UKC

It's that time of year where the anal ones amongst us look at kit and start thinking about shaving a few grammes here and there. I'll be like an ibex this year:

Old kit
Saloman mountain experts - 1 ton per boot <about a kilo each anyway>
Dueter guide 35 sack - 1690g
G14 cramps - 1200g
DMM Flys - 1300g
DMM Renegade harness - 480g

New kit
La Sportiva trango extremes - 850g, 1700 pair 00g saved>
Mammut Trion Element sack - 1310g 80g saved>
G20 cramps - 800g <400g saved>
BD vipers - 1400g <slightly heavier but I had trigrests on the flys so about the same>
DMM Super couloir harness - 385g <95g saved!>

Thats a hell of a lot of money for just over a kilo saving and I already use dyneema slings, Serenity rope and helium QDs so apart from having a really big poo before leaving the car I can't see where to save any more weight. Please tell me I'm not the only one who worries about weight?! Any extreme weight saving stories to share? Sawn off toothbrushes and labels cut from clothing stores especially welcome.

In reply to blanchie14c: Drink 2 litres of water before setting off from the car park and save 2kg

In reply to blanchie14c:

The lightest kit in the world is that which you leave in the car.

Sort out your rack.
Now remove half of it and put it back in the car.
Split the rack between you and your mate.
Now put another half of the rack back in the car.
Grab the small half of what's left and put in your sack, let your mate carry the big stuff!

ALC

In reply to blanchie14c:


Maybe try Alpkit Goudron 25 or 30? <700g saved> and £70

In reply to iksander:

Diet off a couple of kg - much cheaper.

In reply to blanchie14c: Use a light single rope and pack a pull cord just in case, or use a 60 and do a couple more abseils on the rare occasion you need to/are able to bail. The super couloir is heavy - I've started using an Arc Teryx S240 which I got on offer for 40 quid. Yeah so you have to put it on before your crampons, big deal. The 240 is its weight. Take less rack. TBF the pack isn't that light for that size pack either... and as someone else said, lose some fat - the improvement per kilo is not linearly relative to improvement! Add some folding poles which will keep you fresher on the walk in and help you on the walk out... as long as they fit INSIDE they aren't a pain in the arse like collapsible ones are...

In reply to blanchie14c: Grivel quantum tech axes - 525grams each.
Arc teryx 275 harness -275 grams/ petzl hirundos about the same.
Must spend more.

In reply to blanchie14c: how do the G20s fit on the trangos? I think when you take weight saving that seriously (we're not talking high altitude backwater stuff here) you are clearly being taken hook line and sinker by consumerism.

In reply to mike kann:
I think poles are the next thing to look at but apart from sandwich fillings I can't really do without anything that I normally carry, I'm pretty stripped down as it is these days. The biggest lesson I've learned over the last couple of years is to get out of the 'just in case' mentality. No more 'just in case' water/food/clothes. If I need the 'just in case' food then really I've f*cked up in the planning or not made the decision to retreat early enough. Its funny how brit climbers only seem to learn these lessons after a trip to the alps!

In reply to blanchie14c: Some of them don't even learn it then... as I say - rope is by far the biggest saving you can make in terms or pack weight... I've had a serenity for years now and it does exactly what it needs to...

In reply to blanchie14c:

The cheapest and most fun way to save weight is to climb as a group of 3. If you get your technique sorted it is almost as quick as climbing in a pair and much more sociable on the belays. You have the added advantage of having a well rested leader for each pitch.

Between 3 of you, you can carry a monster rack and still be travelling light.

In reply to blanchie14c:

But if you've got the "just in case" stuff, you might not need to retreat (or it might even save your life). Everyone f*cks up occasionally - best not to be f*cked as well.

In reply to The Big Man:
They fit fine mate, I've not actually changed these for weight saving but more for performance. I've always found the G14s clumpy and I climb ins monos but didn't like the way the 14s have the mono offset, the 20s are the mk2 versions and rather than have 10 points each as the name implies they actually have 12 each. 4 rears, 4 fronts, 2 on the mono rail, one mono point with a stubby stablising point under the mono. 12 points each so really they should be called the G24s. I've not climbed in them yet but a mate has had them for 2 seasons and he swears they are like climbing in rock shoes <I think I understood what he meant by that!>

In reply to Robert Durran:

I hear you, its a very fine line isn't it. I guess each partnership knows what they can get away with and what they'd rather not.

3legs - I've climbed as a 3 a few times and to be honest I didn't find it that great (in winter that is) The extra wait on belays made for some slow and cold days out. Route choice is dictated by the ability of the 'weakest' climber too.

In reply to Robert Durran: true... It just depends how far you go with just in case. I knew a guy who took a first aid kit worthy of a paramedic when we were skiing and climbing...

In reply to iksander:

Ha ha. Love that.

In reply to blanchie14c:

Shave all unnecessary body hair.

(you may use your discretion to decide what is necessary)

In reply to bouldery bits: in that vein, go for a crap. It'll mean you move faster too.

In reply to mike kann: apparantly teeth weigh between 1.8 and 4 grams each. A full gobfull would be 32 teeth but sadly I've had my wisdoms and another one out so only have 27 left. Still, that could be as much as 100g and when you consider how much lighter gear costs a set of dentures isn't a bad option.

In reply to blanchie14c: have a vindaloo the night before and you'll save more...

In reply to mike kann:
I had curry and chips in fort william from that rank chinese at the far end of the high street once. I was crimping all the next day and we ain't talking finger tips here

In reply to blanchie14c:
You should have tried their famous signature dish, 'Seagull in the Basket'

In reply to blanchie14c:


If both 2nds climb together, the "extra wait" is a matter of a couple of mins and saves a lot of extra weight! As for weakest climber, play to your strengths; the ice man gets the ice pitches, the mixed master the rock and billy big balls the run out. Each to his own but I find it works really well, the camaraderie pushes you on. I have had some of my very best days climbing in a party of 3.

In reply to 3leggeddog:
don't get me wrong I've really enjoyed as a 3 on rock and still do, always someone free to brew up and take pictures but in winter the thought of someone slightly above me <2 seconds climbing together> coming off and knocking me off too along with the added bonus of crampon points...

In reply to blanchie14c:

If you climb as a three it's more enjoyable with two ropes. Safer as well,although this does create more weight.

Just have to man up and get fit then!

In reply to blanchie14c:
Scarpa Rebel Carbon - 1300 pair (-400g)

Some light weight nylon sack - 300g (-1000g)

For what it is it's a good. For lesser angled snow something like Camp Nanotech will do, too. (-200g)

Simond Axes are 650g each. For summer alpine I have Simond Fox with modified griprest. It's 290g and it's not for water ice or if it's too technical (above D). It's super light though. For something like the Frendo spur in summer two of those is more than enough.

Arcteryx has harness with four loops for 275g

Rab has excellent Xenon belay jacket for 320g. Fleece layers are much lighter than wool. Gaiters are not needed at all. The lightest cooking system available is a Primus Titanium kettle with Optimus Crux foldable. Both the cooker and the gas canister will fit inside the kettle - thus overall bulk of 1L (ie. smaller pack). Remember that 10m of extra rope is 500g more.


Money saving is relative. Old climbing gear retails quite good value. If sell it instead of storing it the cost is less.

If you put all your gear on Excel you'll quickly notice the lightest gear is in the car. The less you have - the smaller pack you need and the smaller is the pack size.

In reply to blanchie14c:

I love my Deuter Guide, but it isn't the lightest. I'm sure you're aware you can stripe off a few bits; remove the aluminium stays and the sit mat from the back, the waist belt padding or just the whole thing, ice axe loops if you don't use them.

If you're into customising stuff then you could really go to town with a Stanley knife; remove the ski holders, daisy chain bit on the front, various straps, and the thing is basically double lined with fabric so you could cut the inner out. I couldn't bring myself to do all that though, I think I'd have a 'what have I done?!' moment. Check out the Coldthistle blog, that guy is always going on about weight and I think he has some good articles on stripped down bags.

In reply to adnix:

I took it that Blanchie meant Scotland by winter, so


wouldn't fare too well, too much stumbling around on rocks coming out the snow for alu crampons.


Some people survive without, but there are plenty of approaches in the UK where ankle deep mud makes gaiters quite nice to have!

In reply to blanchie14c:

You mention having a really big poo BEFORE leaving the car... Please don't offer anyone a lift on the way home.

Quick draws are heavy so can you use a dyneema sling with a single carabiner to tie off most of your gear and clip the rope far all except the most desperate placements. You may be able to get away with a single half rope instead of the serenity if you are not falling too often (http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/ is interesting) and use a shorter rope on those routes where you move together or there are no massive pitches. Trimming your rack, replacing old nuts with superlights and leaving anything you might describe as "just in case" in the car with your poo should win you another grade too.

A last resort is frostbite - lighter feet and smaller boots (quite painful though)

In reply to blanchie14c: Food and drink is easy to save weight on. Drink loads before you set off, drink loads when you get back, carry 500 ml of water for the day. Don't overheat on the walk in and you won't need it so much anyway. If you're on the Ben then fill up at the CIC hut's dodgy outside 'sprinkler'. Food-wise, energy bars may not be all that appealing, but you can carry 5 of those for ~1200 calories and ~250 grams and forego sandwiches etc.. I can't hack just energy bars so chuck in a pork pie too - they're some mighty dense calorific food and can help crimping if you've been on the takeaways.

The other thing that has barely been discussed is clothing. Weigh your clothes and you'd be amazed at what you find: don't believe a word the manufacturers say! I've two microfleeces of near identical warmth, and one of them is 50% heavier than the other just because of the fit and the zip; my new belay jacket (Arc'teryx Atom SL) is shedloads warmer than my old one, has a proper hood, and weighs 100 g less!

I like to pack light so I can choose to climb badly and slowly, rather than feeling it is enforced on me by my bag weight.

In reply to blanchie14c:

You'd be better off spending your time and money on getting fitter / stronger. Period.

But...the one thing that stands out to me in all your light weight gear is your pack. My 35 ltr pack is 600g.

In reply to Mr Fuller:

If you dislike the taste and cost of energy bars, a packet of ginger biscuits is 300g, has 1350 calories and is really good for constant snacking...

Custard creams and chocolate chip cookies are 1500 calories for 300g and all cost less than 50p!

The thought of my first walk in with a winter pack makes me feel physically sick considering I have spent my summer cragging rather than hillwalking. eek. First winter walk in last year after a heavy christmas and new year and I was spewing at the side of the path up to Stob coire nan Lochan :s

In reply to Taurig:
Even though the Deuter has been replaced it'll never get retired, I just love it too much and it is perhaps the best sack I've ever had. Its bomb proof, I once dropped it fully packed from half way up Jammed boulder gully buttress on the Mot, took 30 mins to go down and get it and there wasn't a mark on it. It is just too heavy on its own and I can't really remove anything as I use the gear loops on the belt all the time. It'll be my multi-pitch rock sack from here on in. The mammut trion element is a compramise, its lighter but still has solid build quality <hope it does anyway> I was in Zermatt last year and had a look at the sacks in shops there, Mammut and Deuter are really big over there and there was some superb looking no fuss sacks but we just dont see them here. They were feather weights but they were thin, really thin and flimsy. Not really for 3 or 4 hard seasons in Scotland or the Lakes more for a cable car ride and a snow plod.
As Toby guessed my gear has got to be robust and capable not just lightweight. As we all are I'm on a budget and gear has to last 3 or 4 years of hard service without complaining. I can get lighter stuff but will it last?
Food and water get considered too, As hinted at above I'm quite happy setting off from torlundy with just a .75 sigg bottle. I'll try and drink it all by the time I reach the Alt A Mul and fill up again there, fill again at the CIC and again at the red burn. If somewhere where there is no water we'll sometimes take a jetboil or pocket rocket & titan pan and melt snow for some hot brews and cup-a-soup. This may seem backwards when talking about weight but a litre of water weighs a kilo so over 2 blokes a jetboil and hot drinks and soup for the day is lighter on the walk in than carrying water. Food wise I'm not really one for sarnies, a pork pie, sausage roll, pepperamis, a lump of cheese, nuts, oat bars do it for me. Quite easy to pack and eat and all very fatty.
Of course fitness is the key but even when you are the peak of hill fitness it is still nicer to have a fairly light pack on.

In reply to Milesy:

We all know that feeling bro

In reply to blanchie14c:


I still recommend the Alpkit goudron to you, at £25 for the 500g, 25 litre bag you are not investing as much as for a bells and whistles super light bag. Mine went to the Alps with me, has a few scrapes, nothing that seam sealant or black nasty couldn't sort and is now ready for winter. I attached a bit of tat to the top straps that lets me carry axes and a rope on the outside, but you can do what you like to the waist belt (gear loops with drip tub?) though I cut mine off. Great little bags, gorgeously light and they encourage you to bring the right amount of kit as well.

In reply to blanchie14c:

Lose a bit of body weight by watching your diet? Half a stone is 3kg.

Not that I'm saying you are fat like.

In reply to blanchie14c: I'll second energy food to supplement more solid stuff. Tried out Torq gels this summer and found the Rhubarb and Custard flavour actually nice. And they really work, although dont go crazy on them or it will have vindaloo effect as discussed earlier. Cliff bars are half decent too. Means you can carry lots of "food" without the bulk or weight. Hydrating is important with them, but you will perform better anyway so worth the weight in my view. The real issue with liquids is storing them somewhere easily accessible, and not likely to freeze, and not in something that you need to suck to get it out when you're busting your lungs. I.e. a bottle. Camalbacks IMHO are crap... Insulated bottle clipped to a shoulder strap by your harness is my ideal so that I can grab it and drink at belays. Yeah sometimes it swings in my way but not often - its normally nestled next to your body and sack and doesn't move much. If its in your pack you wont get it out to drink because its a hassle...

In reply to blanchie14c:


Are you kidding? 3 or 4 years. I've had my sack for over twenty years and it's still going strong. 40Lts and 800g.

In reply to mike kann:

I recommend a 500ml bottle in a belay jacket inside pocket. When you are not wearing the jacket, wrap it up for insulation, when wearing it you heat it up and have it on hand for drinking...

In reply to blanchie14c:

Another weight saving option is to carry a little more.

Take a small very light rucksac with you (I got one from decathlon for a fiver, packs down smaller than an apple and weighs much less).

Leave big bag and spare stuff at the hut, bottom of corrie, wherever, carry small bag containing bait, drink, spare jumper. Climb light and free of encumberence. Return to big bag at end of day. Eat from big butty box and drink from big flask having enjoyed multiple routes.

It even works for a party of 3!

In reply to blanchie14c:
Crux AK47 pack - just over a kilo, less if stripped. Not as robust as heavier sacks but light is right!

Sturdy plastic bag rather than a crampon bag (my crampon bag is about 150g so I hardly use it)

Only take a waterproof top if it looks like you might need it. Get a fairly lightweight one for when you do need it but not the super lightweight stuff that offers little protection.

Lightweight headtorch.

Take only one camera for the team (or none at all!)

Ropes - Beal ice lines or similar. I wouldn't fancy the fall factor & reduced abseil length of having a single but if you don't mind then that would be a big saving.

Laminated section of map rather than whole map (easier to use as well but consider having a copy each as easier to lose as well!)

After each day out, consider what you haven't used - if the same stuff keeps coming up, bin it!

In reply to Misha:


I give you the Rab Demand pull-on or Momentum jacket - full weight fabric and full protection but light as f*ck... (I have both - they both rock - alas the deman has just been withdrawn - there is a montane alternative though)


Icelines have low fall factor because they are beal, not because they are doubles. Singles and a single strand of a double loaded in the same way produce pretty much the same impact, and thinness does not correlate to low impact either. But congrats for being the first victim of my UIAA/CE test misrepresentation booby trap...

In reply to blanchie14c:

Some people reckon, and I agree with the idea that saving weight on your feet is equivilent to 5 times the weight saving on your back in terms of energy expended to carry the load.

Looking at your new boots and crampons you have saved 700g, which equates to 3.5kg from your rucksack, or put more simply, you're ready to kick some frozen @ss!

The Baron

In reply to mike kann:
Not convinced re single vs double impact force. Goes against conventional wisdom. Anyway, I prefer having 2 ropes for winter and trad. But not essential, depends on the route really.

In reply to Misha: But only because conventional wisdom hasn't looked at the ridiculous UIAA double rating system that makes it close to impossible to compare double and single ropes.

In reply to Misha + Toby:

Regarding conventional wisdom: in actual fall situations it's extremely rare that both double ropes are weighted at all equally - which needs to be considered.

In reply to Misha:

So all the time then? I'm struggling to think of more than one occassion when I haven't needed a waterproof on a Scottish winter route!

In reply to Misha: I'm afraid in this case conventional wisdom is just plainly wrong. If you were to argue that it reduces rope drag or that if you are able to place frequent gear in placements that are geographically at roughly the same height, or that you don't want to lose a 60m ab or any other of the arguments, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately UIAA/CE marking is completely unrepresentative of impact force at 80kg's on one strand of double rope, because the test is conducted with a 50kg weight, rather than 80kg. As soon as you increase the force to that of a human being rather than 5/8 of a human being, the impact force goes up somewhat. Might go against what you've always thought but...

In reply to blanchie14c:

Mr K learned this shortly after a rather rapid descent of Aonarch Mor thanks to a passing avalanche, and was damn glad myself and Karl had lots of food with us as he was exhausted and barely able to walk.

In reply to Misha: This makes for interesting reading and illustrates the point with facts conducted in a controlled environment rather than my say so: http://willgadd.com/single-and-half-rope-impact-forces-data/

In reply to blanchie14c: Tie a large helium balloon to your sack, and enjoy Chip 'n Dale laffs when you get back to the car.

In reply to iksander:
You'll need a lot of gas!

All densities are in kg/m^3
air  = 1.29
Oxygen = 1.43
Hydrogen  = 0.0899
Helium = 0.179


So you only get about 1kg of lift per m3 of helium. Put it this way, you won't be climbing any chimneys if you try to off-set your 10kg pack

In reply to TobyA:
That typical single and half ropes have much the same impact force is well known (though I´d have reservations about modern ultra skinny dual-rated twin/half ones). The UIAA system isn´t there so YOU can compare ropes it is so the manufacturers and certification labs labs can.

In reply to Baron Weasel: is there an equation for the equivalence of waving said weight at the end of your arms as opposed to on your back. Lighter axes must be some sort of advantage here especially as the chosen axe by the op is a standard shaft and offers no advantage of a dual grip design.
Vipers - 1400 grams/ Grivel quantum/matrix tech - 1040/1030 grams
That'll make a difference when your actually climbing.
Harness, too heavy as mentioned earlier.

Clothing needs to have a certain amount of wear resistance for Scotland, so a strong face fabric is needed, 4x hill walkers pockets and too many bells and whistles aren't. A slightly heavier version of the latest Alpine shells is probably about right, some of that new grid style Power Stretch under garments and a light weight belay jacket should do it, and ditch the merino, too heavy and doesn't dry well IMO. Maybe a light weight fleece mid and Polly pro base if you run cold or combine with the Power Stretch.

In reply to rosmat:


Of course. That's what Mike and I mean - half ropes should be tested with an 80 mass like singles.

In reply to jimtitt:

Until Gadd blogged the tests that he got done, I don't think it well known at all to any climbers, unless perhaps they happened to work in the industry.


They put it on the labels and swing tags, so of course customers want to, and will compare?

Take a good dump on the CIC doorway or roof and you will reduce some weight.

In reply to TobyA: This reminds me of a conversation I had on here about six years ago;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=216261&v=1#x3177360

In reply to ColdWill: haha - you got your ass roasted. I wonder whether styman just accepted he was wrong or whether somewhere there is someone bleating about some rubbish someone spouted to him...

In reply to rosmat:
Agree. Especially in winter with spaced gear. I don't know if the official fall factor rating assumes equal weighting or all the weight going into one rope.

In reply to Misha: the rating assumes partially shared loading, hence 55kg loading rather than 80. Basically a situation in which you place a couple of pieces close to one another and the top piece takes more load than the other...

In reply to blanchie14c:

Get the new BD carbon Z poles, .!! they weigh nothing (almost) and are loads more robust than you'd expect. Not cheap tho but one of lifes luxuries. Mine have had a real battering now (winter here plus alps) and stood up well. I fitted a winter basket to them.

The other glaring thing as pointed out by others is your pack is heavy!! There are many great light packs, like the arcteryx cierzo 35 I have which is also pretty cheap. 580g

http://www.arcteryx.com/Product.aspx?EN/Mens/Cierzo-35

In reply to Misha: Logically official fall factor for single ropes assume all the weight on the one rope obviously, for double they don't, which is why they test with 55kg I assume. Someone could tell me different, but I gather that to be the case.

The thread I linked to was in relation to ice climbing where the routes are generally straight up and you may easily climb a couple of body lengths before placing your next piece. In such a situation the rope through your top piece of pro could easily take all the force, especially if you're close to a belay. Every foot above your gear means two feet down before the rope starts to catch you. If you're six feet above your last piece and twelve feet above the one before, your last piece is going to do all the work. Assuming your belayer is frozen in place your going to drop 12 feet before the rope comes tight. The rope through the lower piece won't come tight till you've dropped 24 feet.
For Scotland which is essentially trad, doubles are obviously better on the harder stuff. A single is still acceptable of course but may be harder to manage with regards to rope drag.

Anyways if you are buying new light weight gear, make sure to get your color combos down, new light weight shells are available is some great combos.

In reply to mike kann: hi Mike, he actually posted about being involved with testing at the Mammut factory then deleted the post. He probably doesn't climb anymore.

In reply to ColdWill: oh dear. That makes hesitate about buying mammut

In reply to mike kann: I wouldn't worry, me thinks he never worked for them.

In reply to blanchie14c:

Alternatively just get leaner and meaner!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I haven't carried a waterproof on a Scottish winter route since 2006...

In reply to mike kann:

No it doesn't!

Unfortunately you don't understand the history of the half rope standard. If you did then you would probably find it far less problematic.

The 55kg weight was chosen because FIVE test falls with that weight was found experimentally to be directly equivalent to ONE test fall with 80kg.

The background to UIAA standard for half ropes was the perfectly sensible idea that even a half rope should be able hold at least ONE worst case fall. However, testing them in the that manner would have been a monumentally poor idea as EVERY half rope would then have had the same test result - they would all have broken on the second drop test with little opportunity for cunsumers to distinguish between ropes and little incentive for manufacturers to make small improvements. By reducing the test weight they ended up with test results that were five times more discriminatory and you therefore have a better method of comparison between ropes.

Once you understand this, the 55kg test fall makes much more sense. You can divide the number of 55kg test falls a rope holds by 5 to get a conservative estimate of the number of 80kg test falls it might hold, e.g.
- 8.1mm Beal Iceline: 1-2 falls
- 8.5mm Mammut Genesis: 3 falls
compared with:
- 8.9mm Mammut Serenity: 5-6 falls
- 9.1mm Beal Joker: 6-7 falls

HTH

In reply to The Ex-Engineer: OK - that's interesting - never heard that before and it made sense to me that that would be the case. Still the assumption I've made surely is not a bad one, that the impact seen at a higher loading will be considerably higher than that seen during the test, and that 55kg would also represent a partial loading, i.e. how double ropes are meant to be used? It may not be the historical reason for the test but it does suit our purposes here? Do you know if there was an empirical relationship to the impact force - I would imagine so if they were able to relate fall numbers...

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

appreciate its a bit approximate but is it a linear relationship
5 x 55 = 1 x 80 but does 10 x 55 = 2 x 80 etc

Id not read that before so it good info, got a source / ref for it ?

In reply to lithos:

It was initially just a single experimental relationship but it is a good question and I wondered exactly the same thing.

I found the figures for the Beal Joker http://bealplanet.com/sport/anglais/corde-joker.php seem to suggest the relationship is still broadly linear:
55kg - 24-26 UIAA test falls (Beal guaranty 25 falls)
80kg - 6-7 UIAA test falls (Beal guaranty 5 falls)


Yes, in that it is based on several sources including a detailed account from someone involved with the committee who established the UIAA standard. Unfortunately, the main online reference was not something I've bookmarked. If, or when, my googling finds it again, I'll post a link.

In reply to mike kann:

My understanding is that when the standard was created the main concern was that half ropes should not snap in a single fall rather than concern about the impact forces.

However, the recent UKC review of triple rated ropes http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3765 usefully brings together impact force data for 3 ropes.

Although it is only based on 3 product it suggests that a low impact force in one test does strongly correlate with a low impact force in the other. However, the exact ratio of the two values seems to vary considerably with the 45% increase in weight leading to between a 31% and 37% increase in force.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
There is some really useful info coming out on this thread, thanks to all contributors and keep it coming, sooo much beter than most winter climbing threads - is kinder in etc etc

In reply to bouldery bits:

Or alternatively just beef up a little bit in the gym this autumn and you won't need to worry about the few extra grams

In reply to The Ex-Engineer: excellent, glad you agree as I spoke with Toby about that article a fair bit! What I'm wondering is if the assumption that the falls can be divided by five still holds true after the advances in technology. For example dry treatment was not all that common I guess when those standards were researched and it does have a major effect on the way the rope performs. It seems pretty unlikely to me that a beal Ice line would only be able to withstand 1-2 falls at 80 kg but without relevant testing, who knows! I wish I had a drop tower...

In reply to mike kann: Yep, it's interesting to know how the testing protocol came about but if I understand correctly we still we don't know whether falling onto an ice screw using an iceline or an Edlinger (yes, I did that!) is more or less likely to pull the screw.

In reply to TobyA: well no, not definitively. Which is why I was asking whether there was an empirical formula... Might be worth a look at gadds figures again to see if there is an approximate correlation?

In reply to mike kann: I had a quick look and whilst the sample set we've got to work with is stupidly small, there does seem to be a linearish relationship bewtween gadds real test figures and also beal joker published figures... The single rope test seems to produce a force in the region of 1.3-1.5 of the double rope test. It's only rough but gives us an approximation.

It gives ice lines an impact force in the single rope test of 6.37-7.35kN.
Mammut Phoenix would be 7.8-9kN
Edelrid Mersin would be 8.71-10.05

So if this correlation is correct you don't need to do much digging to see similar figures on double ropes. The ice lines are very very low impact ropes but then we already knew that anyway... It's what they are designed for.

Any comments on whether I'm talking a load of cobblers or not?

In reply to mike kann:

I'd be surprised if it held more than two 80kg falls given that every triple-rated rope holds 20+ 55kg falls but an Iceline only holds 9-10.

However, I totally agree that it would be very interesting to know whether they would sometime only hold one fall or if they are consistent in holding two or even more.

Although, to bring the debate back to the original topic, I think that when it comes to Winter climbing on a single rope, trying to go lighter than the 53g/metre of the Beal Joker (bearing in mind its lower impact force than the Serenity/Swift) would seem to me, perhaps a weight saving too far.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer: oh absolutely. That was not what I was driving at at all. What I feel is, that there is a considerable myth going around that double ropes always result in a lower impact force. I don't feel this is true, and there is some evidence to back this up in the form of gadds test results and the official published figures for triple rated ropes.

One of the major reasons people cite for using double ropes is that they lower impact force and it is true in certain circumstances, so it's understandable that in a situation in which impact force is really critical people misread the uiaa results and jump to the conclusion that its safer to use doubles.

The reality of winter climbing is that you rarely have pieces on ice or in marginal situations placed in parallel and so falling on a single strand of double rope suddenly becomes much more likely. What I'm trying in my cack handed way to show is that in some cases, when you unlikely to need to retreat, using a light single rope is actually a great choice, rather than falling back to the default doubles, especially in the mistaken belief that you will be safer. In reality the opposite seems to be true as singles are generally more edge resistant, have similar impact results when loaded in the format described above, are less bulky and lighter overall, cause less of a clusterf*ck meaning when you are tired and a bit strung out, you are more able to manage the ropes, and have significantly more friction so are more able to hold a fall...

In reply to mike kann:

I thought we used doubles because we're British and that's what we do?

I must say I do like the redundancy built in with doubles (retreat, if one gets cut you've got another) however I'm a bit concerned by the "2 strikes and you're out!" performance of the Ice Lines.....

In reply to galpinos:

I suppose there is that. Of course we could just use them like the french. As twins. And increase our impact forces massively for no good reason...

In reply to mike kann:

<like> when are we going to get like system!?

In reply to Mr. Lee:

NO!!! Muscle is heavy. Putting on surplus in the gym will make you slower and more tired. Cardio and some focussed strength/endurance work is what you need; a good bit of running. Check out the top winter climbers of any generation and they're all built like whippets.

Although, Stallone in 'Cliffhanger' was pretty awesome.....

In reply to deanstonmassif: If you know the area it's filmed in, its actually very hard to keep up with the changes in shooting locations. There's usually about 3-4 different locations used in each scene and they're often miles and miles apart. And that's before you start thinking about the bolt gun. Mind you it's still an oscar winner compared to Vertical Limit...

In reply to TobyA:

We have been here before, and we decided we didn't like the idea.!!!

In reply to blanchie14c: I have a poo ! ... I have never weighed it but I am sure its quite a lump !

In reply to galpinos:
That's 2 very big strikes and you're out - we're talking about fall factors significantly greater than 1:1 here. If I took one of those in a winter climbing situation, I wouldn't be too worried about not being able to take another one on the same ropes - because I would probably be lucky to walk again, never mind go winter climbing...

In reply to blanchie14c:

http://www.aiguillealpine.co.uk/cgi-bin/trolleyed_public.cgi?action=showpro...

Weighs about a kilo (and they don't even describe it as lightweight) bulletproof quality, everything triple stitched, hand-made in the UK and 37L should be more than enough capacity -
Or go for it's big brother (47+10) at less than 1200gms, but you really shouldn't need to

In reply to mike kann: here's a worthwhile link to the rope debate over on SuperTopo:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=833631&tn=160

Worth a read if you like that sort of thing. About half way down some guy explains the rope testing thing quite well on that page (post 168 I think). The whole thread contains good info especially with regards to clipping doubles together like a single.

In reply to tonyaitch:

Another sack option: Lowe Alpine 'Alpine Attack 35:45' just over 1kg as standard but pares down to 850g without lid and back panel. Generous sizing so kit fits on the way out as well as the way in. Ripstop dyneema and still no flaws after two years regular use inc. alpine summers and scottish winters.

In reply to blanchie14c:
Did you buy the Super couloir harness to save weight? I can't see myself spending 40 odd quid to save 95g!

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Na, had it anyway as a simple light option but used it for alps and winter in the past and I quite like it so staying with it. 40 quid to save 95 as you say is going a bit far, I got bogies that weigh more than 95g!

In reply to blanchie14c:
I guess the other argument is it should make your other harness last longer. I generally retire my harnesses because they look worn out.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
I've always been a fan of WC harnesess', they just feel 'right' until however I got the new vison a couple of years back, just couldn't get on with it. Took the plunge and went DMM and got me a Renegade and the SuperC and very happy with both. Makes me feel real old school when doubling back the belt on the SuperC

In reply to blanchie14c:

Don;t carry a fleece as a midl layer or just in case layer. Walk in with a base layer and windproof / shell then stick this super lite beast on:


The North Face water resistant primaloft pull on zip T top, slides under a shell for extra warmth of cold days, superb for a multi pitch just in case layer, brilliant for backing up a light sleeping bag on bivies and mountain marathons.

Price: £35

Wind proof and rain resistant the pull over works on its own and is cool enough to worn around town or in the bar.

Small nick sealed on cuff and slight dark smudge on back, both shown on photos, does not affect performance or really noticeable.

Photo's here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67699319@N08/sets/72157631927433519/

see my other posts for super tough winter gloves.

In reply to blanchie14c: Adopt the same adage that is used in the running world. Loose weight and get stronger. In the mean time slowly replace your gear. I am now down to 4 stone and have spent £700.00 on new gear over the last 12 years. I hope to be moving up to grade 2/3 this year so do not tell me my system does not work. All the best.

In reply to Northern Man:
LOL very good sir!