Lambone

quote: Originally posted by pope: Area-skiing is an enormous amount of fun, Matt. Your such a fuckin hypocrite pope. All you do is talk shit on this site about how bad sport climbers and the bolts they use are, yet you support environmentaly unfriendly institutions such as ski areas... What makes a bolt bad, and a ski lift good? Which one causes more damage? Not to mention the resources a ski area eats up, ie. energy, water, habitat, etc... Not that I don't enjoy skiing on the lifts, cause I do...shit I've even got a seasons pass. But pope's double standard sucks my ass.

Drove through today...no ice, only water. The Crucible had some ice, but it'd be a wet climb fer sure.

We were up there for three days, here's what we saw: HWY 99 South- Things are thinning and falling down-Syncro's: middle pitch(the long ramp) is gone. -Carl's Berg: looks pretty thin with lots of small holes.-Ramble's: is fat and crowded, heard there was an accident there on Sunday. Bridge Creek- Things are generally fatter-Jade Falls: looks in and fat from the road-Plan B: is there but the ice looked rotten.-Capricorn: looks all there including a sweet looking pillar pitch down low.-Old Dogs New Picks: looks climbable-poor pro-Silk Degrees: no good-Salmon Stakes: was C's first Ice climb!!, it's in realy good shape. Fat thunker blue ice. Almost not worth the sketchy steep frozen kitty litter approach though(not for the faint of heart). -Shreik o' Sheep: is fater then in mid Jan.-Night'ngale: some friends got on it...fat ice but sluffs spooked them off(understandably) Marble Canyon- Thicker + somewhat healed since Jan. WET Oregon Jack- in, climbed by several parties this weekend Honeyman: hollow ice on the right, wide open in the middleCherry Ice: climbed by a couple of parties, ice is a bit rotten Today(monday) was super warm, but it has been freezing at night so ice continues to grow and fill in, in certain areas. Hope that is usefull to someone...Have fun! P.S.- To the guy who wore his harness and slings to breakfast; thanks for the laugh man! Was that some kind of dare or something? [ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: Lambone ]

I lent my rack to some friends in Bozeman. They tried a route that was over their heads with tricky pro. My buddy fell 40ft, pulling two pieces and snaping his foot off the bottom of his leg, it just dangeled there. I've lost count on how many surgeries he's had. I've never lent my rack out since then.

Right on mattp, to each his own. As long as your comfortable with what works for you. I was just arguing for the sake of killing time. But if we end up climbing together sometime, I'll choose to belay you of my harness ok Have fun in the sun!

quote: Originally posted by mattp: Maybe we are doing different climbs, but I would say that it is not all that uncommon for me to encounter belay ledges where the anchors may not be ideally situated right behind the waist of the belayer. They may be bomber anchors, but if they are in a crack next to a ledge, or if belay bolts are placed for east of retrieving a rappel line from below, they may be off to the side. In such an event, the belayer may be tethered to a leash in such a way that a large pull from a leader fall may pull them out of position. Maybe you only climb with totally bomber partners who weigh more than you do, but I very often climb with people who I fear may do a less than stellar job of belaying me and one of the things that I sometimes worry about is whether they will be able to keep hold of me in the event that they are pulled out of position. Again, particularly if it is a lighter climber, and particularly if they are inexperienced, I fear that a sudden jerk upon them may catch them unaware and they may not do what I had in mind. Someone who is not being pulled off the belay ledge, I believe, will be better able to pay attention to my needs than someone who is dangling in space and being pinned sideways by their anchor tether. It seems that you don't believe in the principle of a DYNAMIC belay. Thats fine, I'm not tryin to change your mind for you. I'm just saying that there is more than one way to look at it. Here is my perspective: First, if you are worried about your belayer holding onto the brake rope (as you say you are), you might want to invest in a Gri-Gri. They are a little expensive and heavy, but its worth the extra piece of mind you'll gain. Second, as I was explaining earlier, I think it is OKAY if the belayer gets picked up by your weight. It will be easyier on the rope, the hardwear, and you. In my opinion, the lighter they are the better. Just make sure they arn't going to fly off the ledge and crack their head open on something. The only time I worry about this type of dynamic motion is if I might land on something and want a tight belay. Then I have them get real close to the anchor by shortening their daisy or clove hitch, or whatever. It's allways important that the belayer can reach the anchor if the rope is fully weighted. "I would say that it is not all that uncommon for me to encounter belay ledges where the anchors may not be ideally situated right behind the waist of the belayer." Yeah, you wouldn't expect that unless there were trees at every belay ledge (like in washington). But I still don't see why you think a belayer must be attached by the back of their waist...? What if they are hanging belays, you gunna string them up by their ass every pitch? Of course not... So do you have them belay straight off of the bolts on a hanging belay? Even if the only gear the pitch takes are little RP's...? I used to have a must not fall, allways keep a tight belay, and be firmly anchored in so you won't get pulled up at all kind of mentality. This is great if you run the risk of decking onto a ledge, but otherwise its just silly, and wrong (in my opinion). Then there are those people who don't trust their belay loop and allways clip in through the tie in points What to do....

I'm not saying that the belayer should'nt be clipped into the anchor. Of course on multi-pitch routes they allways will be. I'm saying that you should never clip the belay device straight to the anchor point itself when belaying a leader. I got the impression thats what carolyn said she had been told to do. [ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Lambone ]

quote: Originally posted by Gordonb: OK, I'll bite, Why? Ok Gordon, the main reason is that belaying a lead climber from a static anchor will dramaticaly increase the forces generated in a fall. Clipping the device straight to the belay loop on your harness add's quite a bit of dynamicness to the system, thus the forces generated are much lower. These forces are distributed through the climber and belayer, the rope, and the piece that the leader falls on. A dynamic belay could make the difference if the piece is questionable. This is why people sometimes use load-limiting quick draws (screamers) on ice and aid climbs where pro may be marginal. Plus wouldn't it be harder to get the angle you need to break the rope properly?? In my 10 or so years of climbing I have never seen any book, mag article, gear catolog, instruction manual, proffesional instructor, etc... recommend belaying a leader straight from the anchor. Maybe people do recomend it, but I've never heard of such a thing. This is not to be confused with belaying a second(where going off the anchor is fine), because in a top rope situation the fall forces are much, much lower. Hope that makes sense... [ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Lambone ]

quote: Originally posted by mattp: That's my point: I think there are situations where it would be a mistake not to have the belayer set the device directly on the anchors. For example, if we cannot set up the belay so that the belayer is ancored IN THE DIRECTION of a potential fall force (that is, with the belayer sitting between the anchor and the expected fall force), and particularly if that belayer is small and inexperienced, I would rather set it up so they belay me directly from the belay anchor. I will back everything up, and I will think about using rippers to reduce fall forces on a questionnable piece (I usually have a couple on my rack), but on balance I think the greater shock loading may be offset by the greater security for the belayer in this example. [ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: mattp ] Really How does clipping the belay device straight to the anchor make up for a belayers lack of experience? If you "cannot set up the belay so that the belayer is ancored IN THE DIRECTION of a potential fall force," how could you clip the belay device to the anchor and hold a fall? If the anchor can't hold your belayer, how is it going to hold you? I understand that there are different anchor set-ups for different circumstances, but I can not imagine a single situation where you would want to clip the belay device directly to the anchor (while belaying the leader). [ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Lambone ]

quote: Originally posted by carolyn: Also, it was mentioned a few times about falling and hitting your belayer. I was recently taught to belay (on ice and I imagine it could be useful for rock as well) off an anchor (tree, screws, etc) vs your harness. THe reasoning...if a large chunk of ice comes falling (or person ) you can still hold onto the rope and move far away. I really dont see that being much different than if you are belaying off your harness, tho. In addition, if you had to get help for some reason you would be able to get out of the system and lock your partner off. Not something you can do while belaying off your harness too easily. Just wondering what others think of this and pro's/con's Im missing before I make a decision to belay this way or not. Thanks! [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: carolyn ] carolyn,Belaying a leader straight of the anchor is a very bad idea.

I've heard about running down the slab on Snake Dyke on half dome. The bolts are run out 50ft. or so at some points. I hear running to the side and penduluming is a better way to go...

Yeah, you know...where all the Rad people live

Yes, thats the Shriek. It's not as far up there as it looks, the approach is pretty mellow. But its also a big avy gully. Nice job James!

It's cause of that freakin signature, I just gotta give you shit!

Yeah, but not at night, after work or school. Plus its hard to stop at index when stevens is only 20 minutes up the road and its dumping powder.

Erik, quit being self rightous...we all know you think you are the lord of Index.

quote: Originally posted by trask: ...there's a shitload of good quality news, trip reports, weather, fitness, tips (not tits, idiot, I said tips), beta, and some hardbody, hardassed, very experienced climber dudes around here. [ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: trask ] Yeah, luckily none of that applies to you.

Keep 'um comin Sir Dwaynmeister. Those eye-popin anicdotes keep me smilin through otherwise uneventful repetitious days at the institution of "higher" learning. You rock

quote: Originally posted by b-rock: ok, dumb question, please be nice to a non-rock climber. i assume a 'pitch' refers to one rope length, say 60m. to rappell down that same pitch, would one not need two ropes? thanks y'all. Usualy. many pitches are often only 50' meters or less, unless otherwise specified. Can you be more specific, what area are you looking at? If its vantage (no multi pitch routes)than you won't need two ropes, Index probably.

What the fuck! That was a hot spring...looks more like a house caught in a tornado. So the toilet was bad for the river, but all that other crap just lying around is ok. Thats lame...

You sure do come up with some weird shit dude. Do you browse that web page often???

Dude, I think you are missing the point here. If the handle can't move, then the gri-gri can't lock. They cut it off so that it can't get caught and thus not be able to lock. Duct taping the handle would only keep the grigri from locking up. Are you sure that you have used a gri-gri before? I f you haven't than you may want to reconsider soloing with one.

I saw a guy deck on the first pitch of saber once. We were waiting for them, and the guy was totaly schetching out, but was too spooked to protect the bomber crack right in front of his face. He just kept going, slipped and came crashing down. I think he was ok though. Just thought I'd share that...

quote: Originally posted by Marcus Engley: Oh, and about your new Redmond manager-- I expect you know him already, but if not, he's a great guy. Fer sure. I'm not sure why so many people think SG bouldering is better than VW's. Is it because the problems are better, more bouldering space, better holds??? Whats up? I'm just curious, I don't go there much.

I think that the people who are most dissapointed with gym climbing are the ones who expect it to be like the "real" thing. Its not, its the gym, its plastic, plywood and concrete. Sure you can recreate some of the same types of movement, but its useless to compare the gym to real rock, saying one is better than the other. It's like apples and oranges. I think sayjay has a good point, the features are more like real edges than most plastic footholds. And erik is just used to climbing at a place where ther are no edges, so he cant relate.