This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=74944
So, the rope - has it fitted snuggly into a rain channel?
So, the rope - has it fitted snuggly into a rain channel?
In reply to Fex Wazner:
i think i've had a brief go at this before...
Would go at about E3 6a maybe?? or e5 if you only used knotted slings as pro like the czechs!
i think i've had a brief go at this before...
Would go at about E3 6a maybe?? or e5 if you only used knotted slings as pro like the czechs!
In reply to Wilbur:
How would it go at E3 6a then? What would you be proposing to use as protection?
How would it go at E3 6a then? What would you be proposing to use as protection?
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Ergo the endless, endless whining on here (largely by me I fear) about sandstone being destroyed by people not placing top ropes correctly, among other things.
Ergo the endless, endless whining on here (largely by me I fear) about sandstone being destroyed by people not placing top ropes correctly, among other things.
In reply to seagull: Freinds in break. i have soloed to the shelf with 2 or 3 spotters and couple of matts and was basically high ball boulder problem. Down climbing the corner to the right was the scarry part
In reply to Wilbur:
Not sure I'd want to fall on those!
> (In reply to seagull)
>
> stick a couple of cams in the break eh.. theoretically of course
>
> stick a couple of cams in the break eh.. theoretically of course
Not sure I'd want to fall on those!
In reply to i.munro:
How would you have placed the rope given it's a huge overhang and that if you'd slung the rope straight down the face and he'd the come off on the crux he would have swung across potentially causing more damage. Not having a go... just interested as i think it's a valid question..
> (In reply to Fex Wazner)
>
> Ergo the endless, endless whining on here (largely by me I fear) about sandstone being destroyed by people not placing top ropes correctly, among other things.
>
> Ergo the endless, endless whining on here (largely by me I fear) about sandstone being destroyed by people not placing top ropes correctly, among other things.
How would you have placed the rope given it's a huge overhang and that if you'd slung the rope straight down the face and he'd the come off on the crux he would have swung across potentially causing more damage. Not having a go... just interested as i think it's a valid question..
In reply to billyboy & Wilbur:
I know the route very well ta. You can't place gear on SS it would probably destroy the placement if you fell on it. You probably know this but it's irresponsible to suggest sticking cams in breaks on SS. It's not a bad solo to the break without any mats or spotters and yes, traversing off is quite scary.
I know the route very well ta. You can't place gear on SS it would probably destroy the placement if you fell on it. You probably know this but it's irresponsible to suggest sticking cams in breaks on SS. It's not a bad solo to the break without any mats or spotters and yes, traversing off is quite scary.
In reply to Wilbur:
The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
In reply to Wilbur:
He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove to prevent it causing any further damage. Perhaps he did in the next few seconds, who knows (but as the rope looks a little tight I doubt it)?
Yeah I noted the use of "theoretically". As I say it's still irresponsible.
> (In reply to i.munro)
> [...]
>
> How would you have placed the rope given it's a huge overhang and that if you'd slung the rope straight down the face and he'd the come off on the crux he would have swung across potentially causing more damage. Not having a go... just interested as i think it's a valid question..
> [...]
>
> How would you have placed the rope given it's a huge overhang and that if you'd slung the rope straight down the face and he'd the come off on the crux he would have swung across potentially causing more damage. Not having a go... just interested as i think it's a valid question..
He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove to prevent it causing any further damage. Perhaps he did in the next few seconds, who knows (but as the rope looks a little tight I doubt it)?
Yeah I noted the use of "theoretically". As I say it's still irresponsible.
In reply to Wilbur:
>note the use of the word 'theoretically'
but theoretically I reckon they would pull and you would land on your arse :-P
>note the use of the word 'theoretically'
but theoretically I reckon they would pull and you would land on your arse :-P
In reply to seagull: Well done
In reply to seagull:
I agree it is a little tight
it would have been irresponsible if i hadn't made it clear as to what i meant. Which i did.
> (In reply to Wilbur)
> [...]
>
> He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove to prevent it causing any further damage. Perhaps he did in the next few seconds, who knows (but as the rope looks a little tight I doubt it)?
> [...]
>
> He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove to prevent it causing any further damage. Perhaps he did in the next few seconds, who knows (but as the rope looks a little tight I doubt it)?
I agree it is a little tight
> Yeah I noted the use of "theoretically". As I say it's still irresponsible.
it would have been irresponsible if i hadn't made it clear as to what i meant. Which i did.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
theoretically you would land below the trees on the next level down due to the slope
theoretically you would land below the trees on the next level down due to the slope
In reply to i.munro:
>The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
The lower, or upper overhang, though? if the anchor is between the two overhangs, there's still the problem of the rope rubbing in the groove; if it's below both overhangs the anchor is only actually about 3m? (if memory serves) above ground level.
I'm with you in principle but I think this is an example of a route where there isn't a way to rig the anchor that's not going to cause damage, IMHO. Repairing the groove with cement as has been done elsewhere would be unsightly but might stop further erosion.
>The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
The lower, or upper overhang, though? if the anchor is between the two overhangs, there's still the problem of the rope rubbing in the groove; if it's below both overhangs the anchor is only actually about 3m? (if memory serves) above ground level.
I'm with you in principle but I think this is an example of a route where there isn't a way to rig the anchor that's not going to cause damage, IMHO. Repairing the groove with cement as has been done elsewhere would be unsightly but might stop further erosion.
In reply to seagull:
Maybe this particular bloke was good enough to do as you say. My point is that the groove shows that people have fallen/lowered from there in the past. If all of them placed the rope correctly there wouldn't (hopefully) be a groove at all.
> (In reply to Wilbur)
> [...]
>
> He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove >
> [...]
>
> He could have simply flicked the rope out of the groove >
Maybe this particular bloke was good enough to do as you say. My point is that the groove shows that people have fallen/lowered from there in the past. If all of them placed the rope correctly there wouldn't (hopefully) be a groove at all.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
>>By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
Re-read this bit which is makes it quite clear what you mean, sorry. Would this not make the upper section of the route ground-fall potential though?
>>By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
Re-read this bit which is makes it quite clear what you mean, sorry. Would this not make the upper section of the route ground-fall potential though?
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Yep, quite possibly. My approach when this is the case, if I haven't got the bottle to do it like that, is to tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it.
Then ,having successfully got to the break above the climber in the picture pull up the rope & clip it, like a sport route.
That way it is possible to fall off & lower from below the roof, if necessary, without further damage.
Yep, quite possibly. My approach when this is the case, if I haven't got the bottle to do it like that, is to tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it.
Then ,having successfully got to the break above the climber in the picture pull up the rope & clip it, like a sport route.
That way it is possible to fall off & lower from below the roof, if necessary, without further damage.
In reply to Wilbur:
>theoretically you would land below the trees on the next level down due to the slope
no way would that get E3 6a! not even theoretically!
>theoretically you would land below the trees on the next level down due to the slope
no way would that get E3 6a! not even theoretically!
In reply to Glyn Jones: In a hope to shed some light on our toproping, I can relay that the route was done without tension and that the rope came limply round the overhang with me as i campused up and onto the ledge much further round to the left as you look at the picture. No falls occured and certainly did not lower off but topped out and walked off. Hope this helps. Matt
In reply to Matt Maynard:
Just pointing out an approach for those who lack your ability or have no prior knowlege of the route & therefore cannot be confident of on-sighting it.
Just pointing out an approach for those who lack your ability or have no prior knowlege of the route & therefore cannot be confident of on-sighting it.
In reply to i.munro:
>Yep, quite possibly. My approach when this is the case, if I haven't got the bottle to do it like that, is to tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it.
>Then ,having successfully got to the break above the climber in the picture pull up the rope & clip it, like a sport route.
>That way it is possible to fall off & lower from below the roof, if necessary, without further damage.
Very clever! Like it. It would also reduce the swing the climber is facing if they lob off the dyno up to that point. Probably want a dynamic rope for it though.
>Yep, quite possibly. My approach when this is the case, if I haven't got the bottle to do it like that, is to tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it.
>Then ,having successfully got to the break above the climber in the picture pull up the rope & clip it, like a sport route.
>That way it is possible to fall off & lower from below the roof, if necessary, without further damage.
Very clever! Like it. It would also reduce the swing the climber is facing if they lob off the dyno up to that point. Probably want a dynamic rope for it though.
In reply to Matt Maynard: Oh and you would be mad to lead it. The second part is technically harder, and still quite pully. You would defintely deck it from these moves on even the most 'bomber' of cams in the lower break. Don't remember seeing any gear for the top part either. Whoever heard of leading on ss anyway!
In reply to i.munro: No worries, I appreciate that. Was at the rocks again yesterday and some of the old boys gave me a belay on the north west corner and they were telling me how they could remember how very diferent that buttress was before it became erroded by climbing on it. I then ambled down to the north boulder and found a lot of the climbs heavily mudded by people presumably not remembering to clean their shoes - quite frustrating i thought.
In reply to Matt Maynard:
I can only say " you should have been at Bowles!" apart from everything else one bloke climbing in what looked like full-on winter mountainering boots.
When I pointed out that this wasn't allowed he replied "yeah, I know" & just stared at me. Big bloke, what can you do?
I can only say " you should have been at Bowles!" apart from everything else one bloke climbing in what looked like full-on winter mountainering boots.
When I pointed out that this wasn't allowed he replied "yeah, I know" & just stared at me. Big bloke, what can you do?
In reply to i.munro:
Thus giving no protection at all on the top 5m of the climb above the shelf at a mere 5c technical by the easiest route....
or would you suggest using 2 ropes?
> (In reply to Wilbur)
>
> The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
> By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
>
> The belay looks like it's in the right place it's just, as usual, too short. The Krab should be below the overhang.
> By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture.
Thus giving no protection at all on the top 5m of the climb above the shelf at a mere 5c technical by the easiest route....
or would you suggest using 2 ropes?
In reply to i.munro:
...tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it...
snaplink? snaplink?
you'll be breaking out the Viking hawser-laid and the plimsolls next!
...tie a knot in the belay sling higher up & clip a snaplink into it...
snaplink? snaplink?
you'll be breaking out the Viking hawser-laid and the plimsolls next!
In reply to i.munro:
I did spcifically this line
"By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture."
That is about 3m above the floor and not protecting the upper section. pre-set clips above will mitigate this risk but no eliminate it. The same problem occurs for anchors on a lot of climbs where it is not possible to protect the upper part of the route and avoid a rope grove on the lower section. This is a particular problem on a few of the 4a's and 4b's where the beginners who are quite capable of climbing the routes would not be happy with krabs cliped to knots in the sling as pro.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> Read the post!
>
> Read the post!
I did spcifically this line
"By the looks of it just above his harness in the picture."
That is about 3m above the floor and not protecting the upper section. pre-set clips above will mitigate this risk but no eliminate it. The same problem occurs for anchors on a lot of climbs where it is not possible to protect the upper part of the route and avoid a rope grove on the lower section. This is a particular problem on a few of the 4a's and 4b's where the beginners who are quite capable of climbing the routes would not be happy with krabs cliped to knots in the sling as pro.
In reply to Matt Maynard:
Not that old Matt!!
> Was at the rocks again yesterday and some of the old boys gave me a belay on the north west corner...
Not that old Matt!!
In reply to davidwright:
Thing is the guidelines say "no moving stretching ropes in contact with the rock" I, perhaps naively missed the corollary of "unless I don't fancy it".
If I can't rig the rope in such a way as not to damage the rock I leave the route until I get better. (cardboard box for example)
Thing is the guidelines say "no moving stretching ropes in contact with the rock" I, perhaps naively missed the corollary of "unless I don't fancy it".
If I can't rig the rope in such a way as not to damage the rock I leave the route until I get better. (cardboard box for example)
In reply to Graham Ad: Sorry Graham, with the exception of you - you were after all the only one who sent that 6a. See you down there soon ( :
In reply to Matt Maynard:
Yep, good to meet you too.
You'll get it next time - I've been doing it for ages!!
Chiz,
Graham.
Yep, good to meet you too.
You'll get it next time - I've been doing it for ages!!
Chiz,
Graham.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...