UKC

Clipping a bolt from below

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
On a recent trip I was surprised at how many experienced climbers believed that if you attempted to clip a bolt from below and missed the clip that you would fall considerably further than if you clip at waist height. I ended up using a piece of string and a pen to try and show that this was not so and that you fell exactly the same distance. This of course ignores other factors like rope stretch and belayer reaction times. Assuming a bolt spacing of 2 metres a 4 metre fall would result in both scenarios. I went on to explain that you would end up nearer the ground so it was not something that could be ignored completely. I was wondering if anyone could provide the maths to illustrate this.

Al
16
 jon 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

It drives me to distraction too, Al, but being a simple climber like you, I'm afraid I can't help with the sums.
 Otis 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Putting it simply:

Distance fallen from failed clipping always = 2 x bolt spacing.

The variable is where you start falling from and this dictates where you end up.... assuming the floor doesn't get in the way first.


1
 john arran 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Let a be the height of the last bolt (clipped) and b the height of the next bolt (unclipped). The following ignores stretch and slack.

If a climber falls with waist at b the fall length will be twice the distance climbed above the bolt:
D = 2*(b-a)

If a climber reaches waist height w (<b), pulls enough rope up to clip and falls, the fall length will be twice the distance climbed above the bolt, plus the length of rope pulled to clip:
D = 2*(w-a) + 2*(b-w)
D = 2*(w-a+b-w)
D = 2*(b-a)
which is the same as above.
3
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

Ta that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll add this to my drawing to help me make sense of it. It's hard to believe that I achieved a 90% pass at HND level in maths, trouble is, it was so long ago

Al
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

This is slightly ignoring the fact that if a route is properly bolted there will usually be a decent-ish hold to clip off. If you ignore this and climb on until your waist is around the level of the bolt you are more like to fall anyway!

Also if you are clipping the bolt from below and fall you have the rope from the lower bolt to the upper one and back to your waist - so you will fall further - or am I missing something?

Chris
4
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

I agree with your first paragraph but like many you are assuming that the more rope out the further the fall and forgetting that the climber is starting the fall from a lower position which is why the distance is,in theory at least, the same. So yes you are missing something I'm afraid Chris.

Al
10
In reply to GridNorth:

Worst case if clipping from below is you'll fall the extra of the distance between your waist and your maximum stretch. So c.1m. Enough to make the difference between broken legs and a close shave if climbing at Wyndcliffe quarry on the bottom lift.
 zimpara 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

It's not that you would fall 'considerably further', it's that you would fall the distance between your tie in loop and your outstretched arm further surely?

So you do infact fall further.
6
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
Fair enough, obviously I am missing something.

Bolts 2m apart -
1) you climb up to a point where your waist is 1m above the 1st bolt and fall = 2m.
2) you climb up to your waist level with the 2nd bolt and fall = 4m.
3) you climb up to a point where your waist is 1m above the 1st bolt, pull 2m of slack through to clip the 2nd one and fall = 6m..

Go on then - tell me what's wrong with that?


Chris


Post edited at 15:51
5
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

If John Arrans formulae does not convince you try drawing the scenario out on a sheet of paper using 2 metre bolt spacings and one metre intervals for simplicity. The critical factor is that the climber is lower to start with. He falls the same distance but ends up lower down.

To others pointing out other variables I thought I had made it clear that this was theoretical and other factors were being ignored. I think in any case they do not play a significant role.

Al
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to zimpara:

No. See my reply to Chris Craggs.

Al
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

I did in fact make it very clear that you ended up lower down and that this could be critical nearer the ground.

Al
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> If John Arrans formulae does not convince you

Well is maths innit - looks like a load of gobbledygook to me!

I did draw it - but I'm happy to let it go,


Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Completely agree Chris. I'm 2m tall, I can almost clip the next bolt when the last bolt is just below my waist and they are 2m apart. that's a nice 7-8m fall for me!

3
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Ah but are you letting go believing I'm right or I'm wrong.

Al
1
 Otis 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Aaaarrrrggghhhh!!!

At the risk or re-quoting myself from earlier:

Distance fallen from failed clipping always = 2 x bolt spacing.

Always. Every single time (ignoring rope stretch etc.).
1
In reply to GridNorth:

I think in this context most people, as I did, think of this as the extra distance fallen below the last bolt, which is really the critical issue not literally the actual distance you fall, which is what you're getting at and where the confusion obviously creeps in.
 john arran 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> 3) you climb up to a point where your waist is 1m above the 1st bolt, pull 2m of slack through to clip the 2nd one and fall = 6m..

When you fall there's 1m of rope between you and the bolt below, plus 2m of slack, so 3m of rope above the clipped bolt, so you'll end up 3m below that bolt. You fall from 1m above the bolt so in fact you only fall 4m.

Every metre you climb higher means a 2m longer fall, but every metre of slack you pull means a 1m longer fall.
1
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Otis:

Why are you expressing annoyance with me? I haven't disagreed with you. You are making my case, but you are making a statement of fact, John Arran has provided the mathematical proof that I requested for illustration purposes.

Al
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

There doesn't appear to be any confusion between me and John Arran. There is no extra distance fallen, it's exactly the same, you just end up lower down because you started off lower down.

Al
 john arran 30 Oct 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

> Completely agree Chris. I'm 2m tall, I can almost clip the next bolt when the last bolt is just below my waist and they are 2m apart. that's a nice 7-8m fall for me!

If I thought I'd be on for a 20-25 footer with a bolt by my waist I don't think I'd ever go sport climbing again!
 zimpara 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

No. Stop drawing silly diagrams or playing with string, and go indoor wall and see which one makes you fall further.
22
 Reach>Talent 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
Much like planes on treadmills, this one can't be won by reasoned debate.

"The only winning move is not to play".

More importantly if you aren't going to fall off it doesn't matter how low you clip from...

youtube.com/watch?v=XR0Doa89Cjw&

Much better to make a reachy clip from a stable position than an easy clip you are likely to fall off.
Post edited at 17:15
 faffergotgunz 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Otis:

https://imgflip.com/i/1bkyss

How far wud he fall?
1
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Reach>Talent:

> Much like planes on treadmills, this one can't be won by reasoned debate.

You could be right.

> Much better to make a reachy clip from a stable position than an easy clip you are likely to fall off.

Absolutely

Al
 john arran 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Judging by the likes/dislikes it seems that many people are still not convinced, so I'll give it one more try. I know it's counter-intuitive, folks, but that doesn't mean it isn't true!

Imagine being sat by a bolt with no rope out.
First imagine climbing 2m and falling - a fall of 4m
Instead, imagine pulling 2m of rope out and falling - a fall of 2m

People seem to have got in into their heads that a fall will be double the length of rope out, but that's only the case for height actually climbed.
2
 Otis 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Apologies for any offence Al-my 'aaarrgghh' wasn't at you specifically (I just hit the generic reply button and, as OP, I guess it came your way). Glad you understand the fall length issue, it's just comically frustrating how others struggle despite there being only one answer!



Mike.


In reply to Chris Craggs:

> Fair enough, obviously I am missing something.

> Bolts 2m apart -

> 1) you climb up to a point where your waist is 1m above the 1st bolt and fall = 2m.

> 2) you climb up to your waist level with the 2nd bolt and fall = 4m.

Agreed with these 2 points

> 3) you climb up to a point where your waist is 1m above the 1st bolt, pull 2m of slack through to clip the 2nd one and fall = 6m..

If you are 1m above bolt with 2m of slack then there is 3m of rope between you and the bolt. You fall 1m to the bolt. You then fall another 3m until the rope goes tight, 4m total.

The fall is twice the rope to the last bolt only applies if here is no slack

> Go on then - tell me what's wrong with that?

> Chris

>

But low down on a route the cost of going for the clip early is more risk of hitting the ground
 Sayon 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Falling the same distance in both situations is based on the assumption that the amount of rope out is exactly that needed to just clip the quickdraw above you. In practice, your second may have given you a bit more rope than needed- you fall further- or, like a lot of inattentive seconds, you fall whilst trying to pull up enough rope- you don't fall as far.
The conclusion I would draw from this is- clip from the best hold, wherever that is!
 rocksol 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

For me it's not about the fall potential Its much easier to clip as you pass with no delay; no pulling in slack again and again as you pump with arms stretched. I remember one unfortunate female pulling rope and holding in teeth when she fell and removed front teeth!!
2
 planetmarshall 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
> On a recent trip I was surprised at how many experienced climbers believed that if you attempted to clip a bolt from below and missed the clip that you would fall considerably further than if you clip at waist height.

Surely this is not the point? The distance between a given bolt and the ground is not variable, the only thing the climber can influence is his height above the ground. The vectors might be the same, but in one scenario the vector might intersect with a plane parallel and coincident with the ground, and the climbers head may find itself having to conform to Newton's laws in short order.
Post edited at 18:08
 zv 30 Oct 2016
In reply to rocksol:

In most cases absolutely agree that it's easier to make the clip form waist level. However sometimes you find routes with an obvious jug and bad holds above it by the clip. In those cases I find a lot easier to spend 3-5 seconds clipping from a jug, than 2 seconds clipping from a nasty hold, where I'd rather be pushing on.
 Steve27 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
..."I went on to explain that you would end up nearer the ground"

Surely this is the key point though; it doesn't matter how far you fall - what matters is whether or not you hit the ground. Thus for the first, second, third and possibly even fourth bolt you're better off clipping at waist height. I totally agree you'll fall the same distance, but so what? It's whether or not you deck that counts.
OP GridNorth 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Steve27:

The key point was what I said in my opening statement. All I am asking is that people who think I am wrong test it out and concede defeat. Just kidding, I got what I wanted way back in the thread although it is always satisfying, in these circumstances, to be proven right and acknowledged.

Al
1
 stp 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Good topic and sympathies with those who don't get it. It's very counter-intuitive. I was convinced it was wrong and that you fall further when pulling up the rope but a previous post on here on the same topic made me see I was wrong.

Despite that I still have an excess of fear when pulling up rope on difficult clips, something I need to work on. I don't think it's entirely irrational though. You may fall further simply because your belayer tends to pay out more rope than you need to make sure you have enough rope to make the clip.

A solution, at least for redpoints, is of course extending the bolt with a long quickdraw. It means you'll fall a bit further on the next section of the route but if it's hard clip that's usually preferable. The proper 'quickdraw' method is to have the draw (usually a long one) clipped into the rope and onto your shirt. When you get to the bolt you just grab the draw and clip straight into the bolt without pulling any rope up. A very fast technique - hence 'quick draw'.

In some situations it can be better just to skip a bolt completely.
 johncook 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Not so long ago.
 john arran 30 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Judging by the likes/dislikes it seems that many people are still not convinced, so I'll give it one more try. I know it's counter-intuitive, folks, but that doesn't mean it isn't true!

> Imagine being sat by a bolt with no rope out.

> First imagine climbing 2m and falling - a fall of 4m

> Instead, imagine pulling 2m of rope out and falling - a fall of 2m

> People seem to have got in into their heads that a fall will be double the length of rope out, but that's only the case for height actually climbed.

Would whoever disliked this post please care to explain why they did so?
I won't mind if it's personal but I'd really like to know if you're still not 'getting' it as I think it's really quite important to being able to make good clipping decisions on routes.
1
 zv 30 Oct 2016
In reply to stp:

Excellent answer.

I also find that if I think that fear when clipping is a limiting factor, it is quite helpful just to take the ride with the rope in my hands as a practice fall, provided you are high enough.

Last time I practiced it it worked like a charm, enabling the redpoint next go. Doing it consistently enough to eliminate this fear when onsighting though I still need to work on...or just skip clips. :p Easier said than done.
 timjones 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> I agree with your first paragraph but like many you are assuming that the more rope out the further the fall and forgetting that the climber is starting the fall from a lower position which is why the distance is,in theory at least, the same. So yes you are missing something I'm afraid Chris.

On closely spaced bolts the length of the fall should never be long. However if you're reaching high to clip your fall will be arrested at a lower level, pontificating about the length of the fall is irrelevant if you hit the floor.

 trouserburp 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

I could have sworn it was you that corrected me on this about 5 years ago! You fall the same, ignoring other factors and assuming they're pretty vertical

I'm going to have a root through the archive, one of our memories is failing
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 30 Oct 2016
In reply to trouserburp:

> I could have sworn it was you that corrected me on this about 5 years ago! You fall the same, ignoring other factors and assuming they're pretty vertical

> I'm going to have a root through the archive, one of our memories is failing

You obviously have a much better memory than me - or maybe are just a lot younger?

Chris
 galpinos 30 Oct 2016
In reply to zimpara:

If you are going to disagree in such a forthright manner it helps if you're right......

You fall the same distance..... but you end up lower. In the 2m bolt spaced route scenario above, the fall is always 4m but in one case you are 2m below the bolt, the other 3.

The OP is correct, but it's something to consider when you are only 1/2 bolts into a route.
 Kevster 30 Oct 2016
In reply to galpinos:
I've seen someone deck clipping the 2nd bolt on a sport route from clipping below with the added slack, at extension as he reached for the clip, his foot popped.
The air ambulance was required, and in time he was OK after a number of operations.

I've been on routes where the 3rd clip is equally as potentially dangerous.

I think actual distance fallen is usually further than that anticipated. Due to rope stretch, slack, belayer reaction etc etc.

I think I'm saying just be careful. Accidents happen. The maths is easy, applying it with good judgement isn't always so.



Not directed at galpinos btw.
Post edited at 20:56
In reply to Chris Craggs:
In case 3) you had 3 m of rope out so you end up 3 m below the bottom bolt but you started only 1 m above it so distance fallen = 4 m as in the first case. I don't see how you got a 6 m fall, that would only happen if you climbed 1 m past the 2nd bolt and fell whilst reaching back down to clip it!
Post edited at 21:19
 Fakey Rocks 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
So clipping from below the next bolt (midway between 2m bolt spacing) can be like top roping, and can give you the confidence to climb on through trickier stuff above. That's assuming you have good holds to clip from below with. If not and yr pumped and fumbling it and pealing off and wanna grab the gear, and do fall, in one of those didn't quite make the clip scenarios, you fall further below yr last bolt (because with 3m of slack, you fall 3m below yr last clipped bolt, total fall being 4m as from 1m above that bolt), so if this is yr 2nd or 3rd bolt be especially careful if the 1st or last one was a low one.
Clipping when your waist is just level with bolt 2,... you may be doing this onsight and clipping gear to bolt and rope to gear, can also be fumbly, (even the draw clipped to rope and shirt method highlighted by stp could snag on shirt?) especially if you're trying to clip the rope to the biner, it's perhaps easier clipping the biner to the rope, depending on its gates spring resistance, by pressing the biner on the rope, but if you pop off here, whilst you are 2m above last bolt so going to fall 4m, you will only fall hypothetically 2m below last bolt. There is likely to be less unnecessary slack in the system in this scenario compared to the top roping style clippings, depending slightly on belayer skills. But in this scenario if you find u can't hold on for the clip but can go for higher holds and climb another metre, but then get into a pump out or physically can't do what's above, again you could be going to be falling 3m below last bolt /gear.
For redpoints you should know the best holds to clip from, and ways to clip, for onsight sport and trad you may just want to be more careful clipping your 2nd and 3rd bits of gear from below it, or 2nd and 3rd ones above runouts too, on ledgey routes.
I also thought the 3m slack scenario was giving 6m fall, but see the 4m answer is correct now,
I may not have also realised the missed clip attempts from below gear cause longer falls (not in total, but falling further below last gear) + so coming closer to the ground.
Thanks lots for this
Post edited at 22:04
 Fakey Rocks 30 Oct 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:

You'd have to climb 3m above gear and fall to get the 6m fall.
 Matt Vigg 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

I'll add something else just to see if I can increase the impressive number of down-votes on this thread. The best place to clip from (all else being equal) is with your waist level with the bolt, just cause it's quicker so you'll get less pumped. Obviously in practice everything else isn't equal so the actual best place is from the best hold, but as a general rule you're better off continuing to climb to the bolt if a nice hold to clip from isn't appearing to you.

Reason it's relevant here is that anyone reading this thread can take heart from the fact they'll fall the same distance if they keep climbing than if they clip from below. It feels (and is) more committing to keep climbing but remember the formula next time you're in this position, the fall will be the same!

The added bonus is that it's also generally safer for the reasons given above when you're close to the ground, although obviously not if you get to the bolt, can't clip and deck because of bad bolting/belaying/rope stretch....
 Misha 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
That can't be right. Clipping at the waist = 2m of rope out. Clipping above you = 2m of rope out (there must be to make the clip) plus an extra metre or so from your outstretched hand to your waist. More rope out = bigger fall in terms of how low you end up, which is the bit that matters!
Post edited at 22:35
3
 Misha 30 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:
That's the wrong way to look at it. Yes, the length of fall will be the same in terms of distance between where your waist is and where you waist ends up. However you end up lower, which is pretty critical when you're low down on the route! Fall clipping at waist height = 4m fall, end up 2m below bottom bolt. Fall clipping at arm's length when your waist is say 1m above the last bolt = 4m fall, end up 3m below last bolt.

Add in he fact that your belayer will probably have more slack out if you're clipping above your head, plis it's more tiring so more likely to fall off (depends on the holds as well if course).
Post edited at 22:34
 Misha 30 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> There doesn't appear to be any confusion between me and John Arran. There is no extra distance fallen, it's exactly the same, you just end up lower down because you started off lower down.

Yes and that might mean broken ankles etc or not being able to get back on the route if it's overhanging. So you are right when considering a theoretical question which doesn't really matter because what matters is the question of how low down do you end up.
 jayjackson 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
Clipping from below the bolt and falling off does increase the length of the fall.

The formula stated earlier in the thread doesn't take into account that the rope from the knot (w) has to go from the climber, to the bolt being clipped, and then back down to the climber again before returning via lower bolts to the belayer.

Thus the slack introduced by clipping is twice the distance between the waist and the bolt.

I think the formula...

D = 2(w-a + 2(b-w))

Is correct for all falls, when

D is the distance fallen.
W is the height of the waist (or climbers knot)
A is the height of the last bolt clipped
B is the height of the bolt about to be clipped at the point of the fall.

Assume a perfect bolted route, 2m spacing. Climber at 8m and clipping bolt B (waist at the height of the bolt)

D = 2(8-6 + 2(8-8))
D = 2(2+ 2(0))
D = 2(2)
D = 4m

Assume a perfect bolted route, 2m spacing. Climber at 7m and clipping bolt B (high clipping waist is 1m below height of the bolt)

D = 2(7-6 + 2(8-7))
D = 2(1+ 2(1))
D = 2(1 + 2)
D = 2(3)
D = 6m


This is the formula that demonstrates Chris Craggs' example.

If
1
 MeMeMe 31 Oct 2016
In reply to jayjackson:
> Assume a perfect bolted route, 2m spacing. Climber at 7m and clipping bolt B (high clipping waist is 1m below height of the bolt)
> D = 2(7-6 + 2(8-7))
> D = 2(1+ 2(1))
> D = 2(1 + 2)
> D = 2(3)
> D = 6m
> This is the formula that demonstrates Chris Craggs' example.

So you are saying you fall 6m and end up 5m below the clipped bolt?

This is a neat trick with only 3m of slack out (2m from clipped bolt to next bolt then 1m back to climber).
Post edited at 09:17
1
 Sayon 31 Oct 2016
In reply to jayjackson:
This doesnt make sense to me. Based on a hazy recollection of O level maths some forty years ago, the correct formula involves moving one of your brackets: D= 2(w-a) + 2 (b-w)
Edit- looking back at the post, This is the formula John Arran gives above - 4 metres fall in the second scenario as well as the first.
Post edited at 09:57
 john arran 31 Oct 2016
In reply to jayjackson:

In your formula D = 2(w-a + 2(b-w)) let's take an example of bolt a at 10m, bolt b at 11m and the climber right next to bolt a, so a=w=10 and b=11.

D is then 2(10-10 + 2(11-10)) = 4
So you're sat by a bolt with no slack out, you pull 2m of slack to clip while staying exactly where you are, and somehow you manage to end up 4m lower.

As mentioned earlier, rope out only causes a doubling of the fall distance when that height has been climbed - if it's just slack then you only fall the same distance as the amount of slack.

Imagine climbing up 2m from a bolt then falling, we both agree on a 4m total fall. Mid-way through the fall you'll pass the bolt, at which moment you'll have 2m of slack in the rope, very much as if you hadn't climbed up from the bolt at all but just pulled slack for clipping. From that point you'll have only 2m left to fall.

 zimpara 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

You, john and stp- take a bow. Good trolling.
9
 GrahamD 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Well the maths might be right on fall length but I know which way the phsycology goes. I feel I'm far less likely to fall off trying to clip a bolt, even if its above my head, than to make another move at my limit to bring it closer.
 CurlyStevo 31 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

I agree the fall distance is the same in both scenarios assuming no extra slack. However:
- In my experience the greater the slack you pull out to clip above your head the greater the probability of surplus slack and more likely for a greater surplus.
- As mentioned clipping above your head will make you end up closer to the ground.
 Paul16 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Totally agree with the maths - you always fall 2 x the bolting distance. However, I think saying that gives the impression that it's always safe to clip early. It's not.

The key to this discussion is not the distance of the fall. It's how far below the bottom bolt you end up and for that reason never clip early if there's a good hold higher up to clip from. That extra meter or so from waist to quickdraw is added on to the distance below the bolt you'll end up.

The issue I perceive with some climbers is they try to clip early because clipping makes them safe - so they're desperate to get clipped in as soon as possible. When it's the 2nd or 3rd bolt that's a mistake unless the holds above are desperate.
1
 GrahamD 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I think more key is the probability of falling whilst clipping versus the propability of falling making the move to reach the next bolt. All this analysis supposes the climber can actually get any higher without a significant potential to lob.
 CurlyStevo 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GargoyleFeet:
Generally if the bolt is within easy reach and I'm confident I can clip it I do. I would only climb higher if I was confident it would be easy / easier to clip higher up.
Post edited at 12:33
 Ramblin dave 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> I think more key is the probability of falling whilst clipping versus the propability of falling making the move to reach the next bolt. All this analysis supposes the climber can actually get any higher without a significant potential to lob.

This. I've climbed plenty of easier bolted routes where bolts have been placed - presumably deliberately - to be in the middle of a thin section but reachable from the comfortable holds at the start. It'd seem pretty crazy to start making the sketchy moves first and then have to clip in the middle of the hard bit just to avoid the possibility of decking if you inexplicably jump off the good holds while clipping from them.

I'm quite a bumbly, though - maybe this situation (ie holds comfortable enough to do a high clip from with little risk of falling) might not occur so much on harder sport routes?
 Fakey Rocks 31 Oct 2016
In reply to MeMeMe:
Thats wrong still....
Because you are 1m above the bolt, with 3m of slack.
The max the slack can go below the last clipped bolt = 3m (the maths without rope stretch), + you were 1m above the bolt, fall = 3+1 =4.
But you do fall further below last clipped bolt, =3m, ( total fall =4m) if clipped from 1m below, compared to if clipped when waist is level with next bolt if u fail + fall off without clipping = falling 2m below last clip, total fall still = 4m.
 Fakey Rocks 31 Oct 2016
In reply to john

> So you're sat by a bolt with no slack out, you pull 2m of slack to clip while staying exactly where you are, and somehow you manage to end up 4m lower.

I suspect you didn't describe this correctly...
If you are stood by a bolt and can clip it (it's beside your waist if you are stood by it?), you don't need to pull slack, u already have enough to clip the bolt?... But you fall off instead?

Or are u referring to reaching to clip the bolt above at 1m above the first?
 john arran 31 Oct 2016
In reply to richrox:

> Or are u referring to reaching to clip the bolt above at 1m above the first?

^^^^ this ^^^^
 Ramblin dave 31 Oct 2016
In reply to richrox:
> In reply to john

> I suspect you didn't describe this correctly...

> If you are stood by a bolt and can clip it (it's beside your waist if you are stood by it?), you don't need to pull slack, u already have enough to clip the bolt?... But you fall off instead?

> Or are u referring to reaching to clip the bolt above at 1m above the first?

Reaching to clip at bolt above the first.

To re-phrase the same thing another way - if the bolts are two metres apart and your waist is one metre above the previous bolt, if you pull out two metres of slack to clip with before falling you've now got a total of three metres of rope out above the previous bolt. When you fall off, that means you end up three metres below it. Since you started one metre above it, that means that you've fallen four metres.

If you'd climbed up another metre, you'd only have had two metres of rope above the bolt and hence only ended up two metres below it. But since you started two metres above the bolt this time, you've still fallen four metres.
Post edited at 13:26
 Fakey Rocks 31 Oct 2016
In reply to jayjackson:

Shouldn't it be...

D = 2(w-a) + 2(b-w)

4m in both cases

...... ?
In reply to GridNorth:

This is a bit of a non-discussion surely? I've never met anyone that though clipping from your waist meant a shorter fall than reaching. The reason you clip from your waist is all the technical climbing is usually inbetween the bolts so it's not a good place to rest. If you fall mid-way between bolts that's a shorter fall than pulling lots of slack out from the same position, that's why people don't recommend it.

Obviously it's not a fixed rule - if you find a great stance to rest and you can clip the bolt then fine, do it. But constantly trying to clip from below whilst hanging on tiny crimps, pulling up metres of slack between your teeth because you're scared about climbing higher is just going to result in more falls, and bigger falls.

 Fakey Rocks 31 Oct 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yes, just wasn't clear what john said but he clarified it just above.
 Ramblin dave 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Another way of looking at it - the thing that determines how far you fall is how much rope changes direction in the process. In either case, it's the two metres of rope that's going up from the lower bolt towards the higher bolt, and which will now be going down from the lower bolt towards me. The rope that was going down from next to the higher bolt to me doesn't make any difference, since it still goes the same way after I fall.

I could have a bolt clipped fourteen metres above me and be using the world's biggest clipstick to get the one at sixteen metres as well, I'd still fall 4 metres if I messed it up and fell off.
OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> This is a bit of a non-discussion surely? I've never met anyone that though clipping from your waist meant a shorter fall than reaching. The reason you clip from your waist is all the technical climbing is usually inbetween the bolts so it's not a good place to rest. If you fall mid-way between bolts that's a shorter fall than pulling lots of slack out from the same position, that's why people don't recommend it.

I would have thought so but you have just proved otherwise and seem to be contradicting yourself. There are still plenty of people on here who appear to be unconvinced that in both scenarios you fall 4 metres.

Al
In reply to GridNorth:

I was comparing falling mid way between bolts, and falling mid way between bolts with armfulls of slack. Re-read my post...
 Fraser 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> I was wondering if anyone could provide the maths to illustrate this.

No, but here's the illustration to prove the maths:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/70132285@N07/30057007834/in/datetaken-public/

 MeMeMe 31 Oct 2016
In reply to richrox:

> Thats wrong still....

I was just suggesting that it's impossible to end up 5m below the clipped bolt with only 3m of slack...hence "that's a neat trick", nothing more.

I can't believe this thread has been going so long, surely every possible (and impossible) angle on this has been covered by now!

OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to Fraser:

Thank you that illustrates my point nicely.

To purplemonkeyelephant: Apologies I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Al
 Fakey Rocks 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
Perhaps someone could post the correct formula for how far below the last bolt you clipped, to highlight the bigger distance when falling trying to clip next bolt from below it?

I tried but brain was melting ...
In words, for a trad scenario, with a climber who also has a bionic extending arm.

Not computing rope stretch...
Gear 1 is at 6m
Gear 2 is at 10m.
The gear is good, and gear one is clipped.

A... Climber has clipped gear 1, climbs 4m so waist is at gear 2, tries to clip it but falls, has 4m of slack, is 4m above gear, will fall 8m, but falls 4m below last gear, stops 2m above ground.

B.... Climber gets 3m above last gear, can reach gear 2 1m higher, is on 3m slack, has to pull 1m to reach gear above head, + 1m to feeds back to harness, means adding 2m slack to 3m = 5m slack, falls b4 clipping, will fall 8m from position, 3m from above gear 1 but with 5m slack, ends up 5m below last gear, stops only 1m above ground.

C... Climber gets half way between gear 1 and 2, = 2m above gear 1, (has 2m slack on), decides to uses telescopic arm to reach 2m above to clip gear2, needs 2m to get to it plus 2m back to harness = 4m, total = 6m slack, falls off trying this, total fall = 8m, from 2m above gear 1, but 6m of this fall goes below gear1, distance from ground = 0...!

Realistically, In B, with rope stretch, and surplus slack in system, fall 5m below last gear which was 6m above ground, will be almost ground = 0 too.
Post edited at 14:50
 GrahamD 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> I would have thought so but you have just proved otherwise and seem to be contradicting yourself. There are still plenty of people on here who appear to be unconvinced that in both scenarios you fall 4 metres.

Actually the biggest fallacy is that you 'only' fall 4m. All the convenient ignoring rope stretch, ignoring slack in the system, ignoring the fact your belayer isn't likely to be bolted to the floor. A '4m' lob is more than likely going to be 6m or more which is a long way.
 Sayon 31 Oct 2016
In reply to MeMeMe:

Has anyone mentioned the reduction in fall factor when clipping from below?
 Martin Haworth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to Fraser:
It is quite difficult to get your head around this as it seems somewhat counter intuitive, but your diagram illustrates it extremely well. So you will fall the same distance, but end up lower.
In the real world you will fall a bit further because you will always pull out a bit more rope than is optimal to make the clip, and there will be marginally more rope stretch because there is one metre more rope out.
So, depending on how well(or rather how badly) bolted the route is, reaching high to clip the second or third bolt on a route could increase the risk of a ground fall.

Post edited at 15:31
 BabyGoat 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
I drew a picture to think it through. Picture here: https://s22.postimg.org/qp5ao5s4x/Falling.png

So yes, you fall the same distance (if you neglect rope stretch), however you end up lower below the last bolt you successfully clipped.

However if you factor in rope stretch, you actually fall further if you're clipping from below the bolt because there's more rope out and hence more to stretch (and hence end up even lower).

So unless I've misunderstood something, it would appear to be safer to clip at waist height.

Obviously that doesn't factor in how good the hold/your position is at the time.

EDIT: I just saw someone beat me to it with the picture.
Post edited at 16:17
OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to BabyGoat:

I would have thought that the amount of stretch in the extra 1 metre of rope was negligible but acknowledge the principle. The fallacy I was trying to demolish is the one that you fall further because you have pulled out "more slack".

Al
 Bulls Crack 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

All I know is that when I reached up to clip the last bolt on Face Race and fumbled it I ended up near Llandudno Pier :0(
 zimpara 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

THAT DEPENDS WHAT YOU CLASS AS FALLING FURTHER!
For me that means further down the crag.
7
 zv 31 Oct 2016
In reply to Bulls Crack:

That's a decent size fall from the clipping position even without the extra slack! &#9786;
In reply to GridNorth:

All readers of this thread would agree, that when climbing either a trad or a sport route, it is best practice to clip the the next bolt or place and clip the gear from the most stable position. This position is simply a point en-route that allows an assessment of the next move, a rest, a comfortable place to select the right piece of gear, a place that allows you to easily take hold of the rope and pull slack... or whatever. It's what needs to be done in order to be able to progress to the end or the pitch without falling. It is irrespective of whether this point is above, at, or below the bolt or placement as the object is solely to avoid a fall. The potential distance of falling is therefore academic: the reality is simply trying to prevent failure.

The maths proves the fall distance of the climbers body is the same. Fine. The crucial factor though, is not one of falling the same distance irrespective of whether you clip at your finger-tips or at your waist... it's how far down the crag you end up.

In real-world terms then:

Given that you are climbing a pitch on-sight at your total limit where every hold is poor, there are no rest points, every move is blind, every clip is scary and the safe fall-out zone is critical....
In order to prevent falling past the last gear/bolt an inch more than is needed.... is it better to therefore clip from the waist, or is it better to pull out slack and clip above you?



OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to A Random Climber:

Some of you seem to be having a different debate to the one I started but my original statement still stands.

Al
1
In reply to GridNorth:
No mate. I agree!

"The maths proves the fall distance of the climbers body is the same"

But it's a totally irrelevant point...

The moral of the story, is that while the distance the body falls is basically the same, a fall while holding a load of slack and clipping at full stretch will deposit you further down the crag. The crucial factor is what hazards are in the fall-out zone.

Clipping with as little slack in your hand as possible will reduce the fall distance past the last piece of gear and thus the chance of hitting a ledge or the ground.

In other words, we aren't interested in how far we fall: we're only interested in what we collide with at the end of that fall...


Post edited at 19:06
OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to A Random Climber:

It's only an irrelevant point because the thread has been hi-jacked to discuss these other factors. My original statement still stands. John Arran and some others answered it, the rest is just the usual UKC BS.

Al
2
 stp 31 Oct 2016
In reply to A Random Climber:

> is it better to therefore clip from the waist, or is it better to pull out slack and clip above you?

If there's a danger of hitting something like the ground then it's safer to clip from the waist. The reason is that although the fall distance is the same when you clip from the waist you're higher to begin with, so your 4m fall will end higher up than a 4m fall that begins from lower down.

 SChriscoli 31 Oct 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

I think the confusion is the difference between how far you fall vs how far down you fall.

In clipping at the waist. You climb 2m if you fall its a 4m whipper, but you end up 2m below the last clipped bolt

If you climb just 1m, you then have to pull 2m of slack to clip from below. (1m to bolt and 1m to you). So you essentially have 3m of loose rope between your knot and the last bolt..you still fall 4m in height

Only this time you will be 3m below the last bolt
OP GridNorth 31 Oct 2016
In reply to SChriscoli:

There is no confusion on my part. I was perfectly clear in my opening statement. It's others that are confused.

Al
1
 Matt Vigg 01 Nov 2016
In reply to A Random Climber:

At the waist, but - if you think you might fluff it you could still get hurt, depending on height/stretch/inept belaying/spikey obstacles/etc.!
 PM 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:
One man's 'perfectly clear' is clearly several other people's 'this is confusing'.

I certainly had to read half the thread before twigging the distinction between distance fallen (from where you fell from) and how far from the ground your fall ends.
Post edited at 10:49
OP GridNorth 01 Nov 2016
In reply to PM:

I disagree. What's confusing about "you would fall considerably further than if you clip...." and "a 4 metre fall would result in both scenarios"

Al
 La benya 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Because depending on your frame of reference, 'further' can mean pure distance, distance from the top, distance from the bolt etc. Your initial post was not that clear.
2
OP GridNorth 01 Nov 2016
In reply to La benya:
A 4 metre fall would result in both scenarios ??? What's not clear about that?

Al
Post edited at 11:14
2
 La benya 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

How about read my post and then try to realise that just because you know what you meant, and i knew what you meant, clearly others didn't. 'further' can mean several things if you're not thinking of the same frame of reference as you were.
1
OP GridNorth 01 Nov 2016
In reply to La benya:

OK, I concede defeat.

What's that saying "you can please some of the people all of the time ......................."

It's time this thread died, in fact it should have died after John Arran provided the answer but that's UKC for you.

Al
 timjones 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> A 4 metre fall would result in both scenarios ??? What's not clear about that?

The length of the fall is largely irrelevant, many of us focus on where we stop rather than pedantics about how far we fell.

2
OP GridNorth 01 Nov 2016
In reply to timjones:

I don't care. My post was about a specific debate and another group of climbers incorrect views. That's the context of the whole thread so it's all this talk about interpretation and language that is irrelevant.

Al
1
 Matt Vigg 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

You can always set up a forum at home that only you can access and discuss stuff with yourself!
 timjones 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

> I don't care. My post was about a specific debate and another group of climbers incorrect views. That's the context of the whole thread so it's all this talk about interpretation and language that is irrelevant.

> Al

Language is highly relevant, the choice of words will influence peoples ability to understand of a message. I tend to perceive the word further as being a measure of distance relative to an object, in this case the bolt that you are clipping. You will fall further from the bolt if you have more rope out as you attempt to clip it.

Saying the you will "fall the same distance" makes more sense in my mind.
1
OP GridNorth 01 Nov 2016
In reply to timjones:

FFS that's what I said, or at least and I quote "fell exactly the same distance" Did you not read the original text.

Al
 john arran 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Let it go. Sometimes you can't win no matter how right you are!
 PM 01 Nov 2016
In reply to GridNorth:

Yeah, what you said at the very start now makes sense. My point was that since I had to read 14 re-statements, counter-statements, divergent statements, then go back and re-read the original to realise 'aah, right, I see where I was misunderstanding', that, for me, the point you were getting at initially was not clear.

It is now.

Your argument of 'I think what I said was clear' doesn't change the fact that I misunderstood, no matter how often you paste the same text in and state that it's obvious. : )

I also feel genuinely enlightened (not kidding here!) and appreciate everyone's perseverance with explaining, much of which was useful in my arrival at our shared understanding of your interesting initial observation.

Cheers.
 trouserburp 01 Nov 2016
In reply to MeMeMe:

> I can't believe this thread has been going so long, surely every possible (and impossible) angle on this has been covered by now!

Nobody has even started on the angles - how can we even think of climbing an overhang without factoring in the angle of the hypotenuse!
 petellis 01 Nov 2016
In reply to john arran:

> D = 2*(b-a)

This is all well and academic but contrast with this simple law:

"The earlier the clip is clipped; the greater the time spent on top-rope."




New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...