UKC

You think you can solo, but you want a bit of security just in-case. You can't be faffed with belays or much gear placing in general. Is this a natural progression for multipitch climbing where DWS-extends a bit further upwards?

I've read Andy K's tips on mountain crag S-climbing with ropeman's etc. but is it really much safer than soloing?
yours, confused

In reply to wiwwim:

It doesn't sound like a very good choice where DWS gets too spicy, do you really want to risk going in the sea with a full rack on and a trailing rope.

It's fine for easy ground in the mountains where the main risk is maybe slipping and falling a long way to the ground. If the main risk is random snappy rock and ledges then you're increasing your chances of coming off (chance of you and your partner snapping something) and increasing the distance you'll go. That assumes you're not using one way devices on the runners.

If you have a partner who's equally confident on the terrain then give it a go, see how it works for you.
jk

In reply to wiwwim:

Isn't What you're describing just "moving together", common practice to rapidly cover 'easy' ground on long mountain routes?

In reply to wiwwim:

...and common only when the terrain really is quite easy for both members of the party, as, obviously, there's a modicum of security provided 'just in case' but you're still very much in the paradigm of "the leader [and second] must not fall"...

In reply to wiwwim:



yes, a lot safer

but is it safe? nope.

but is leading trad safe? nope.

In reply to Just Another Dave:


The second absolutely must not fall if you don't have something like a Tibloc/Ropeman/Micro Traxion between you, as if they do the leader will be pulled into the last runner with no rope out and will quite possibly be seriously injured.

In reply to wiwwim:

its well safe. choose the best hvs in the country on an august bank holiday weekend and just go for it. loose rock, guano/slimy holds and the safety of others should never hold you back. i believe it was nietzsche who lived by that climbing mentality. few people know he was an early pioneer in less popular climbing techniques

In reply to tehmarks:

If you are moving together then really nobody should be falling. I do wonder if the leader would just pull some of the stretch of the rope towards him once the rope goes tight though (mitigated by the friction on the top runner). I also suspect that once the leader is falling, they will be falling at an equal(ish) rate to the second (who can only go a bit faster here due to rope stretch, and will otherwise be slowed by the inertia of the leader) which means that the leader will probably have some rope out and fall past the runner (rather than the leader being continuously sucked downwards and all of their rope disappearing through the top runner).

I have always avoided simul-climbing (with a full length of rope) in favour of moving together (with a short length of rope) because:
a) rope drag pretty much stops being a problem (important when climbing winding routes with little gear on a single rope!)
b) communication becomes possible (often only possible over surprisingly short distances)
c) much greater flexibility to bring up your partner quickly on belay, regroup, change plan etc.
d) it's just more sociable?

In reply to andrewmcleod:

I appreciate the application in the mountains, but what about multipitch trad and sport? Will UKC need another category of ascent between solo and lead? cheerio W

In reply to wiwwim:

Did you happen to be one of the guys "simil climbing" at Berry head a couple of weeks ago? Only if so you really need to take some good advice and learn how to climb safely before trying to be quick and efficient. My apologies if this was not you.
Jb.

In reply to wiwwim:

Tricky to work out exactly what you are talking about here... If it's some sort of DWS traverse, I would intuitively think simul-climbing would be pretty dodge-tastic but it's out of my experience range tbh.

If we are talking about simul-climbing on the way up a route, I've done that quite a lot, usually it's just a way of extending a pitch - when the rope goes tight, the 2nd starts climbing and the leader just keeps going till they run out of gear, then belays and brings the second up as normal. That way the leader always basically has all the security of a normal-ish belay if he comes a cropper (2nd doesnt go fast enough to generate a big loop of slack) and if he finds something tricky, he can climb it and then belay a bit after so the second has a proper belay on the trickier bit (other times, the second must not fall so this is really better with the less capable party member in the lead position).
The system is less of a PITA when you shorten the rope to 30m or so rather than having the full 60 out. Typically I find that I can string 3 or 4 pitches of each climbing together into 1 "pitch" in this way and it's a great way to cover a lot of easy ground quickly, especially on a very long route where speed is part of staying safe.

In reply to John Mcshea:

Hi John, I was on it same time as you were on GoG 2nd belay, so no. Maybe it was me taking too long on the final pitch which made following teams decide simul-climbing was a necessity? cheers (note to self-avoid bankholiday weekends at berryhead)

In reply to wiwwim:

I just put it down as leading/alt-leading. I'm quite unconvinced that it is worth it for harder climbs; better to just be more organized and spend less time faffing at the belay (see David Coley/Andy Kirkpatrick's recent ebook). Once the climbing gets harder pitches take longer to lead than second and need more gear and the advantages of moving together start to disappear I suspect, while the disadvantages (reduced safety, rope drag) become more and more significant.

I have some friends who did a speed ascent of Wreckers' Slab simulclimbing but I think that was a special case because:
a) the route is a continuous slab so no issues with rope management,
b) the route is technically quite easy and so could be climbed very fast (hence the speed attempt),
c) the route is quite long (120m) so you actually get some simulclimbing in (the first 50m and last 50m are not simulclimbed on 50m ropes).

There are almost no sport routes in the country long enough to simulclimb, and none of them are easy/slabby enough for it to make sense AFAIK. Few non-mountain trad routes are really long enough either, and the mountain routes are often broken and far too winding, or too hard.

Personally I still think simulclimbing (on a full rope length) is only really useful when you haven't quite reached the belay...

In reply to John Mcshea:

Hi John,

i was there that day but left before those two guys finished, did they make it?

In reply to wiwwim:

I've always felt single pitch climbing annoying, especially on grit, because you have to faff about at the top building a belay for something and when the route is only 10 or 15 meters high it doesnt seem worth it. So my idea, which I'm sure is terrible, is that when the leader gets to the top they just walk off accross the moor and the second waits for the rope to come tight and starts climbing. it works best for outcrops where the land at the top is horizontal. What could go wrong?

In reply to wiwwim:

It's a pretty essential skill in the Dolomites when on easier ground. Pitching all 32 pitches on the Marmolada South Face... zzz.

In reply to foxjerk:

They made it with a lot of luck by the sounds of it. I didn't experience them first hand but the anecdotes of the others on the cliff were almost unbelievable.

In reply to John Mcshea:

Please relate some barely believable anecdotes - should be good entertainment!

In reply to tehmarks:

Oh my god, man please don't put a tibloc on the piece above the crux....

They shave ropes just jugging on them, a fall will destroy the rope. Same applies to traxion although they aren't a problem is the rope is taught

The leader won't be pulled off because the second will be back at the bottom....

In reply to ashtond6:

To be fair the usage of a MicroTraxion for protecting the leader when moving together is actually in the manual (although I agree a tibloc is a terrible idea!).