This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dear all,
having read the details and watched the vid one simple thought occurs to me. The death of this fellow was unfortunate and of course tragic to his close ones but let us think about this. It is a truism that sport climbers need to make a judgement about the quality of the equipment on any route. But what is a bolt but a modern peg substitute that also resists (in a variable way according to placement, rock type etc.) forces that a peg is not designed for, ie outward pulls. All sport climbers should constantly bear this in mind; sit on a bolt with the load say a metre below it and stay close to the rock and if the expansion bit does not work you have an old fashioned peg in a loosish but sound placement as long as you do not exert any outward force on it. I am as guilty as anyone in pulling out on bolts esp to gain height to do a stick clip (yes I cheat) Just a thought to all, hang on them from well below by all means but do not, please do not pull outwards on them.
Best wishes
The GA
having read the details and watched the vid one simple thought occurs to me. The death of this fellow was unfortunate and of course tragic to his close ones but let us think about this. It is a truism that sport climbers need to make a judgement about the quality of the equipment on any route. But what is a bolt but a modern peg substitute that also resists (in a variable way according to placement, rock type etc.) forces that a peg is not designed for, ie outward pulls. All sport climbers should constantly bear this in mind; sit on a bolt with the load say a metre below it and stay close to the rock and if the expansion bit does not work you have an old fashioned peg in a loosish but sound placement as long as you do not exert any outward force on it. I am as guilty as anyone in pulling out on bolts esp to gain height to do a stick clip (yes I cheat) Just a thought to all, hang on them from well below by all means but do not, please do not pull outwards on them.
Best wishes
The GA
In reply to Grimpeur ancien: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=340148
In reply to Grimpeur ancien:
Eh - is this a troll?
Sport climbing? Have you ever tried it? What if it's overhanging by 45 degrees and you fall off from a metre above it? How do you avoid outward pressure on the bolt?
The Ent
Eh - is this a troll?
Sport climbing? Have you ever tried it? What if it's overhanging by 45 degrees and you fall off from a metre above it? How do you avoid outward pressure on the bolt?
The Ent
In reply to Enty:
Not at all a troll.
Bolts that are placed so a fall results in outward force are inherently less reliable even in good rock as they rely on the mechanical effect of the expansion sleeve. The best placements on steep routes are actually as near horizontal as possible, even on a very staep route there are usually still lots of near vertical bits for bolts. The point I was making was not to exert outward force unnecessarily such as pulling hard to gain maximum height while stickclipping I don't think I will ever do that again, I have in the past lots.
> (In reply to Grimpeur ancien)
>
> Eh - is this a troll?
>
> Sport climbing? Have you ever tried it? What if it's overhanging by 45 degrees and you fall off from a metre above it? How do you avoid outward pressure on the bolt?
>
> The Ent
>
> Eh - is this a troll?
>
> Sport climbing? Have you ever tried it? What if it's overhanging by 45 degrees and you fall off from a metre above it? How do you avoid outward pressure on the bolt?
>
> The Ent
Not at all a troll.
Bolts that are placed so a fall results in outward force are inherently less reliable even in good rock as they rely on the mechanical effect of the expansion sleeve. The best placements on steep routes are actually as near horizontal as possible, even on a very staep route there are usually still lots of near vertical bits for bolts. The point I was making was not to exert outward force unnecessarily such as pulling hard to gain maximum height while stickclipping I don't think I will ever do that again, I have in the past lots.
In reply to Grimpeur ancien:
I'd be interested to see your calculations for the relative amount of outward/downward force on a bolt placed on vertical rock involved in pulling out on it with bodyweight force compared with falling on it from a few metres above it on overhanging rock. I suspect the outward forces for the latter would be significantly in excess of anything you could generate while stickclipping.
I'd be interested to see your calculations for the relative amount of outward/downward force on a bolt placed on vertical rock involved in pulling out on it with bodyweight force compared with falling on it from a few metres above it on overhanging rock. I suspect the outward forces for the latter would be significantly in excess of anything you could generate while stickclipping.
In reply to Martin76:
it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
In reply to JimR:
I wondered about this too, but apparently it's not controversial enough... and there's no one to blame. It's not clear how it happened, but I'd say it was a good reason to use a double rope though. I can't understand people setting off on a steep 270m route with only one rope.
> (In reply to Martin76)
>
> it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
>
> it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
I wondered about this too, but apparently it's not controversial enough... and there's no one to blame. It's not clear how it happened, but I'd say it was a good reason to use a double rope though. I can't understand people setting off on a steep 270m route with only one rope.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
F*ck me, Bruce, you really are an idiot aren't you?
Get this. It is the almost universal practice in the US and many other places to use only a single rope when trad climbing. Continuing to suggest that doing that in some way contributed to this climber's death is just ridiculous, especially since:
1. It seems extremely likely that far from being a contributing factor to th accident, the rope breaking saved the life of the other climber, since if one bolt is breaking under bodyweight the belay bolt would surely have broken under a forty-foot factor two fall.
2. Given they only had one piece of gear, which had just broken, if they had been using two ropes then both ropes would have come tight together in the same place on the same edge as the single one did. It's very likely therefore that two ropes would have cut as well.
Your comments on this and the other thread have been really, really inappropriate and offensive. Please at least stop and reflect before posting any more in a similar vein.
jcm
F*ck me, Bruce, you really are an idiot aren't you?
Get this. It is the almost universal practice in the US and many other places to use only a single rope when trad climbing. Continuing to suggest that doing that in some way contributed to this climber's death is just ridiculous, especially since:
1. It seems extremely likely that far from being a contributing factor to th accident, the rope breaking saved the life of the other climber, since if one bolt is breaking under bodyweight the belay bolt would surely have broken under a forty-foot factor two fall.
2. Given they only had one piece of gear, which had just broken, if they had been using two ropes then both ropes would have come tight together in the same place on the same edge as the single one did. It's very likely therefore that two ropes would have cut as well.
Your comments on this and the other thread have been really, really inappropriate and offensive. Please at least stop and reflect before posting any more in a similar vein.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Bit OTT John.
Most accidents are rarely a result of a single error but are a consequence of a chain of events.
I'd be wanting to know why the rope cut before any weight came on the single belay bolt. That, I suspect, would probably be of more interest to the majority of climbers rather than bolts pulling on off route climbers in a manky muddy cliff where the rock apparently had a texture akin to a rotten sponge.
Bit OTT John.
Most accidents are rarely a result of a single error but are a consequence of a chain of events.
I'd be wanting to know why the rope cut before any weight came on the single belay bolt. That, I suspect, would probably be of more interest to the majority of climbers rather than bolts pulling on off route climbers in a manky muddy cliff where the rock apparently had a texture akin to a rotten sponge.
In reply to JimR:
Why do you feel the need to comment if you haven't read any of Simon Carter's reports???
The Ent
> (In reply to Martin76)
>
> it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
>
> it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure.
Why do you feel the need to comment if you haven't read any of Simon Carter's reports???
The Ent
In reply to JimR:
I think part of the problem is that Bruce's crap is so ubiquitous. After a while, I (and it seems others) get tired of being polite to dolts and dullards like Bruce, niggle and that chap who's hooked on conspiracy theories.
Anyway, lots of people clip both ropes through the same gear on sports routes, so the ropes aren't spread...I clip alternately, but others don't.
J
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Bit OTT John.
>
>
> Bit OTT John.
>
I think part of the problem is that Bruce's crap is so ubiquitous. After a while, I (and it seems others) get tired of being polite to dolts and dullards like Bruce, niggle and that chap who's hooked on conspiracy theories.
Anyway, lots of people clip both ropes through the same gear on sports routes, so the ropes aren't spread...I clip alternately, but others don't.
J
In reply to JimR:
Bruce has doggedly insisted on maintaining an extreme viewpoint, possibly even with the (distasteful) intention of winding people up, which has caused wide offence.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Bit OTT John.
>
Not in the context of all his comments on the other thread.>
> Bit OTT John.
>
Bruce has doggedly insisted on maintaining an extreme viewpoint, possibly even with the (distasteful) intention of winding people up, which has caused wide offence.
In reply to Enty:
What makes you think I have'nt read it?
the sole comment about the rope in the original report was:
"My understanding is that the rope Nick was probably using was somewhat worn. In my opinion this ironstone band is so sharp that it would sever most climbing ropes under the high load of this fall."
in the second
"The rope was a two year old 10.5mm dry rope. It was reportedly in good shape. It has taken a few lead falls but not any large number of falls"
That does not indicate to me that a full investigation on the rope was carried out.
also
"When the bolt pulled Nick took a factor two fall past the belay ledge. The rope cut on the rock below the ledge before Andrew loaded the belay bolt."
Again this raises a big question in my mind about the loading of the rope when it was cut.
No doubt as John says, this may have saved the belayer's life.
But that does'nt remove the question mark as to why the rope cut at less than maximum load even though it may well just be as simple as a razor like edge being created when the ironstone broke ..
What makes you think I have'nt read it?
the sole comment about the rope in the original report was:
"My understanding is that the rope Nick was probably using was somewhat worn. In my opinion this ironstone band is so sharp that it would sever most climbing ropes under the high load of this fall."
in the second
"The rope was a two year old 10.5mm dry rope. It was reportedly in good shape. It has taken a few lead falls but not any large number of falls"
That does not indicate to me that a full investigation on the rope was carried out.
also
"When the bolt pulled Nick took a factor two fall past the belay ledge. The rope cut on the rock below the ledge before Andrew loaded the belay bolt."
Again this raises a big question in my mind about the loading of the rope when it was cut.
No doubt as John says, this may have saved the belayer's life.
But that does'nt remove the question mark as to why the rope cut at less than maximum load even though it may well just be as simple as a razor like edge being created when the ironstone broke ..
In reply to JimR: Most accidents are rarely a result of a single error but are a consequence of a chain of events.
That can be looked at another way. If it is a chain then removing a single error would prevent the accident so the single error causes the result.
Weigh the individual error or blame the chain ? Often 'chains' are a narrative where the links are tenuous/invented or whatever but make better reading because we are programmed to look at the world that way.
That can be looked at another way. If it is a chain then removing a single error would prevent the accident so the single error causes the result.
Weigh the individual error or blame the chain ? Often 'chains' are a narrative where the links are tenuous/invented or whatever but make better reading because we are programmed to look at the world that way.
In reply to Grimpeur ancien:
Just to get back to the original post and before anyone gets wrong ideas about expansion bolts as clearly notre grimpeur has, as long as the rock is good (and as long as they are in the correct sized hole as has been long debated), the pull out strength is not far off the shear strength. The shear strength is at its maximum with the nut tightened and thus the hanger squeezed as tight to the rock as possible. A spinning hanger means the shear strength is reduced, but not catastrophically. The pull out strength will vary as to the type of bolt ie single expansion collar or double. Thus pulling directly outwards on a bolt is NOT a problem...
Just to get back to the original post and before anyone gets wrong ideas about expansion bolts as clearly notre grimpeur has, as long as the rock is good (and as long as they are in the correct sized hole as has been long debated), the pull out strength is not far off the shear strength. The shear strength is at its maximum with the nut tightened and thus the hanger squeezed as tight to the rock as possible. A spinning hanger means the shear strength is reduced, but not catastrophically. The pull out strength will vary as to the type of bolt ie single expansion collar or double. Thus pulling directly outwards on a bolt is NOT a problem...
In reply to JimR:
The rock didn't look that bad in the video.
Chris
> know why the rope cut before any weight came on the single belay bolt. That, I suspect, would probably be of more interest to the majority of climbers rather than bolts pulling on off route climbers in a manky muddy cliff where the rock apparently had a texture akin to a rotten sponge.
The rock didn't look that bad in the video.
Chris
In reply to JimR:
Well, it was this comment here:
"it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure."
If you want to look at it from that point of view the cause of the fatatlity was Poor Nicks body hitting hard rock at high speed.
The Ent
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> What makes you think I have'nt read it?
>
>>
> What makes you think I have'nt read it?
>
Well, it was this comment here:
"it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure."
If you want to look at it from that point of view the cause of the fatatlity was Poor Nicks body hitting hard rock at high speed.
The Ent
In reply to Enty:
It tends to be a design feature of ropes to prevent precisely that. AFAIK a rope with the intelligence to break to protect the belayer from belay failure has yet to be designed. In this case the rope broke prior to the belay bolt being weighted, so we will never know what the outcome would have been had the rope not broken. As a user of single ropes, personally, I am more interested in what caused the rope to break. That, thankfully, is fairly rare and perhaps more lessons might be learnt from an analysis of that than analysing bolt failure resulting from crap bolting in soft rock.
> (In reply to JimR)
> [...]
>
> Well, it was this comment here:
>
> "it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure."
>
> If you want to look at it from that point of view the cause of the fatatlity was Poor Nicks body hitting hard rock at high speed.
>
> The Ent
> [...]
>
> Well, it was this comment here:
>
> "it does strike me that the real cause of the fatality was the rope getting cut on sharp rock not actually the bolt failure."
>
> If you want to look at it from that point of view the cause of the fatatlity was Poor Nicks body hitting hard rock at high speed.
>
> The Ent
It tends to be a design feature of ropes to prevent precisely that. AFAIK a rope with the intelligence to break to protect the belayer from belay failure has yet to be designed. In this case the rope broke prior to the belay bolt being weighted, so we will never know what the outcome would have been had the rope not broken. As a user of single ropes, personally, I am more interested in what caused the rope to break. That, thankfully, is fairly rare and perhaps more lessons might be learnt from an analysis of that than analysing bolt failure resulting from crap bolting in soft rock.
In reply to jon:
Here is some basic information from testing a hell of a lot of bolts before anyone gets the wrong idea from your post:-
The bolt should never pull out, it should always fail. If it pulls out you have used the wrong bolt.
The failure even when axially tested is not a simple shear.
There is no significant difference in failure load between axial and radial pulls and there is no difference in the failure mode of the bolt.
A normal 10mm bolt will move about 13mm outward before it fails.
The tightness of the hanger has no influence and after about the first 5- 7kN they are all loose anyway.
Bolts installed without the nut being tightened have as high a strength as those with the nut tightened.
The tightness of the nut has no relevance except to show the bolt has started to grip.
Installed in reasonable rock most commercial hangers fail before the bolt.
Normal karabiners fail long before the hanger and the bolt.
The number of collars has no influence.
Here is some basic information from testing a hell of a lot of bolts before anyone gets the wrong idea from your post:-
The bolt should never pull out, it should always fail. If it pulls out you have used the wrong bolt.
The failure even when axially tested is not a simple shear.
There is no significant difference in failure load between axial and radial pulls and there is no difference in the failure mode of the bolt.
A normal 10mm bolt will move about 13mm outward before it fails.
The tightness of the hanger has no influence and after about the first 5- 7kN they are all loose anyway.
Bolts installed without the nut being tightened have as high a strength as those with the nut tightened.
The tightness of the nut has no relevance except to show the bolt has started to grip.
Installed in reasonable rock most commercial hangers fail before the bolt.
Normal karabiners fail long before the hanger and the bolt.
The number of collars has no influence.
In reply to JimR:
"It tends to be a design feature of ropes to prevent precisely that"
No need for smart arse comments.
Read the account again, Nick was resting on a bolt higher up above the belay which pulled out.
The Ent
"It tends to be a design feature of ropes to prevent precisely that"
No need for smart arse comments.
Read the account again, Nick was resting on a bolt higher up above the belay which pulled out.
The Ent
In reply to Enty:
I'm finding it difficult to pick up your argument .. are you implying that it a bolt fails creating a factor 2 fall then its acceptable for a 10.5 to break or what?
> (In reply to JimR)
>
Jeez ... I know and he was stick clipping with a stick he had got from a tree he had walked along the ledge to get .. and it was a factor 2 .. but the fact remains that the rope broke without the belay bolt being weighted.>
I'm finding it difficult to pick up your argument .. are you implying that it a bolt fails creating a factor 2 fall then its acceptable for a 10.5 to break or what?
In reply to jimtitt:
Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'pull out' strength. I meant the bolt failing when being pulled in that direction, though I must admit that I didn't know that it wouldn't actually pull out of the rock - so much the better! I've always understood that it is marginally weaker in that direction thus my phrasing. If you say there's no difference, then that's good enough for me.
My point about the looseness of the nut was from a point of view that it allows the bolt to start bending at a lower loading and therefore initiating the shear earlier, than if it was wanged up tight. If you refute this then again it's good enough for me.
I would, however, have though that single or double expansion would make a difference, though perhaps not in the strength of the bolt, but its ability to grip, and along the same lines a longer bolt is going to be supported by a far larger cone of rock than a short one and thus preventing the rock from failing - or does that come under the same subject as 'wrong bolt'?
In the end we are both saying the same thing, properly placed bolts are strong and that there's no problem in pulling outwards on the bolt as the original post suggests.
> (In reply to jon)
Perhaps I shouldn't have said 'pull out' strength. I meant the bolt failing when being pulled in that direction, though I must admit that I didn't know that it wouldn't actually pull out of the rock - so much the better! I've always understood that it is marginally weaker in that direction thus my phrasing. If you say there's no difference, then that's good enough for me.
My point about the looseness of the nut was from a point of view that it allows the bolt to start bending at a lower loading and therefore initiating the shear earlier, than if it was wanged up tight. If you refute this then again it's good enough for me.
I would, however, have though that single or double expansion would make a difference, though perhaps not in the strength of the bolt, but its ability to grip, and along the same lines a longer bolt is going to be supported by a far larger cone of rock than a short one and thus preventing the rock from failing - or does that come under the same subject as 'wrong bolt'?
In the end we are both saying the same thing, properly placed bolts are strong and that there's no problem in pulling outwards on the bolt as the original post suggests.
In reply to JimR:
I'm confused too.
I thought the fall was caused when the upper bolt Nick was resting on ripped. Then the rope cut (not snapped) on the sharp edge.
The Ent
I'm confused too.
I thought the fall was caused when the upper bolt Nick was resting on ripped. Then the rope cut (not snapped) on the sharp edge.
The Ent
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
You really should try to not lest your feelings from other threads on other subjects spill over like this. All I said on the other thread was that, like the BMC guidelines, we should never trust bolts (or any other in situ gear, automatically... and so in this case putting the blame on the people who made the first ascent of the route, calling for court actions, bring legalities into climbing and even calling for physical violence without even bothering to hear the their point of view is way over the top.
There were other factors involved too... and the breaking rope is clearly one. Just because lots of people climb on single ropes it doesn't mean it's the best option... in this case, if as said there was only one piece of gear and he was resting on it when it pulled it wouldn't make much difference at the moment of fall but it could have influenced the decision to carry on although being off route... escaping a 270m route with a single rope might not be too easy, especially if the bolts they had got on to were manky. I know it is a US practice but if the majority of alpine climbers use double ropes there may be a reason... This route was a long one on poor rock, not a short sports climb on good rock.
You can huff and puff all you want, as can the others, but it doesn't add weight to your arguments... it's a cheap trick to imply that I have no feelings for the climber who died because I tried to examine the events in an objective manner rather than just the usual condolences... The other thread is not the first on the subject and the way it was presented by the OP and the links to all the details I, wrongly apparently, thought the idea was to discuss and learn.
Alas after each accident it's the same refrain, any attempt to analyse the events and draw useful conclusion is immediately jumped on. The jumpers always say it's not the time or place and we'll discuss it later, but it never happens. The next accident does though.
> F*ck me, Bruce, you really are an idiot aren't you?
You really should try to not lest your feelings from other threads on other subjects spill over like this. All I said on the other thread was that, like the BMC guidelines, we should never trust bolts (or any other in situ gear, automatically... and so in this case putting the blame on the people who made the first ascent of the route, calling for court actions, bring legalities into climbing and even calling for physical violence without even bothering to hear the their point of view is way over the top.
There were other factors involved too... and the breaking rope is clearly one. Just because lots of people climb on single ropes it doesn't mean it's the best option... in this case, if as said there was only one piece of gear and he was resting on it when it pulled it wouldn't make much difference at the moment of fall but it could have influenced the decision to carry on although being off route... escaping a 270m route with a single rope might not be too easy, especially if the bolts they had got on to were manky. I know it is a US practice but if the majority of alpine climbers use double ropes there may be a reason... This route was a long one on poor rock, not a short sports climb on good rock.
You can huff and puff all you want, as can the others, but it doesn't add weight to your arguments... it's a cheap trick to imply that I have no feelings for the climber who died because I tried to examine the events in an objective manner rather than just the usual condolences... The other thread is not the first on the subject and the way it was presented by the OP and the links to all the details I, wrongly apparently, thought the idea was to discuss and learn.
Alas after each accident it's the same refrain, any attempt to analyse the events and draw useful conclusion is immediately jumped on. The jumpers always say it's not the time or place and we'll discuss it later, but it never happens. The next accident does though.
In reply to Enty:
My take on it was that he was hanging on the bolt trying to stick clip the next bolt, the bolt he was hanging on ripped factor 2ing (with extra rope out from the abortive stick clip) the belay and then the presumption is that the rope then cut when it went over some ironstone before the belay bolt was weighted by the belayer. All that I'm saying is that how the rope got cut needs more investigation
My take on it was that he was hanging on the bolt trying to stick clip the next bolt, the bolt he was hanging on ripped factor 2ing (with extra rope out from the abortive stick clip) the belay and then the presumption is that the rope then cut when it went over some ironstone before the belay bolt was weighted by the belayer. All that I'm saying is that how the rope got cut needs more investigation
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
You have not examined the events in an objective manner, you've just stated that it's their fault for not checking each shiny new bolt they use and that the bolter has no responsibility. You've also clearly not read the reports (maybe you have now, but you certainly hadn't before).
What exactly are you planning to learn by picking a position and sticking to it no matter what anyone else says? It was thoroughly discussed on the other thread, so don't pretend people are refusing to do so.
You have not examined the events in an objective manner, you've just stated that it's their fault for not checking each shiny new bolt they use and that the bolter has no responsibility. You've also clearly not read the reports (maybe you have now, but you certainly hadn't before).
What exactly are you planning to learn by picking a position and sticking to it no matter what anyone else says? It was thoroughly discussed on the other thread, so don't pretend people are refusing to do so.
In reply to JimR:
Just an observation - don't want to be drawn in - but if the rope cut before the belay was weighted, then it couldn't have achieved factor 2...?
Just an observation - don't want to be drawn in - but if the rope cut before the belay was weighted, then it couldn't have achieved factor 2...?
In reply to thomasadixon:
??? I don't believe I have said that at all. It was discussed but not in a very calm way... half the people were saying that an individual climber must assume his decisions, check the gear etc (the BMC man posted a link to their similar advice) but an awful lot were saying the opposite, saying it was unkind to discuss the matter and generally getting nasty... not too mention a few nutters pushing for legal action... or worst.
The rope failure wasn't considered much nor was the point of view of the first ascensionists put at all... not a word.
> so don't pretend people are refusing to do so
??? I don't believe I have said that at all. It was discussed but not in a very calm way... half the people were saying that an individual climber must assume his decisions, check the gear etc (the BMC man posted a link to their similar advice) but an awful lot were saying the opposite, saying it was unkind to discuss the matter and generally getting nasty... not too mention a few nutters pushing for legal action... or worst.
The rope failure wasn't considered much nor was the point of view of the first ascensionists put at all... not a word.
In reply to jimtitt:
Surely there will be a significant difference in failure mode and failure strength between axial and radial pulls on a loose bolt in firm rock.
Suppose I drill a hole into a vertical wall which is the correct size to push a pencil into. I can push the pencil into the hole and then pull it out again horizontally without any damage to the pencil. If I load the pencil vertically while it is in the hole, the pencil will snap!
Surely there will be a significant difference in failure mode and failure strength between axial and radial pulls on a loose bolt in firm rock.
Suppose I drill a hole into a vertical wall which is the correct size to push a pencil into. I can push the pencil into the hole and then pull it out again horizontally without any damage to the pencil. If I load the pencil vertically while it is in the hole, the pencil will snap!
In reply to JimR:
I don't see how the rope could possibly have been cut before being loaded. But the belay bolt was off to the side of the ledge, remember. It seems pretty clear that the rope came tight between the climber and the belayer and then snapped. If it hadn't it would have pulled the belayer off the ledge and the weight of both climbers would then have come on to the belay bolt. It seems very likely that that would have failed given what we know about it.
jcm
I don't see how the rope could possibly have been cut before being loaded. But the belay bolt was off to the side of the ledge, remember. It seems pretty clear that the rope came tight between the climber and the belayer and then snapped. If it hadn't it would have pulled the belayer off the ledge and the weight of both climbers would then have come on to the belay bolt. It seems very likely that that would have failed given what we know about it.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yeah, what's puzzling me is:
Assuming sound rope
It must have snapped after a load of some sort came on it
either it was full load then the strength of the belay bolt was irrelevant (still worrying but understandable if extremely sharp edge
or if it was less than full load then that is worrying (partic with a 10.5)
alternatively the rope may have been faulty
either way I would have hoped that there would have been a full investigation
Yeah, what's puzzling me is:
Assuming sound rope
It must have snapped after a load of some sort came on it
either it was full load then the strength of the belay bolt was irrelevant (still worrying but understandable if extremely sharp edge
or if it was less than full load then that is worrying (partic with a 10.5)
alternatively the rope may have been faulty
either way I would have hoped that there would have been a full investigation
In reply to JimR:
Jim, did you read my post? The belay bolt was OFF TO ONE SIDE. The rope would have been fully weighted between climber and climber long before the belay was weighted at all.
jcm
Jim, did you read my post? The belay bolt was OFF TO ONE SIDE. The rope would have been fully weighted between climber and climber long before the belay was weighted at all.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That's what's puzzling me, cos it makes me think that the rope must have failed at much less than full load. If full load had come on (unless the belayer had been braced in a position in the scoop to be able to take a significant load) then he would surely have been snatched off the ledge by the force of the factor 2 ?
That's what's puzzling me, cos it makes me think that the rope must have failed at much less than full load. If full load had come on (unless the belayer had been braced in a position in the scoop to be able to take a significant load) then he would surely have been snatched off the ledge by the force of the factor 2 ?
In reply to jon:
"Just to get back to the original post and before anyone gets wrong ideas about expansion bolts as clearly notre grimpeur has, as long as the rock is good (and as long as they are in the correct sized hole as has been long debated), the pull out strength is not far off the shear strength. The shear strength is at its maximum with the nut tightened and thus the hanger squeezed as tight to the rock as possible. A spinning hanger means the shear strength is reduced, but not catastrophically. The pull out strength will vary as to the type of bolt ie single expansion collar or double. Thus pulling directly outwards on a bolt is NOT a problem... "
You have got some serious "as long as"s there, most important the correct drill size and next the quality of the rock underneath the skin eg limestone which is not always as good as we may think. Heard of the terms dinnerplating or fracture?! The point is you cannot implicitly trust the skill of the bolter, witness well publicised failures in The Peak and Kilnsey. In my opinion therefore, never assume a bolt is sound if you do not know who has placed it. The most trustworthy are the industrial strength elephant stoppers installed by local authorities or guides in France. Some of the stuff in the Peak is not inspiring esp the glue in staples but that's another thread
Let us not kid ourselves that sport climbing is not inherently risky, and let us us not throw ourselves on unknown potentially dodgy bolted climbs willy nilly.
BS
"Just to get back to the original post and before anyone gets wrong ideas about expansion bolts as clearly notre grimpeur has, as long as the rock is good (and as long as they are in the correct sized hole as has been long debated), the pull out strength is not far off the shear strength. The shear strength is at its maximum with the nut tightened and thus the hanger squeezed as tight to the rock as possible. A spinning hanger means the shear strength is reduced, but not catastrophically. The pull out strength will vary as to the type of bolt ie single expansion collar or double. Thus pulling directly outwards on a bolt is NOT a problem... "
You have got some serious "as long as"s there, most important the correct drill size and next the quality of the rock underneath the skin eg limestone which is not always as good as we may think. Heard of the terms dinnerplating or fracture?! The point is you cannot implicitly trust the skill of the bolter, witness well publicised failures in The Peak and Kilnsey. In my opinion therefore, never assume a bolt is sound if you do not know who has placed it. The most trustworthy are the industrial strength elephant stoppers installed by local authorities or guides in France. Some of the stuff in the Peak is not inspiring esp the glue in staples but that's another thread
Let us not kid ourselves that sport climbing is not inherently risky, and let us us not throw ourselves on unknown potentially dodgy bolted climbs willy nilly.
BS
In reply to JimR:
Try this experiment.
Tie a bucket of water onto a length of 10.5 mm rope and hang it from something, a branch or garage ceiling joist etc
Now gently brush a razor blade agianst the sheath.
The Ent
Try this experiment.
Tie a bucket of water onto a length of 10.5 mm rope and hang it from something, a branch or garage ceiling joist etc
Now gently brush a razor blade agianst the sheath.
The Ent
In reply to Grimpeur ancien:
I would have been pretty daft, given the subject, not to say 'as long as...' We have tragically seen the outcome. For your information I have placed thousands of bolts in hundreds of routes (8 of them on Peak limestone), so the rather patronising 'ever heard of' phrase is rather unwarranted. You imply completely wrongly that a bolt cannot be relied upon if an outward pull is applied. This is a completely nonsensical statement. Scott Titt manufactures bolts - see what he has to say about what I said. If your implication was correct, then Britain, no, the world, would be full of dead sports climbers. Oh, and I am one of those 'guides in France'.
I would have been pretty daft, given the subject, not to say 'as long as...' We have tragically seen the outcome. For your information I have placed thousands of bolts in hundreds of routes (8 of them on Peak limestone), so the rather patronising 'ever heard of' phrase is rather unwarranted. You imply completely wrongly that a bolt cannot be relied upon if an outward pull is applied. This is a completely nonsensical statement. Scott Titt manufactures bolts - see what he has to say about what I said. If your implication was correct, then Britain, no, the world, would be full of dead sports climbers. Oh, and I am one of those 'guides in France'.
In reply to Alan_2468:
Yes but we are not discussing loose bolts here. This type of bolt are intended to be a light drive fit in the rock and any outward pull forces the sleeve or clip to slide up the cone whereupon it locks in place.
If you have too large a hole or the rock is too soft to engage the clip initially then you will know this as you are unable to apply the required torque to the bolt without it extracting, this is why these type of bolt are correctly called "torque controlled anchors" and they come under ETA-05/0162E or others. If they start pulling before the proof torque is achieved then you need to change to another type of anchor, usually an undercut anchor for better soft rock performance or chemically fastened.
The failure mode of a loose bolt (one that does not engage) axially loaded is the bolt bends a bit and the rock crumbles under the bend, the bolt moves out a bit and this is repeated until the final bend (which will be quite sharp) overloads the rock and the bolt comes out, in average limestone a 10mm bolt could probably hold 20kN. I make aid studs from 6mm bar which are driven in and work this way and I´ve seen 12kN in granite in this mode. However, since one knows from torquing the bolt up that it has gripped this should never be a situation which occurs with responsible and informed bolting.
In reply to jon
While there are some claims made about the double clip type one should note that both the single and double clip bolts are rated for the same concrete grades (ETA 00/0004)and in fact Fischer/Upat say the single clip version gives the highest holding power. They say the double clip version gives doubled safety. In their technical data they give higher values for the single clip version.
The problem drilling in concrete is that inevitably one hits the aggregate and sometimes this will disentegrate under drilling leaving nothing for a clip to engage in, with two there is a good chance one will grip somewhere.
For climbers this isn´t very likely.
Too short a bolt is definately the wrong bolt, though some other posters on the subject should note that the required depth for EN959 is only 5 times the nominal diameter. The answer is know your rock!
Looseness of the nut really doesn´t matter, when you start loading lots of horrible things happen, rock crumbles, the hanger bends etc and the bolt is moved out about 5-7mm and starts to take up a sort of S shape because of the leverage on the nut, they stretch a bit in this area about another 5mm and then fail with a bang. Stainless steel is not very ductile at this stage!
Jim
Yes but we are not discussing loose bolts here. This type of bolt are intended to be a light drive fit in the rock and any outward pull forces the sleeve or clip to slide up the cone whereupon it locks in place.
If you have too large a hole or the rock is too soft to engage the clip initially then you will know this as you are unable to apply the required torque to the bolt without it extracting, this is why these type of bolt are correctly called "torque controlled anchors" and they come under ETA-05/0162E or others. If they start pulling before the proof torque is achieved then you need to change to another type of anchor, usually an undercut anchor for better soft rock performance or chemically fastened.
The failure mode of a loose bolt (one that does not engage) axially loaded is the bolt bends a bit and the rock crumbles under the bend, the bolt moves out a bit and this is repeated until the final bend (which will be quite sharp) overloads the rock and the bolt comes out, in average limestone a 10mm bolt could probably hold 20kN. I make aid studs from 6mm bar which are driven in and work this way and I´ve seen 12kN in granite in this mode. However, since one knows from torquing the bolt up that it has gripped this should never be a situation which occurs with responsible and informed bolting.
In reply to jon
While there are some claims made about the double clip type one should note that both the single and double clip bolts are rated for the same concrete grades (ETA 00/0004)and in fact Fischer/Upat say the single clip version gives the highest holding power. They say the double clip version gives doubled safety. In their technical data they give higher values for the single clip version.
The problem drilling in concrete is that inevitably one hits the aggregate and sometimes this will disentegrate under drilling leaving nothing for a clip to engage in, with two there is a good chance one will grip somewhere.
For climbers this isn´t very likely.
Too short a bolt is definately the wrong bolt, though some other posters on the subject should note that the required depth for EN959 is only 5 times the nominal diameter. The answer is know your rock!
Looseness of the nut really doesn´t matter, when you start loading lots of horrible things happen, rock crumbles, the hanger bends etc and the bolt is moved out about 5-7mm and starts to take up a sort of S shape because of the leverage on the nut, they stretch a bit in this area about another 5mm and then fail with a bang. Stainless steel is not very ductile at this stage!
Jim
In reply to jon:
Ere! I´m Jim, the other one is Scott!!!!
Ere! I´m Jim, the other one is Scott!!!!
In reply to JimR:
I don't think so necessarily: presumably the rope would be cut pretty much instantaneously (or could have been) without, as it were, having time to pull the belayer off.
But in causation terms I don't see that it matters. If the belay would likely have blown anyway then whether the rope broke because by the belayer's random good luck they were using a defective one, or because it was normal enough for it to break in the circumstances, doesn't matter: it was still not the cause of the climber's death, since once he was off he was dead whether it broke or not.
jcm
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> That's what's puzzling me, cos it makes me think that the rope must have failed at much less than full load. If full load had come on (unless the belayer had been braced in a position in the scoop to be able to take a significant load) then he would surely have been snatched off the ledge by the force of the factor 2 ?
>
> That's what's puzzling me, cos it makes me think that the rope must have failed at much less than full load. If full load had come on (unless the belayer had been braced in a position in the scoop to be able to take a significant load) then he would surely have been snatched off the ledge by the force of the factor 2 ?
I don't think so necessarily: presumably the rope would be cut pretty much instantaneously (or could have been) without, as it were, having time to pull the belayer off.
But in causation terms I don't see that it matters. If the belay would likely have blown anyway then whether the rope broke because by the belayer's random good luck they were using a defective one, or because it was normal enough for it to break in the circumstances, doesn't matter: it was still not the cause of the climber's death, since once he was off he was dead whether it broke or not.
jcm
In reply to jimtitt:
Jim,
Oh yes, while you're there... 'stainless steel isn't very ductile...' How very true, but in differing amounts. I had a batch of UPAT 10mm bolts and could break them off with one blow of a (not very heavy) hammer. The RAUMER ones I've used lately are far more ductile. Is this just me or do you know of anyone who's had the same experience. Jon
Jim,
Oh yes, while you're there... 'stainless steel isn't very ductile...' How very true, but in differing amounts. I had a batch of UPAT 10mm bolts and could break them off with one blow of a (not very heavy) hammer. The RAUMER ones I've used lately are far more ductile. Is this just me or do you know of anyone who's had the same experience. Jon
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Do you not think in the event of a FF2 - which is an enormous force, that the belay must have been loaded. A person sitting on a ledge surely couldn't hold that fall without being moved.
Do you not think in the event of a FF2 - which is an enormous force, that the belay must have been loaded. A person sitting on a ledge surely couldn't hold that fall without being moved.
In reply to jon:
Well, he never had to hold it really, did he, because the rope broke. The short answer is that I don't know, but I don't find it unlikely that the rope parted so quickly once loaded that no real force came on the belayer at all; maybe for example because it was still stretching?
jcm
Well, he never had to hold it really, did he, because the rope broke. The short answer is that I don't know, but I don't find it unlikely that the rope parted so quickly once loaded that no real force came on the belayer at all; maybe for example because it was still stretching?
jcm
In reply to Enty:
Ok just done that, the garage floor is now wet and my 60m rope is now 58m but I'm not sure what I've proved apart from the fact that my garage floor is very dirty?
Seriously though, I am aware that with regard to sharp edges energy absorption and transmission are complex but I am surprised that in this case, given the belay situation, that the rope would cut without a very significant force being exerted on the belayer.
> (In reply to JimR)
>
> Try this experiment.
>
> Tie a bucket of water onto a length of 10.5 mm rope and hang it from something, a branch or garage ceiling joist etc
>
> Now gently brush a razor blade agianst the sheath.
>
> The Ent
>
> Try this experiment.
>
> Tie a bucket of water onto a length of 10.5 mm rope and hang it from something, a branch or garage ceiling joist etc
>
> Now gently brush a razor blade agianst the sheath.
>
> The Ent
Ok just done that, the garage floor is now wet and my 60m rope is now 58m but I'm not sure what I've proved apart from the fact that my garage floor is very dirty?
Seriously though, I am aware that with regard to sharp edges energy absorption and transmission are complex but I am surprised that in this case, given the belay situation, that the rope would cut without a very significant force being exerted on the belayer.
In reply to jon:
No, no reports but both brands aren´t all that common. Most people buy Fischer rather than Upat because that the way they are marketed if you see what I mean. Raumer tend to be available in Italy and the East Block but they come and go from the market rather.
The real Rolls Royce are from MKT in Switzerland, they are so nice you don´t want to put them in the rock. The price is up there with the quality!
Jim
No, no reports but both brands aren´t all that common. Most people buy Fischer rather than Upat because that the way they are marketed if you see what I mean. Raumer tend to be available in Italy and the East Block but they come and go from the market rather.
The real Rolls Royce are from MKT in Switzerland, they are so nice you don´t want to put them in the rock. The price is up there with the quality!
Jim
In reply to JimR:
Well obviously my point is that you don't need much energy to cut a rope.
I once uncoiled a rope out on the floor in Bus Stop Quarry - it was never weighted in any way but when I coiled it back up it had a cut halfway through the sheath and cores.
The Ent
Well obviously my point is that you don't need much energy to cut a rope.
I once uncoiled a rope out on the floor in Bus Stop Quarry - it was never weighted in any way but when I coiled it back up it had a cut halfway through the sheath and cores.
The Ent
In reply to Enty:
Sorry but I don't believe that. It must have been weighted in some way for that to happen .... either that or I'd start watching my back if I were you.
Sorry but I don't believe that. It must have been weighted in some way for that to happen .... either that or I'd start watching my back if I were you.
We won't know about this unless the belayer tells us, but it's very possible he had braced himself in such a way as not to load the bolt.
I say this because, with a background in trad climbing, I've more than once been in a situation where I haven't entirely trusted my belay and so I've positioned myself in such a way that any fall would load me before the belay.
According to the report, the belayer was on a good ledge, and he may have decided that he didn't want to load a single bolt in soft rock unless absolutely necessary. That way, the rope could have been stressed, making the cut easier, without loading the belay bolt.
Speculation, I know, but worth bearing in mind.
Thanks to Jim Titt for the info on bolts.
I say this because, with a background in trad climbing, I've more than once been in a situation where I haven't entirely trusted my belay and so I've positioned myself in such a way that any fall would load me before the belay.
According to the report, the belayer was on a good ledge, and he may have decided that he didn't want to load a single bolt in soft rock unless absolutely necessary. That way, the rope could have been stressed, making the cut easier, without loading the belay bolt.
Speculation, I know, but worth bearing in mind.
Thanks to Jim Titt for the info on bolts.
In reply to JimR:
Reading the notes at the bottom of the two blogs and the clarifications in the second, plus the topo on the Croatian site linked the comments on one of the blogs, the situation seems to be they were on the last and hardest bit of a route they didn't intend to climb but near the top. One tried the escape pitch but couldn't do the moves between the 2nd and 3rd bolt, so backed down to a ledge (not the normal belay ledge) just below the 1st bolt and brought his partner up.
He tried the pitch and eventually made himself a stick to try and clip the 3rd bolt while hanging on the 2nd... the 1st bolt (now the only belay) was not clipped for some reason. To do this he pulled out a long bight of their single rope and it was while trying to clip the bolt using the stick, above the difficult move (several grades harder than what was before, Oz scale) that the bolt pulled out, doubtless due to the movement and poor holding power in the soft rock.
So, coming back to the rope issue, the amount of rope out was increased by the long bight and when the rope came tight on the belayer it was straight onto him without going through any other gear. Presumably, the belayer could say more exactly, the rope came tight on him but he was sufficiently well braced to take some of the strain but the rope then cut on the sharp edge before he was pulled onto the bolt.
So this sounds altogether plausible, and doesn't imply necessarily a fault in the rope even if it must have been a bit of very bad luck that the rope sliced along the edge and cut so easily.
I expect drawing a conclusion will attract more ire and insults, but never mind, the obvious one is that if he had been on double ropes, one rope could have been used to try and clip while the other was used to protect the leader and this would have reduced the run out. Why they didn't clip into the 1st bolt (now the improvised belay) is not clear, perhaps for fear that a fall would pull this and the second? We don't know.
Whatever, the result with two ropes could still have been the same but this is by no means certain. It was an unfortunate accident but if these sharp rocks are commonplace in the area it might be best to avoid climbing near them, and at least take a double rope... in this case it sounds like there were a series of factors leading to a situation that could have ended in a long remembered epic - above the 3rd bolt it was easier ground - but finally ended in tragedy.
Reading the notes at the bottom of the two blogs and the clarifications in the second, plus the topo on the Croatian site linked the comments on one of the blogs, the situation seems to be they were on the last and hardest bit of a route they didn't intend to climb but near the top. One tried the escape pitch but couldn't do the moves between the 2nd and 3rd bolt, so backed down to a ledge (not the normal belay ledge) just below the 1st bolt and brought his partner up.
He tried the pitch and eventually made himself a stick to try and clip the 3rd bolt while hanging on the 2nd... the 1st bolt (now the only belay) was not clipped for some reason. To do this he pulled out a long bight of their single rope and it was while trying to clip the bolt using the stick, above the difficult move (several grades harder than what was before, Oz scale) that the bolt pulled out, doubtless due to the movement and poor holding power in the soft rock.
So, coming back to the rope issue, the amount of rope out was increased by the long bight and when the rope came tight on the belayer it was straight onto him without going through any other gear. Presumably, the belayer could say more exactly, the rope came tight on him but he was sufficiently well braced to take some of the strain but the rope then cut on the sharp edge before he was pulled onto the bolt.
So this sounds altogether plausible, and doesn't imply necessarily a fault in the rope even if it must have been a bit of very bad luck that the rope sliced along the edge and cut so easily.
I expect drawing a conclusion will attract more ire and insults, but never mind, the obvious one is that if he had been on double ropes, one rope could have been used to try and clip while the other was used to protect the leader and this would have reduced the run out. Why they didn't clip into the 1st bolt (now the improvised belay) is not clear, perhaps for fear that a fall would pull this and the second? We don't know.
Whatever, the result with two ropes could still have been the same but this is by no means certain. It was an unfortunate accident but if these sharp rocks are commonplace in the area it might be best to avoid climbing near them, and at least take a double rope... in this case it sounds like there were a series of factors leading to a situation that could have ended in a long remembered epic - above the 3rd bolt it was easier ground - but finally ended in tragedy.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Using two ropes in the manner you describe will not reduce the fall factor. I don't think for a moment that the condition of the rope was a determining factor in the end result.
Using two ropes in the manner you describe will not reduce the fall factor. I don't think for a moment that the condition of the rope was a determining factor in the end result.
In reply to jimtitt:
Jim, out of interest, if you were to test bolts in shear (I'm not sure if this is radially or axially!) in a block of steel instead of rock (where the crumbling of the rock is a factor), would you get the same results ie 1. would the actual load at which the bolt snapped be the same, 2. would the fact that the nut was tightened or not be more of a factor than it would be in rock?
Jim, out of interest, if you were to test bolts in shear (I'm not sure if this is radially or axially!) in a block of steel instead of rock (where the crumbling of the rock is a factor), would you get the same results ie 1. would the actual load at which the bolt snapped be the same, 2. would the fact that the nut was tightened or not be more of a factor than it would be in rock?
In reply to jon:
If one went straight to the leader rather than having a long bit of slack it would... the rope snagged on the edge so reducing the speed of the climbers fall before this occurred would surely reduce the strain? It's not a situation akin to perfect pulleys or falling free of the rock onto the belay, is it? Also the first rope would come tight, breaking the fall a bit before the second one tightened, one of the two might miss the sharp bit... it might make a difference.
Anyway, it won't change anything in this case, although it might help reduce the chance of similar events.
If one went straight to the leader rather than having a long bit of slack it would... the rope snagged on the edge so reducing the speed of the climbers fall before this occurred would surely reduce the strain? It's not a situation akin to perfect pulleys or falling free of the rock onto the belay, is it? Also the first rope would come tight, breaking the fall a bit before the second one tightened, one of the two might miss the sharp bit... it might make a difference.
Anyway, it won't change anything in this case, although it might help reduce the chance of similar events.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
What you suggest is certainly possible and indeed could have had an influence on the outcome. My point was that 2m or 10m of rope out doesn't change the FF - it's still 2. Bear in mind also, in your double rope scenario, that a skinny half rope cuts far more easily than a fat single.
What you suggest is certainly possible and indeed could have had an influence on the outcome. My point was that 2m or 10m of rope out doesn't change the FF - it's still 2. Bear in mind also, in your double rope scenario, that a skinny half rope cuts far more easily than a fat single.
In reply to jon:
I know this is what they say but I have my doubts in real situations... if the rope tightened sooner he could be pulled into the lower ledge, or there would be less opportunities for the rope to snag on a sharp edge. I've always had trouble believing that for a leader fall having loads of slack in the rope doesn't make things worse.
I know this is what they say but I have my doubts in real situations... if the rope tightened sooner he could be pulled into the lower ledge, or there would be less opportunities for the rope to snag on a sharp edge. I've always had trouble believing that for a leader fall having loads of slack in the rope doesn't make things worse.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Normally more slack leads to a much softer fall - assuming you've got some protection in! If your belayer takes in very tight when you scream take...(that's sports speak for I'm going to fall off) it hurts and can swing you violently into the rock. Obviously if you are going to hit the ground, then thats a bit different.
In this instance no matter how much we debate it, we won't know any more than the facts as they have been presented by Simon, and neither will it change anything.
> (In reply to jon)
>
> I know this is what they say but I have my doubts in real situations... if the rope tightened sooner he could be pulled into the lower ledge, or there would be less opportunities for the rope to snag on a sharp edge. I've always had trouble believing that for a leader fall having loads of slack in the rope doesn't make things worse.
>
> I know this is what they say but I have my doubts in real situations... if the rope tightened sooner he could be pulled into the lower ledge, or there would be less opportunities for the rope to snag on a sharp edge. I've always had trouble believing that for a leader fall having loads of slack in the rope doesn't make things worse.
Normally more slack leads to a much softer fall - assuming you've got some protection in! If your belayer takes in very tight when you scream take...(that's sports speak for I'm going to fall off) it hurts and can swing you violently into the rock. Obviously if you are going to hit the ground, then thats a bit different.
In this instance no matter how much we debate it, we won't know any more than the facts as they have been presented by Simon, and neither will it change anything.
In reply to jon:
It just seems intuitively wrong that a 1 ft factor 2, generates the same impact force as a 150ft factor 2 .. I know the rationale is that the rope stretch absorbs the additional energy but nevertheless
It just seems intuitively wrong that a 1 ft factor 2, generates the same impact force as a 150ft factor 2 .. I know the rationale is that the rope stretch absorbs the additional energy but nevertheless
In reply to JimR:
Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
Apparently they should.
Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
Apparently they should.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Just try and look at it this way. What they should not do is say take it in as tight as you can - EVEN if that is what they would like. Have YOU fallen off a route? If so you will / would understand a little better.
> (In reply to JimR)
>
> Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
>
> Apparently they should.
>
> Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
>
> Apparently they should.
Just try and look at it this way. What they should not do is say take it in as tight as you can - EVEN if that is what they would like. Have YOU fallen off a route? If so you will / would understand a little better.
In reply to jon:
I've fallen of loads of routes (although of late I only fall off boulders at Fontainebleau, I haven't had a lead fall in the mountains for a long time) and if I knew it was coming I always said something like "Careful, I'm coming off." to attract his attention (or wake him up) and to take in any spare slack. It's what anyone I've ever climbed with has done too. Not tight enough to pull me off, obviously.
What do you do, ask for slack before flying?
I've fallen of loads of routes (although of late I only fall off boulders at Fontainebleau, I haven't had a lead fall in the mountains for a long time) and if I knew it was coming I always said something like "Careful, I'm coming off." to attract his attention (or wake him up) and to take in any spare slack. It's what anyone I've ever climbed with has done too. Not tight enough to pull me off, obviously.
What do you do, ask for slack before flying?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No, Bruce. If you bothered to look back you'll find that you said it.
> (In reply to jon)
>
>
> What do you do, ask for slack before flying?
>
>
> What do you do, ask for slack before flying?
No, Bruce. If you bothered to look back you'll find that you said it.
In reply to jon:
Not I, I have said consistently that I think reducing the slack is better, although many say the opposite. Jim made the same remark as I did.
Back to the subject, with two ropes one could have been used to protect the leader while the other is available for rope tricks, like trying to clip a higher bolt or to lower off from a piece of gear if one cannot continue because it's too hard, or you get off route, for example. In the latter example, lowering off, with just one rope if the gear pulls out you are in for a long fall, whereas with two ropes you are protected by the second rope which is not being used for lowering. Just reasons for using two ropes instead of one, even if this is standard practice in some countries, on bolted cliffs in Burgundy, for example.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> No, Bruce. If you bothered to look back you'll find that you said it.
> [...]
>
> No, Bruce. If you bothered to look back you'll find that you said it.
Not I, I have said consistently that I think reducing the slack is better, although many say the opposite. Jim made the same remark as I did.
Back to the subject, with two ropes one could have been used to protect the leader while the other is available for rope tricks, like trying to clip a higher bolt or to lower off from a piece of gear if one cannot continue because it's too hard, or you get off route, for example. In the latter example, lowering off, with just one rope if the gear pulls out you are in for a long fall, whereas with two ropes you are protected by the second rope which is not being used for lowering. Just reasons for using two ropes instead of one, even if this is standard practice in some countries, on bolted cliffs in Burgundy, for example.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
That looks suspiciously like what you said you didn't say.
Look Bruce, I'm not completely dumb. I know what you are banging on about with the 2 ropes. But you don't seem to have grasped the basics of what fall factor two means. When you have maybe what I have said may have some meaning to you.
> (In reply to JimR)
>
> Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
>
> Apparently they should.
>
> Quite, I've never heard anyone shout "Let out a bit, I'm gonna fall off!"
>
> Apparently they should.
That looks suspiciously like what you said you didn't say.
Look Bruce, I'm not completely dumb. I know what you are banging on about with the 2 ropes. But you don't seem to have grasped the basics of what fall factor two means. When you have maybe what I have said may have some meaning to you.
In reply to jon:
You don't seem to have understood this.... I say I have never heard anyone say this, and then "apparently they should", meaning according to other people. This means I don't think this... it's clear enough.
Why so shirty all of a sudden?
As for the fall factor business, I'm not convinced this is an adequate model of comparing the gravity of falls in real situations. In the laboratory, testing gear it may have, but for a falling climber, or concerning places littered with sharp edges or spike to snag or cut the rope, and in which the velocity of the falling climber is major factor of danger, things are different.
To say a short fall onto a solid anchor and a much longer fall onto a solid anchor with the same fall factor are equally dangerous is a risky simplification. If this man had fallen just a few metres there would have been far less likely to happen onto a sharp edge than with a longer fall (in general, the exact layout could mean this wasn't the case here, but in general it would be). Also, a leader taking a long fall will attain a very high velocity and if there's anything in the way will be injured badly, for a short fall again this is less likely. People put too much importance on fall factors IMO.
I know what fall factor means so I don't think snide remarks are called for really... usually ukc doesn't have this effect so rapidly
You don't seem to have understood this.... I say I have never heard anyone say this, and then "apparently they should", meaning according to other people. This means I don't think this... it's clear enough.
Why so shirty all of a sudden?
As for the fall factor business, I'm not convinced this is an adequate model of comparing the gravity of falls in real situations. In the laboratory, testing gear it may have, but for a falling climber, or concerning places littered with sharp edges or spike to snag or cut the rope, and in which the velocity of the falling climber is major factor of danger, things are different.
To say a short fall onto a solid anchor and a much longer fall onto a solid anchor with the same fall factor are equally dangerous is a risky simplification. If this man had fallen just a few metres there would have been far less likely to happen onto a sharp edge than with a longer fall (in general, the exact layout could mean this wasn't the case here, but in general it would be). Also, a leader taking a long fall will attain a very high velocity and if there's anything in the way will be injured badly, for a short fall again this is less likely. People put too much importance on fall factors IMO.
I know what fall factor means so I don't think snide remarks are called for really... usually ukc doesn't have this effect so rapidly
In reply to jon:
Charming!
But saying that a 100 foot fall is no worse than a 10 foot one (which is what saying the "fall factor" is the main measure of severity of a fall amounts to) sounds pretty irresponsible to me, especially for someone who says he is a guide.
Charming!
But saying that a 100 foot fall is no worse than a 10 foot one (which is what saying the "fall factor" is the main measure of severity of a fall amounts to) sounds pretty irresponsible to me, especially for someone who says he is a guide.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Presumably you mean gravity not in the literal sense?
Everybody knows that falls factors are just a model and other factors are important real world situations, but you don't seem to get the physics with you reply. A factor 1 fall is a factor 1 fall, doesn't matter if its a bigger one or a smaller one. Other risk factors are, well, other risk factors.
> As for the fall factor business, I'm not convinced this is an adequate model of comparing the gravity of falls in real situations.
Presumably you mean gravity not in the literal sense?
Everybody knows that falls factors are just a model and other factors are important real world situations, but you don't seem to get the physics with you reply. A factor 1 fall is a factor 1 fall, doesn't matter if its a bigger one or a smaller one. Other risk factors are, well, other risk factors.
In reply to TobyA:
The fall factor gives a approximation of the load on the gear and climber, but it shouldn't be seen as the only way of measuring the severity (gravity = "graveness", not just the force of attraction between bodies that) of a climbing fall. For example in this case, if the fall had been 10 feet instead of the much longer one that happened the rope wouldn't have cut and the climber wouldn't have been killed, probably.
People tend to latch on to this fall factor thing, to quote a web site that should know better "The distance fallen isn't important on its own and in some situations longer falls are safer than shorter ones, which is contrary to what most people might expect." It's certainly contrary to my belief as the actual velocity of my falling body, when it crunches into something on the way down, knows the difference between a 10 foot and a 100 foot fall! They do at least add "in some situations".
A classic case of a little science being a bad thing.
The fall factor gives a approximation of the load on the gear and climber, but it shouldn't be seen as the only way of measuring the severity (gravity = "graveness", not just the force of attraction between bodies that) of a climbing fall. For example in this case, if the fall had been 10 feet instead of the much longer one that happened the rope wouldn't have cut and the climber wouldn't have been killed, probably.
People tend to latch on to this fall factor thing, to quote a web site that should know better "The distance fallen isn't important on its own and in some situations longer falls are safer than shorter ones, which is contrary to what most people might expect." It's certainly contrary to my belief as the actual velocity of my falling body, when it crunches into something on the way down, knows the difference between a 10 foot and a 100 foot fall! They do at least add "in some situations".
A classic case of a little science being a bad thing.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=647
Looks like a good, clear, informative article to me.
The concluding paragraph begins:
"So are long falls safe?
Far from it, since there are many other crucial factors you need to consider."
Did you read that far, or just stop when you reached the bit you thought proved your point?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=647
Looks like a good, clear, informative article to me.
The concluding paragraph begins:
"So are long falls safe?
Far from it, since there are many other crucial factors you need to consider."
Did you read that far, or just stop when you reached the bit you thought proved your point?
> the rope wouldn't have cut and the climber wouldn't have been killed, probably.
If the rope hadn't been severed, it seems much more likely that both climbers would have been killed. Did you read Simon Carter's report?In reply to deepsoup:
How many time do I have to say I read the reports - there wasn't just one, I watched the video, read all the comments after the blogs (one where he admitted that the Croatians had denied his assertion that they had been warned about the bolts - not in either of the actual reports)? I also looked at the Croation web sites which I couldn't read but the photo of the two routes was clear.
We can't be sure that the belay wouldn't have held, assuming that this was the case seems rather harsh on the two climbers... and would not be the general case hopefully.
PS. Have you read Boris Cujic's reply on the other thread? I think we all should.
> If the rope hadn't been severed, it seems much more likely that both climbers would have been killed. Did you read Simon Carter's report?
How many time do I have to say I read the reports - there wasn't just one, I watched the video, read all the comments after the blogs (one where he admitted that the Croatians had denied his assertion that they had been warned about the bolts - not in either of the actual reports)? I also looked at the Croation web sites which I couldn't read but the photo of the two routes was clear.
We can't be sure that the belay wouldn't have held, assuming that this was the case seems rather harsh on the two climbers... and would not be the general case hopefully.
PS. Have you read Boris Cujic's reply on the other thread? I think we all should.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Having spent the day pulling the heads off whippets, I feel better. You are rather sad to be in front of your computer at 6 o'clock in the morning, old chap.
When you quote things, you are very selective and you tend to ignore essential little bits that don't fit in with your argument. It comes of arguing from a less than solid standpoint. For instance in the above quote you chose to ignore "... isn't important ON ITS OWN...", though you do acknowledge the phrase"...in some situations..." This is what has been said all along. For instance I said, some way back, relating to the double rope issue that you keep coming back to, "What you suggest is certainly possible and indeed could have had an influence on the outcome". How can that be any clearer?
A fall factor is a means of designating a particular situation, but due to the infinite number of variables cannot be quantified in numbers etc. Take a situation which I have often found myself in, that is faced with very hard moves off a belay to reach the first point of protection - let's say for sake of argument a bolt, 4m away. I am faced with a FF2 if I fall whilst trying to reach the bolt. Doesn't matter if it's 4m or 6m, it's FF2. It is a very dangerous situation to be in and a very painful thing for a second to hold. It is a situation to be avoided. My solution (and probably that of a lot of climbers) would be to pre-empt it, and pre-clip the bolt on reaching the belay and then lower back to the belay so that I would be protected when I set off again. In this case the FF involved in reaching it would be almost nonexistent although the fall would still be the same. Another solution would be to lower my second down to the last bolt of the pitch below (let's say 4m down) and to use the belay as my first runner. I am still faced with the same fall, but this time if I fall it's a FF1 which is still acceptable. In both instances I would have avoided a FF2.
We as Brits have always had rather conflicting ideas regarding ropes... on the one hand lots of people still wander round glaciers using a full weight rope, but when it comes to rockclimbing seem happy to separate our double ropes and clip just one into each point of protection. From your leafy suburbs of Paris you have an admiration for all things French, and so you'll be delighted to learn that it was our friends here at ENSA that used FFs to designate what ropes were appropriate for different activities. For instance for glacier travel it is impossible to achieve a FF2 and therefore a full weight (what we now call a single) rope is unnecessary and in fact, as long as it's dynamic, an 8mm is acceptable. Then come the practical issues involved in handling such a thin rope and so it's now more or less accepted that a half rope (if you like a 9mm) is a good compromise.
Before I bore the pants off everyone, including myself, I'd like to make 2 observations:
1. Of the 14 or so climbing related photos on your gallery, 4 have your partner leading with bolt protection. I hope you didn't second these climbs. (one even shows the cad wearing shorts...)
2. They are not chamois, they are bouquetins - you'll know what I'm referring to.
I can't believe I wrote all that. Sad or what.
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
> The fall factor gives a approximation of the load on the gear and climber, but it shouldn't be seen as the only way of measuring the severity (gravity = "graveness", not just the force of attraction between bodies that) of a climbing fall. For example in this case, if the fall had been 10 feet instead of the much longer one that happened the rope wouldn't have cut and the climber wouldn't have been killed, probably.
>
> People tend to latch on to this fall factor thing, to quote a web site that should know better "The distance fallen isn't important on its own and in some situations longer falls are safer than shorter ones, which is contrary to what most people might expect." It's certainly contrary to my belief as the actual velocity of my falling body, when it crunches into something on the way down, knows the difference between a 10 foot and a 100 foot fall! They do at least add "in some situations".
>
> A classic case of a little science being a bad thing.
>
> The fall factor gives a approximation of the load on the gear and climber, but it shouldn't be seen as the only way of measuring the severity (gravity = "graveness", not just the force of attraction between bodies that) of a climbing fall. For example in this case, if the fall had been 10 feet instead of the much longer one that happened the rope wouldn't have cut and the climber wouldn't have been killed, probably.
>
> People tend to latch on to this fall factor thing, to quote a web site that should know better "The distance fallen isn't important on its own and in some situations longer falls are safer than shorter ones, which is contrary to what most people might expect." It's certainly contrary to my belief as the actual velocity of my falling body, when it crunches into something on the way down, knows the difference between a 10 foot and a 100 foot fall! They do at least add "in some situations".
>
> A classic case of a little science being a bad thing.
Having spent the day pulling the heads off whippets, I feel better. You are rather sad to be in front of your computer at 6 o'clock in the morning, old chap.
When you quote things, you are very selective and you tend to ignore essential little bits that don't fit in with your argument. It comes of arguing from a less than solid standpoint. For instance in the above quote you chose to ignore "... isn't important ON ITS OWN...", though you do acknowledge the phrase"...in some situations..." This is what has been said all along. For instance I said, some way back, relating to the double rope issue that you keep coming back to, "What you suggest is certainly possible and indeed could have had an influence on the outcome". How can that be any clearer?
A fall factor is a means of designating a particular situation, but due to the infinite number of variables cannot be quantified in numbers etc. Take a situation which I have often found myself in, that is faced with very hard moves off a belay to reach the first point of protection - let's say for sake of argument a bolt, 4m away. I am faced with a FF2 if I fall whilst trying to reach the bolt. Doesn't matter if it's 4m or 6m, it's FF2. It is a very dangerous situation to be in and a very painful thing for a second to hold. It is a situation to be avoided. My solution (and probably that of a lot of climbers) would be to pre-empt it, and pre-clip the bolt on reaching the belay and then lower back to the belay so that I would be protected when I set off again. In this case the FF involved in reaching it would be almost nonexistent although the fall would still be the same. Another solution would be to lower my second down to the last bolt of the pitch below (let's say 4m down) and to use the belay as my first runner. I am still faced with the same fall, but this time if I fall it's a FF1 which is still acceptable. In both instances I would have avoided a FF2.
We as Brits have always had rather conflicting ideas regarding ropes... on the one hand lots of people still wander round glaciers using a full weight rope, but when it comes to rockclimbing seem happy to separate our double ropes and clip just one into each point of protection. From your leafy suburbs of Paris you have an admiration for all things French, and so you'll be delighted to learn that it was our friends here at ENSA that used FFs to designate what ropes were appropriate for different activities. For instance for glacier travel it is impossible to achieve a FF2 and therefore a full weight (what we now call a single) rope is unnecessary and in fact, as long as it's dynamic, an 8mm is acceptable. Then come the practical issues involved in handling such a thin rope and so it's now more or less accepted that a half rope (if you like a 9mm) is a good compromise.
Before I bore the pants off everyone, including myself, I'd like to make 2 observations:
1. Of the 14 or so climbing related photos on your gallery, 4 have your partner leading with bolt protection. I hope you didn't second these climbs. (one even shows the cad wearing shorts...)
2. They are not chamois, they are bouquetins - you'll know what I'm referring to.
I can't believe I wrote all that. Sad or what.
In reply to jon:
I'm in France, it was 7 here, I always wake up about then.
Concerning ropes, I've been using double 9mm ropes since I started climbing in 1969, or just one on easy climbs... My present ropes are 8.6mm which is about the same, so there is nothing particularly recent about this choice. I always alternate leads so sometimes I'm looking up sometimes down, but looking up makes a better photo... If your point is that I appear to have a thing against bolts, then this is true but in France nowadays even the mountain crags are bolted, it's hard to avoid them if you want to climb.
They undoubtedly make life easier, route finding is often a case of looking for the next bolt, and you can usually get by with minimal gear, but perhaps that's one of the problems... the attitudes this breeds leads to dependence on others and a lowering of general caution and individual responsibility that, when something untoward happens; like getting lost, missing or damaged gear, inability to find or use the abseil descents (what do you do with no pegs or hammer, 1000 feet off the deck and unable to find the abseil stations?) and so on.
This to some extent, if you read the details of this accident, how it happened precisely, give a partial explanation to the event and also explains the extreme vehemence of what, to caricature grossly, I would call the pro-bolting lobby. They see a long line of perfectly solid bolts a right, and when faced with less perfect gear cry murder and demand court action. It's the insidious side of the sports-climbing/blame-compensation culture ethic.
PS. Of 76 photos, nearly all are climbing related, including racketing in the Vosges, and the Bolivian girls were in the Cordillera Real, on the way up to base camp. UKC only allows climbing related photos. I've looked twice but I can't see any Chamois! Unless you mean on my web site.
> You are rather sad to be in front of your computer at 6 o'clock in the morning, old chap.
I'm in France, it was 7 here, I always wake up about then.
Concerning ropes, I've been using double 9mm ropes since I started climbing in 1969, or just one on easy climbs... My present ropes are 8.6mm which is about the same, so there is nothing particularly recent about this choice. I always alternate leads so sometimes I'm looking up sometimes down, but looking up makes a better photo... If your point is that I appear to have a thing against bolts, then this is true but in France nowadays even the mountain crags are bolted, it's hard to avoid them if you want to climb.
They undoubtedly make life easier, route finding is often a case of looking for the next bolt, and you can usually get by with minimal gear, but perhaps that's one of the problems... the attitudes this breeds leads to dependence on others and a lowering of general caution and individual responsibility that, when something untoward happens; like getting lost, missing or damaged gear, inability to find or use the abseil descents (what do you do with no pegs or hammer, 1000 feet off the deck and unable to find the abseil stations?) and so on.
This to some extent, if you read the details of this accident, how it happened precisely, give a partial explanation to the event and also explains the extreme vehemence of what, to caricature grossly, I would call the pro-bolting lobby. They see a long line of perfectly solid bolts a right, and when faced with less perfect gear cry murder and demand court action. It's the insidious side of the sports-climbing/blame-compensation culture ethic.
PS. Of 76 photos, nearly all are climbing related, including racketing in the Vosges, and the Bolivian girls were in the Cordillera Real, on the way up to base camp. UKC only allows climbing related photos. I've looked twice but I can't see any Chamois! Unless you mean on my web site.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Still, 7am, straight in front of the screen before breakfast...
A sweeping generalisation to say it's hard to avoid bolts in the mountains. It's not true. It's easy if you want to.
Perhaps I should have said 'rock climbing related'...
Yes, exactly, I couldn't see any chamois either. See I told you that you'd know what I was referring to.
Still, 7am, straight in front of the screen before breakfast...
A sweeping generalisation to say it's hard to avoid bolts in the mountains. It's not true. It's easy if you want to.
Perhaps I should have said 'rock climbing related'...
Yes, exactly, I couldn't see any chamois either. See I told you that you'd know what I was referring to.
In reply to jon:
Sorry, I still don't get it.
I wake up early, everyone's asleep, so I look at internet. Not that unusual, I can't go off anywhere at present as I have obligations.
Concerning bolts it is no longer true to say you can avoid them easily on low level crags. From Paris the nearest decent cliffs are in Burgundy and they are all grid bolted now, even the granite ones... long lines of bolts next to perfect granite cracks in cases. The same is true for most of the limestone cliffs these days outside high mountains, it has become the norm in the last few decades.
What is called trad in the UK is called "terrain d'adventure" (TA) now in France and is considered quite exotic. There was a movement in favour of TA a few years ago but they were fighting a losing battle against the clubs and the bureaucrats. The main "animateur" was someone called Fabien, who unfortunately died when out soloing a while back... this sort of put a damper on the whole thing.
When at the bottom of Burgundy cliffs people come up and peer at the climbing nuts hanging from my belt and mutter, it's true that they are not required, and if I'm using a normal body belay sometimes get quite upset... especially the "Gruppenführer".
> Yes, exactly, I couldn't see any chamois either. See I told you that you'd know what I was referring to.
Sorry, I still don't get it.
I wake up early, everyone's asleep, so I look at internet. Not that unusual, I can't go off anywhere at present as I have obligations.
Concerning bolts it is no longer true to say you can avoid them easily on low level crags. From Paris the nearest decent cliffs are in Burgundy and they are all grid bolted now, even the granite ones... long lines of bolts next to perfect granite cracks in cases. The same is true for most of the limestone cliffs these days outside high mountains, it has become the norm in the last few decades.
What is called trad in the UK is called "terrain d'adventure" (TA) now in France and is considered quite exotic. There was a movement in favour of TA a few years ago but they were fighting a losing battle against the clubs and the bureaucrats. The main "animateur" was someone called Fabien, who unfortunately died when out soloing a while back... this sort of put a damper on the whole thing.
When at the bottom of Burgundy cliffs people come up and peer at the climbing nuts hanging from my belt and mutter, it's true that they are not required, and if I'm using a normal body belay sometimes get quite upset... especially the "Gruppenführer".
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Have a look at the photos on your website. Not a criticism, just a correction.
On your local crags the cracks haven't been filled in have they? Ignore the bolts - you're not obliged to clip them. In the mountains there are many thousands of routes that are not bolted.
Terrain d'aventure is unfortunately a misnomer in France. It can vary from having completely bolted belays and partially bolted pitches to what we know as trad, ie nothing. The movement for TA in France IS alive and kicking in both the forms I mention above.
Beware, Bruce, using a body belay might well burn through your new soft shell jacket.
Have a look at the photos on your website. Not a criticism, just a correction.
On your local crags the cracks haven't been filled in have they? Ignore the bolts - you're not obliged to clip them. In the mountains there are many thousands of routes that are not bolted.
Terrain d'aventure is unfortunately a misnomer in France. It can vary from having completely bolted belays and partially bolted pitches to what we know as trad, ie nothing. The movement for TA in France IS alive and kicking in both the forms I mention above.
Beware, Bruce, using a body belay might well burn through your new soft shell jacket.
In reply to jon:
If I had one! I mostly use a gadget now anyway. The animals on the web site, possibly, I was looking on the ukc gallery.
> Beware, Bruce, using a body belay might well burn through your new soft shell jacket
If I had one! I mostly use a gadget now anyway. The animals on the web site, possibly, I was looking on the ukc gallery.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Nor can we say that it 'probably' would have, given that the belay consisted of a single piss-poor bolt. Or that a slightly shorter factor 2 fall (as opposed to a longer factor 1 point something fall) would have prevented the rope from being severed in any case, given that it appears Mr Kaczorowski was further above the belay than the band of sharp ironstone was below it.
Indeed not. But then shiny new bolts pulling out under less than bodyweight loads 'would not be the general case hopefully' would it?
Yes.
I certainly don't think he's a "bastard" or a "cold killer" and I don't doubt for a moment that he's horrified at what happened.
None of which changes my opinion that he bears some responsibility for what happened after he'd gone; he has to live with that now and I don't envy him that.
> How many time do I have to say I read the reports <snip>
> We can't be sure that the belay wouldn't have held
> We can't be sure that the belay wouldn't have held
Nor can we say that it 'probably' would have, given that the belay consisted of a single piss-poor bolt. Or that a slightly shorter factor 2 fall (as opposed to a longer factor 1 point something fall) would have prevented the rope from being severed in any case, given that it appears Mr Kaczorowski was further above the belay than the band of sharp ironstone was below it.
> ...would not be the general case hopefully.
Indeed not. But then shiny new bolts pulling out under less than bodyweight loads 'would not be the general case hopefully' would it?
> PS. Have you read Boris Cujic's reply on the other thread?
Yes.
I certainly don't think he's a "bastard" or a "cold killer" and I don't doubt for a moment that he's horrified at what happened.
None of which changes my opinion that he bears some responsibility for what happened after he'd gone; he has to live with that now and I don't envy him that.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Hate to bang on, but there's another photo entitled 'mouflon'. This is also a bouquetin. Just for your info, you understand.
Hate to bang on, but there's another photo entitled 'mouflon'. This is also a bouquetin. Just for your info, you understand.
In reply to jon:
I'm not much of a zoologist, they've got four feet and horns. Some are bouquetins, some are chamois and some are mouflons... I don't think there are any Marco Polo sheep though.
I'm not much of a zoologist, they've got four feet and horns. Some are bouquetins, some are chamois and some are mouflons... I don't think there are any Marco Polo sheep though.
In reply to jon:
Even these:
http://www.windmillweb.info/climbing/Chamonix_2002/images/slides/Cham_2002-...
And this one, I though he/she was a mouflon:
http://www.windmillweb.info/climbing/Chamonix_2002/images/slides/Cham_2002-...
How do you tell the difference?
Even these:
http://www.windmillweb.info/climbing/Chamonix_2002/images/slides/Cham_2002-...
And this one, I though he/she was a mouflon:
http://www.windmillweb.info/climbing/Chamonix_2002/images/slides/Cham_2002-...
How do you tell the difference?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Absolutely. They are all bouquetins. The first group are probably females and / or young males. The second photo with the lone animal is, I think, a young male, though older than the others.
They are completely different animals from either chamois or mouflons.
Wiki has some excellent photos of all of them.
Absolutely. They are all bouquetins. The first group are probably females and / or young males. The second photo with the lone animal is, I think, a young male, though older than the others.
They are completely different animals from either chamois or mouflons.
Wiki has some excellent photos of all of them.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...