fundamentally all these ropes are made in very similar ways and the differences (bobbin count, sheath percentage, dry treatement etc) don't appear to be the determining factor in their use age. Also the diameter has very little effect on the max impact force of a 1.7 factor fall comparing like with like at two pretty different weights (55 and 80 kg)
By definition small fall factors are less of a problem. There is no uiaa requirements of twin ropes under 1.7 fall factor for good reason.
In any case id never advocate using a single as a twin, but the max impact force stats says a lot. Also fundamentally all these ropes are made in very similar ways and the differences (bobbin count, sheath percentage, dry treatement etc) don't appear to be the determining factor in their use age. Also the diameter has very little effect on the max impact force of a 1.7 factor fall comparing like with like at two pretty different weights (55 and 80 kg)
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I can compare the data sheets for new ropes.
That was not the question, I politely point out .
I can compare the data sheets for new ropes.
That was not the question, I politely point out .
In reply to GridNorth:
I started replying/adding to your comments about keeping the rope as straight as practical (I think I didn't read the 'practical) part before, and about clipping separately, but slowly edited it out of my response...
I started replying/adding to your comments about keeping the rope as straight as practical (I think I didn't read the 'practical) part before, and about clipping separately, but slowly edited it out of my response...
In reply to Rick Graham:
This is the problem with most grit, the ground is too close You always seem to go further than expected due to slack and rope stretch.
This is the problem with most grit, the ground is too close You always seem to go further than expected due to slack and rope stretch.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Oliver, here's an idea. Pop down to your local indoor wall and clip the rope through bolts with the sling draws in question roughly laid out how they were on the route. Stand as you did on the route, i.e. the angle to the first piece. You might have to zig zag over a couple of route. Get someone to fall off and lower them to the ground.
At a guess you will see all the draws but the top one being dragged upward. Hence if these were bolts not wires they might fail. A moving of stretching rope always pulls gear upwards. Changes in angles makes it worse, but any tension in the extender will do it.
Oliver, here's an idea. Pop down to your local indoor wall and clip the rope through bolts with the sling draws in question roughly laid out how they were on the route. Stand as you did on the route, i.e. the angle to the first piece. You might have to zig zag over a couple of route. Get someone to fall off and lower them to the ground.
At a guess you will see all the draws but the top one being dragged upward. Hence if these were bolts not wires they might fail. A moving of stretching rope always pulls gear upwards. Changes in angles makes it worse, but any tension in the extender will do it.
Post edited at 00:40
In reply to Rick Graham:
Yeah I clip the top biner in a quickdraw if it would make a difference. Not great for drag but broken bones are worse. Seems to be a bit of a revelation to some people.
Yeah I clip the top biner in a quickdraw if it would make a difference. Not great for drag but broken bones are worse. Seems to be a bit of a revelation to some people.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Depends who is belaying I suppose but it isn't that hard to pay out just one rope for a clip...
Depends who is belaying I suppose but it isn't that hard to pay out just one rope for a clip...
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Yes but as Rick is suggesting, what is more relevant is performance at lower fall factors that you get on a day to day basis. A 1.7 fall is massive and would probably result in death or severe injury anyway unless it's a very smooth and steep wall and the belay is well off the ground - all sorts of rock features to hit on the way down, not to mention the ground! Whereas with marginal gear placements it's all about reducing the shock load because even a small fall factor generating a few kN would see the placement fail. It would be good to get some stats on that. In the meantime, if I have a stubby screw or a micro wire, I know I'd rather have an iceline or a thin half than a 10.5mm workhorse sport rope!
Yes but as Rick is suggesting, what is more relevant is performance at lower fall factors that you get on a day to day basis. A 1.7 fall is massive and would probably result in death or severe injury anyway unless it's a very smooth and steep wall and the belay is well off the ground - all sorts of rock features to hit on the way down, not to mention the ground! Whereas with marginal gear placements it's all about reducing the shock load because even a small fall factor generating a few kN would see the placement fail. It would be good to get some stats on that. In the meantime, if I have a stubby screw or a micro wire, I know I'd rather have an iceline or a thin half than a 10.5mm workhorse sport rope!
1
In reply to Misha:
A factor 2 fall should generally only result in death if you hit something or the rope beaks.
A factor 2 fall should generally only result in death if you hit something or the rope beaks.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Fair enough really I was worrying about the max force rather than lower force falls.
Looking at the data here I can't see anything which would worry me with lower loads http://www.safeclimbing.org/education/Heavy_Climbers_Beware.pdf
Do you have any data to say that single ropes used as half ropes would perform worse than half ropes do (other than their weight) in a range of fall scenarios?
> I can compare the data sheets for new ropes.
> That was not the question, I politely point out .
Fair enough really I was worrying about the max force rather than lower force falls.
Looking at the data here I can't see anything which would worry me with lower loads http://www.safeclimbing.org/education/Heavy_Climbers_Beware.pdf
Do you have any data to say that single ropes used as half ropes would perform worse than half ropes do (other than their weight) in a range of fall scenarios?
In reply to Misha:
It also seems to be a revelation to some people who do this, that the rope melts through the quickdraw tape!
It also seems to be a revelation to some people who do this, that the rope melts through the quickdraw tape!
In reply to CurlyStevo:
One problem is new ropes aren´t new once you start using them and data on impact forces with used ropes is scarce, we don´t actually know if that super-low impact rated rope is like a steel cable after a bit of use whereas that great furry monster might well be a gently soggy thing in it´s old age. I ignore the manufacturers ratings in general since they can´t provide me with this information.
Since the arrangement of the protection and the belay device makes more difference anyway I doubly ignore it!
A single used as a half should give lower impact forces since there should be less friction through the gear and the braking force we can achieve used as halves is considerably lower than as a single strand.
One problem is new ropes aren´t new once you start using them and data on impact forces with used ropes is scarce, we don´t actually know if that super-low impact rated rope is like a steel cable after a bit of use whereas that great furry monster might well be a gently soggy thing in it´s old age. I ignore the manufacturers ratings in general since they can´t provide me with this information.
Since the arrangement of the protection and the belay device makes more difference anyway I doubly ignore it!
A single used as a half should give lower impact forces since there should be less friction through the gear and the braking force we can achieve used as halves is considerably lower than as a single strand.
In reply to Misha:
I found some data!
http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/
Still doesn't say much about lower impact falls but I'm dubious skinny ropes are going to be significantly and consistently lower the impact force over single ropes (other than belay device slippage which could be a good or bad thing depending on your luck / outlook )
I found some data!
http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/
Still doesn't say much about lower impact falls but I'm dubious skinny ropes are going to be significantly and consistently lower the impact force over single ropes (other than belay device slippage which could be a good or bad thing depending on your luck / outlook )
Post edited at 12:14
In reply to jimtitt:
Another thing to note is that given the same history a thinner rope will generally have lost more of it's elasticity than a thicker one.
Another thing to note is that given the same history a thinner rope will generally have lost more of it's elasticity than a thicker one.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
This is my point, a big factor fall would probably result in hitting a ledge or some other feature. Obviously depends on the rock face, how smooth / steep etc.
Strictly, a factor 2 off the first belay would result in ground fall.
This is my point, a big factor fall would probably result in hitting a ledge or some other feature. Obviously depends on the rock face, how smooth / steep etc.
Strictly, a factor 2 off the first belay would result in ground fall.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Not in my experience...
> Another thing to note is that given the same history a thinner rope will generally have lost more of it's elasticity than a thicker one.
Not in my experience...
In reply to Misha:
Is it the case that the fall factor is the distance fallen divided by the amount of rope out? If this is the case you could have a factor 2 fall when falling say 20 feet with 10 feet of rope out above the belayer and be 100 feet off the floor so potentially hitting nothing. I may be wrong but don't think that "Strictly, a factor 2 off the first belay would (necessarily) result in a ground fall"
Is it the case that the fall factor is the distance fallen divided by the amount of rope out? If this is the case you could have a factor 2 fall when falling say 20 feet with 10 feet of rope out above the belayer and be 100 feet off the floor so potentially hitting nothing. I may be wrong but don't think that "Strictly, a factor 2 off the first belay would (necessarily) result in a ground fall"
1
In reply to Misha:
Really? I must have got it wrong all these years!
> Strictly, a factor 2 off the first belay would result in ground fall.
Really? I must have got it wrong all these years!
2
In reply to Misha:
The reason wider diameter ropes in general will retain a higher ability to absorb energy in falls them smaller diameter ropes (given similar usage scenarios) is because there are more fibres to absorb forces (falls, rests, abs etc) so they are getting stretched less and therefore remain more elastic for longer.
> Not in my experience...
The reason wider diameter ropes in general will retain a higher ability to absorb energy in falls them smaller diameter ropes (given similar usage scenarios) is because there are more fibres to absorb forces (falls, rests, abs etc) so they are getting stretched less and therefore remain more elastic for longer.
Post edited at 21:32
In reply to tmawer:
You're right, I was assuming the pitch lengths were the same and the climber fell off the top of the second pitch. As you say, it could be a relatively short fall but with a high fall factor. Still, in many cases there would be a high risk of hitting something on the way...
You're right, I was assuming the pitch lengths were the same and the climber fell off the top of the second pitch. As you say, it could be a relatively short fall but with a high fall factor. Still, in many cases there would be a high risk of hitting something on the way...
In reply to CurlyStevo:
May be it's just my fat single ropes that get stiffer with age. Probably depends on the manufacturer as well, eg Mammut ropes seem to be stiffer even when new compared to Beal say.
May be it's just my fat single ropes that get stiffer with age. Probably depends on the manufacturer as well, eg Mammut ropes seem to be stiffer even when new compared to Beal say.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Hope you an your mate are alright Ollie, brave of you to post on here. Try not to feel bad, knocking into belayers can happen (winded Becca once and I've been hit more than once) and you did catch them! Worth watching so you can move out of the way/stop them hitting things, but then you expected the gear to hold and you can only react so fast.
Other thing I'd say is if I fall off I tend to add gear, might as well and there's a good chance you'll fall again, and I'd worry about 20' 30' with anything but unidirectional gear, two ropes can lift gear out too...
Hope you an your mate are alright Ollie, brave of you to post on here. Try not to feel bad, knocking into belayers can happen (winded Becca once and I've been hit more than once) and you did catch them! Worth watching so you can move out of the way/stop them hitting things, but then you expected the gear to hold and you can only react so fast.
Other thing I'd say is if I fall off I tend to add gear, might as well and there's a good chance you'll fall again, and I'd worry about 20' 30' with anything but unidirectional gear, two ropes can lift gear out too...
Post edited at 02:13
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Wow, Until recently I thought I had an understanding of climbing, then the other week I fell off and had to have a reappraisal (made a lot of mistakes) Now I read this thread and realize I new nowt all along! Thanks everyone above for posting info, for my part I'll just keep learning before I comment on these things and try to never come as close to the deck again!
Wow, Until recently I thought I had an understanding of climbing, then the other week I fell off and had to have a reappraisal (made a lot of mistakes) Now I read this thread and realize I new nowt all along! Thanks everyone above for posting info, for my part I'll just keep learning before I comment on these things and try to never come as close to the deck again!
4
In reply to Oliver Houston:
Hi,
I did this climb again this evening and I think your leader got off fairly lightly! I think your assesment is pretty spot on about p4 and 5 exerting a sideways pull on P3. P3 is good and should definitely hold a fall if placed and loaded correctly - I placed 2 good HB brass offsets here. I think your leader's main mistake was over-confidence in P4 and 5 - I couldn't see any gear here (before the jug) which I would have been happy falling on.
I think the accident could have been avoided if:
i) You had been using double ropes, or:
ii) P2 and 3 had been properly extended (60cm slings I reckon)
iii) The leader had down-climbed back to the safety of P3, removing p4 and p5 on the way.
Great route though - the grade of E2 5b is spot on in this instance!
George.
Hi,
I did this climb again this evening and I think your leader got off fairly lightly! I think your assesment is pretty spot on about p4 and 5 exerting a sideways pull on P3. P3 is good and should definitely hold a fall if placed and loaded correctly - I placed 2 good HB brass offsets here. I think your leader's main mistake was over-confidence in P4 and 5 - I couldn't see any gear here (before the jug) which I would have been happy falling on.
I think the accident could have been avoided if:
i) You had been using double ropes, or:
ii) P2 and 3 had been properly extended (60cm slings I reckon)
iii) The leader had down-climbed back to the safety of P3, removing p4 and p5 on the way.
Great route though - the grade of E2 5b is spot on in this instance!
George.
3
In reply to Oliver Houston:
A little bit more info after finally getting round to cleaning the blood off our kit. The gear was all wires. 2 brass offsets, a superlight and a normal wire. Plus whatever p1 was. Which was left behind.
One of the wires. A brass offset was damaged by the fall. Pics will be on my profile shortly. I'll try amd link them later if I remember. I suspect this was probably p5 but could have been p3 and pulled through th placement during the fall. So obviously not a good enough placement. I hope the placement hasnt been made worse.
Thank you all for your feedback. I think me and my brother have learnt a lot from this incident and hopefully have managed to share some of this.
Sorry I haven't been more on top of responding to questions. I've been writing a thesis.
A little bit more info after finally getting round to cleaning the blood off our kit. The gear was all wires. 2 brass offsets, a superlight and a normal wire. Plus whatever p1 was. Which was left behind.
One of the wires. A brass offset was damaged by the fall. Pics will be on my profile shortly. I'll try amd link them later if I remember. I suspect this was probably p5 but could have been p3 and pulled through th placement during the fall. So obviously not a good enough placement. I hope the placement hasnt been made worse.
Thank you all for your feedback. I think me and my brother have learnt a lot from this incident and hopefully have managed to share some of this.
Sorry I haven't been more on top of responding to questions. I've been writing a thesis.
In reply to GPN:
Thanks george, that all sounds about right. I was thinking of going and having a look next time I'm in the area (prob on abseil) but you seem to have saved me a 200 plus mile round trip.
However I will def be back. One day.
Thanks george, that all sounds about right. I was thinking of going and having a look next time I'm in the area (prob on abseil) but you seem to have saved me a 200 plus mile round trip.
However I will def be back. One day.
1
In reply to Oliver Houston:
At the risk of grandmother egg sucking activities, microwires and brass gear should always be regarded with caution: it's lucky if such a piece stops a fall and never to be expected.
At the risk of grandmother egg sucking activities, microwires and brass gear should always be regarded with caution: it's lucky if such a piece stops a fall and never to be expected.
In reply to Offwidth:
Yeah, the trick is to get a lot of the small stuff in if you can. This is also an instance in which half ropes clipped separately might be advantageous. If the top piece blows, the load to the next piece down is on a rope that hasn't yet been stretched and so should impart a lower load to that piece. (But maybe not so much. Experiments by Attaway and Beverly http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237344912_Measurement_of_Dynamic_Ro... , have shown that when a piece pulls, the rope springs back and so to some extent "resets," but it doesn't seem likely that a "full reset," such as what you get with an unloaded strand, is possible, although it seems one does get close to that.)
Yeah, the trick is to get a lot of the small stuff in if you can. This is also an instance in which half ropes clipped separately might be advantageous. If the top piece blows, the load to the next piece down is on a rope that hasn't yet been stretched and so should impart a lower load to that piece. (But maybe not so much. Experiments by Attaway and Beverly http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237344912_Measurement_of_Dynamic_Ro... , have shown that when a piece pulls, the rope springs back and so to some extent "resets," but it doesn't seem likely that a "full reset," such as what you get with an unloaded strand, is possible, although it seems one does get close to that.)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...