mattp

"Dem skinny ropes seem really boingy. " They are, and I think they stretch more than a single fat one though I could be wrong. The stretch is often a disadvantage when you are hanging on the ropes, and you gotta be careful not to let go of the rope at the bottom of a rappel some times.

Excuse me, I'll rephrase.

Watch out for that math. If what you did was to determine that the cross sections add up to the same surface area, you have only determined just that: cross section add up to the same surface area. I would venture a guess that this does not correspond directly with stretch or with the dynamic characteristics of the system. Consider, also, that if nothing else there will always be some difference in the tension placed on the two ropes, even if both ropes are clipped to every piece using twin rope technique, because one strand or the other will almost certainly have a slightly greater bit of slack or an extra twist in it.

Thanks, Thinker. I think most people who browse this site realize that the club-bashing is what it is: mostly entertainment but also true to some degree: the clubs, while they offer a relatively safe and structured introduction to the sport of climbing, have their limitations. And accidents on club outings are not uncommon although the rate of accidents on these outings appears to be higher than it actually is because these groups are much more likely to report a mishap than might a bunch of independent climbers who don't have an organization watching over their shoulder. Trask: do you have to shit on every thread?

Jim - I repeat: two ropes is two ropes. That IS redundancy because, by definition, if one rope should fail you are counting on the other. As I noted above, I have never heard a story of a rope breaking from force, but I have heard plenty of stories of their breaking over an edge. And also as I noted above, I have never heard of two ropes being cut at the same time. What is this "unless you clip both ropes at every anchor" thing? When using double rope technique (as opposed to twin) I never clip both ropes to every protection point but I do sometimes clip both to the same piece right before a crux move or I place two pieces of gear shortly below a crux move and clip both ropes. (And don't tell anybody, but I don't always use two separate biners when I clip the ropes to a single piece, as is recommended by the rope manufacturers and the alpine club. And I have taken plenty of falls this way and I ihaven't shredded a rope yet.) I know nobody who faces a crux move and doesn't look for an opportunity for anchors for both ropes unless they are worried about rope drag, and in this case they often secure both ropes but put a couple of long runners on their gear. I believe Forrest is right: fat ropes are WAY stronger than they need to be. I climb on a single 9mm Edelweiss quite often, and it is rated to hold a fall over an edge with a single strand. I believe it is plenty safe. But when I'm on something more serious, I want two ropes or a fat one. It is kind of like doubling up on pro: one bomber piece just before a hard move is by definition sufficient. But most of us want two. And I agree with Ian - overanalysis is an issue here. The main thing is to climb at some minimum standard of safety and beyond that, do what you are comfortable with. Every pitch need not be set up as might be a rescue rig, but some poeple feel the need to have cordellettes' equalized anchors with directionals at every belay on a long alpine rock climb. Matt

Ross, I don't know what you are talking about with this 75' minimum for the second rope to prevent a groundfall. Yes, if you have anywhere near enough rope out to hit the ground, you are likely to find that in the event of a fall there is sufficient rope stretch that you will crater. And yes, if you fall through space you will gain speed until you reach terminal velocity so that a partial stop after 30 feet would theoretically allow some carry-over momentum and a second catch at 60 feet would be intense indeed. But when I go climbing, that is never how it works. Two ropes are two ropes. That is called redundancy. And most people I know look around for some kind of pro as close to (but before) they make a hard move as possible. In fact, I often clip both ropes just before a hard move and wherever possible this means that I am looking at a maximum of a twenty foot fall onto either rope. Also, most natural rock climb takes place on terrain that is less than vertical so there is friction between climber and rock during a long fall.

Yo Cavey - Slop is right. I wasn't dissing you. I merely stated that both peaks were significantly more formed up at that time. I might also have added that there was then three feet of snow along side the highway at Colonial Creek, and that the snow cover in the woods made an approach directly up the creek almost friendly. I figured this topic was intended to present information, and I thought mine was pertinent.

Those are good knots and all, but what is a mule knot? And what is that slip knot all about? My old friend who used to run a cross country ski area (Scottish Lakes) where lots of climbers used to hang out was always complaining about those god damned knots that the climbers always tied and which he couldn't untie. He was always begging us to do it the easy way with square knots and half hitches.

Way to go, guys! Marko - don't feel bad about spilling the pot. My friend Bill tells a story of dropping the pot on the first winter ascent. He says he was scooping snow outside the tent and only momentarily lost his concentration when hit in the face by a gust of snow or something. It took a minute or two before he realized how serious it was, and then he told Steve that they might have to abandon the climb because they'd now have no way to produce water. But they figured out that if they held their plastic cup over the stove at just the right distance they could melt snow without melting the plastic. They did this for the next three or four days. Needless to say, their ramen or whatever they had came out sub-optimal.

I don't believe the area along the trail, say, fifteen switchbacks up is owned by the irrigation district. This area was logged when they did the "salvage" operation and I am pretty sure it is F.S. land.

"the two men walked out onto Highway 12 just east of White Pass around after 4 p.m. Thursday." Right on, guys!

Were you born yesterday?

From the south Sound area, I'd head for the Tatoosh Range (in Rainier Park) or the Olympics for easily accessible and relatively moderate climbs (assuming that is what you are after). Check out Mount Ellinor or Mount Washington in the Olympics, and Pinnacle Peak or Castle Peak in the Tatoosh. The standard "summer" routes make good winter outings on all of these except Pinnacle Peak, where you should approach from the Castle-Pinnacle saddle rather than traverse the steep open slope NW of the peak. All of these involve some exposure to avalanche danger, with Ellinor probably being the safest of the bunch.

Good question, Ross. I don't know the answer, but I believe it to once have been reported (like, maybe 20 years ago however) that there had never been a case when both ropes in a double or twin rope system failed. I don't know how many times a single rope has actually broken, but I have heard of plenty of times when one was cut over an edge.

ChucK - My problem with the whole thing is that I don't know what we are doing there but that I believe almost nothing of what our president tells us. I am sure it has something to do with oil and a lot to do with all kinds of things we may never know about, but freedom, democracy, domestic security??? It's all a big lie. And those guys think Bill Clinton was a disgrace because he lied about getting a blow job.

Greg - I don't for a minute doubt what you say about Saddam's misdirecting the benefits of the food-for-oil program. I am not arguing that he is a good guy. I do, however, question just about everything he tells us about this war. Can anybody really believe points 1, 2 and 3 -- and that these are our main reasons for wantint to invade Iraq?

Trask - It is "nucular" powers that GW fears. No, I don't think we should sit back and allow nuclear proliferation, but if you look atour dealings with N. Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to agree that if you were running N. Korea you'd be building up your nuclear weapons program as quickly as possible and that, if you were Saddam, you'd be trying to do the same thing! You may argue that is precisely why we have to invade Iraq now, but so far I have seen nothing to indicate that Saddam would ever send one of those weapons our way because to do so would surely result in our justifiably flattening him and he has shown over the last 50 years or so that he wants to hold on to power. And what ChucK says -- if we have evidence that Saddam is anywhere near developing nukes, why can't they tell us about it?

Greg- I think SC's right that we HAVE contributed to the poor living conditions in Iraq for the last ten years. One might disagree about whether the sanctions were justified, but I don't think there is much doubt that they have adversely affected Iraqi people more than they have hurt Saddam himself. Don't get me wrong, I believe that we did have to do SOMETHING when he refused to adhere to the agreements but I question what it is that we are doing, and what our real goals in all of this are and I think those three "goals" as presented to us by our president are complete nonsense. Remember when, during the campaign, GW debated Gore and said that he thought we should not send our troops around the world to promote democracy and freedom? Has he suddenly changed his mind or is it, perhaps, something else that we are after?

Point 4 is really part of point 1. Unlike our friend ChucK, I do not believe it for a minute.

I'm with ChucK. Its all those other people out there that really piss me off. Especially when I go to climb one of those "select" climbs in perfect weather on a saturday and there are hundreds of them, all using those stupid bright pink stiffy dogbone draws. That really pisses me off.

GW told the troops this morning that they would be going to Iraq to fight for freedom. To all of you who are bored at work I ask if you believe any of the following: 1. We are going to Iraq to liberate oppressed people. 2. We have to disarm Saddam because he may use his weapons agains the U.S. homeland if we don't stop him now. 3. We will be less vulnerable to terrorism if we go to war in Iraq.

Under a different president (Clinton) the same District presided over the "salvage" of timber damaged by the first of the Leavenworth fires and the operation did not appear to be oriented toward the "salvage" of damaged timber, thinning, fire prevention or anything else but plain old logging. I watched slingload after slingload of fullly green (unburnt) trees being flown down to the landing, and if you walk up the Snow Creek trail and look at the stumps it is pretty clear that they were harvesting the big trees and leaving the little ones behind. How much fire hazard can be left after two massive fires and how could anyone believe that more cutting in that canyon would be any better?

Peter- It sounds as if you do not do much backcountry skiing, or are not much of a fan of powder skiing. Yes, if you want to be safe you should stay home in such conditions as when there is a "considerable" avalanche hazard (or maybe you could go out but stay in dense timber). But if you want to ski fresh snow, that is exactly when you WILL head for a slope just like that which they were on. As I noted in my earlier post, they clearly made some mistakes and, as need not be stated at all, those mistakes were fatal. You can draw some lessons about safety evaluatation from this incident, but the idea that they did not apply common sense, or that they were somehow wreckless, ar not among them. -Matt

Both Colonial and Pyramid were a heck of a lot icier than that when Daylward and his buddy climbed Watusi a couple of years ago. I may have a picture of Pyramid somewhere, with FAT ice on it.

Or how 'bout another story for the "Fun" thread? I'm sure you guys must have once had a good day that wasn't all about spraying on the internet.