bstach

Actually, Robmcdan is correct. The formula holds for both static and dynamic ropes. Which makes sense considering FF is not a measure of the force on the rope, but a *relative* indication of the force of falls of different lengths given the same rope and climber. In deriving the formula for the maximum force in a fall, the factors containing the rope stretch cancel out. Then you are left with factors containing a bunch of constant stuff -weight of the climber, properties of the rope - and the fall factor. The terms of the fall factor are the only things the leader has control of (by when/where he places gear) - all the other things are constant - which is why the FF is a useful measure. Also, it has been stated several times in this thread that reeling increases the fall factor. This is not exactly correct. In fact, for fall factors < 1, reeling will decrease the FF. For fall factors = 0, reeling has no effect on the fall factor. For fall factors > 1, reeling will increase the fall factor (so Dru's post is correct, just incomplete). Go ahead, do the math. : mathdance : Also, note there is a difference between 'reeling' and back-pedaling (running downhill) wrt calculating FF. If you back-pedal, you are not shortening the total amount of rope absorbing the fall - to do this you actually need to pull rope through the ATC (as in 'reeling'). Of course, you still increase the force on the rope when you run, as you now have two masses falling downhill that the rope must bring to a stop.

Not sure I follow your logic, Skoog. Can you explain your Russian Roulette comment? Anyway...I thought it would be obvious that my post was a cheeky answer to an equally inane question. Granted, did lead to some interesting discussion.

Can anyone report on the state of the approach to the Bug/SnoPatch col? Is the 'schrund passable?

I'm taking this question to its logical conclusion. I know I am going to die doing *something*, so I have resolved to do nothing. I just hope it doesn't kill me.

Gary, How do you pronounce 'Yngve'? You definately need to buy a vowel. Where's Vanna these days?

What is the guidbook I need for this area? i.e. if I wanted to *find* the trailhead for Gimli, where do I find the info?

Has anybody used the Fugawi software? I want similar quality to the 1:50,000 maps I can purchase at MEC. And the ability to select and print my area of interest. I visited the website and it reads to me like a viewer is included in the $100 price. Does anybody out there have this? I'm wondering if it allows me to stitch maps together and print my area of interest (i hate it when the area I want to got to is at the edge of two maps). The Fugawi web site has a demo version of the advanced viewer for download. I guess what I am wondering is if the basic viewer will do what I want...I don't really need all the fancy GPS stuff in the advanced software.

Still looking...bump, bump...you can also contact me at b.stach at telus.net

Buy a 2wd car. I bet this is good enough for 80% of the trips you do. With all the money you save not buying a 4x4, cheaper insurance, cheaper maintenance and less gas rent a 4x4 for the trips that you really need one (or borrow, or invite a friend who owns one, or hire a local red-neck to drive/snowmobile you up to the trailhead - the latter will just cost you a flat of beer).

I have it and like it. Granted, its the first and only bivy sack I have owned. My main requirement was I wanted something inexpensive. This is a basic bivy w/o all the poles and fancy things that you get with some other bivys. It has the wire stiffiner to keep the fabric off your face when all zipped in from inclement weather, but it it would be hard to, say, read a book or something like that, which you could do more easily with bivys that have more head room. The important thing is to know what you want and how much you are willing to pay for it. Was there something specific you wanted to know about it?

I'm heading up to the Bugaboos Jul 21-29. I'll be with my wife, ticking off some of the easy/moderate classics. I'm looking for a partner to spend a few days on some harder routes. I'm comfortable leading 5.9 and easy 5.10, willing to follow harder(lets keep it under 5.11 though). I have a rack and rope. Exact days and routes negotiable. Send me a PM with your contact info if interested.

Call before 11pm, huh? Your posting at 9pm. Nothin like saving it until the last minute.

Yeah, I thought you meant the steep approach section below the knoll. Probably because I didn't notice the mid-section of the climb any more rubbly than the first 4 pitches. We kinda smoked through it unroped though. Top two pitches are pretty clean.

It was perfect for avoiding long weekend crowds at the huts...didn't see anybody else the whole time (well, from about Meager Creek on). Drove through the Lilloet campground on the way up...lots of empty spots, while every campground on 99 had the "full" sign out. The rubbly mid-section rated "nasty and unpleasant" on the wife-o-meter. It even elicited a few expletives on the descent. So I guess the answer to your question is 'No'.

What? Private joke?

Climb: Mt. Athelstan-Moonraker 5.7 12p Date of Climb: 7/2/2006 Trip Report: My wife and I headed out from Vancouver Saturday at the crack of noon. We made good time to Pemberton (3h)considering the long-weekend traffic and construction on Hwy. 99 (all those 50km/hr zones). Thanks to all who contributed road approach beta (see previous thread). When it all came down, all the "left, right, left" advice just ended up being confusing (e.g. does that overgrown, pathetic excuse for a road count as a left? This looks like a new road, it must not be the left etc.). Then I remembered the advice of the Jedi Master Don Serl: "Just follow your nose". And Dru: "Its not rocket science". It was like that moment in Star Wars when Luke Skywalker turns off his targeting computer. Everything just fell into place after that. See approach notes for more info. The climb was perfect for me, being relatively new to alpine climbing, easy route finding and short cruxes. It even rated 5.fun on the wife-o-meter. Top 2 pitches (5.7) were my favorites, being a bit cleaner than the rest. The view of Athelstan from the top was fan-f'n-tastic. The descent was easy plunge-stepping in ideal snow conditions. We spent about 7 hours on the climb and less than an hour on the descent back to our bivy site. I'll post some pics when i get around to it. Gear Notes: Took too much gear: set of cams to 3", set of nuts, #8,9 and 10 hexcentrics, 8 draws and a bunch 'o slings. The climbing was mostly easy with short cruxes. That combined with the fact that the protection options weren't that great, I only placed 3-4 pieces per pitch. Approach Notes: Road is in excellent shape - 2wd all the way to the trailhead described in Alpine Select. I went about 1km past that on what appears to be new logging road (4wd recommended). This road continues N and then heads E steeply uphill - so I think we saved a bit of hiking compared to the AS approach. Parked at a small pullout just before the road heads north again. We headed south into the forest until we could see the clearcut (few hundred feet max)and then headed uphill, handrailing the clearcut. Eventually we cut into the alder and after a short section of thrashing we met up with the avy chute described in AS. Retrospectively, we could have stayed in the forest as long as possible (fairly easy going) and then easily into a gulley (different one than AS)where the alders end and the forest steepens (we came down this way). Minimal snow down low (won't last long). Above the knoll the travel was fairly easy on snow. We bivied near the base of the climb on a flat bolder (well, flat is a relative thing ;-) 3h to base of climb.

Heading up today. Thanks for all the info. I'm sure I'll find it. Stay tuned for a trip report.

That was my red cam - had black and yellow tape on it, right? I fumbled it pretty high up...so I hope your not using it. :-(

Do you have a better suggestion for recent road info? The BC Basemaps (see thread on the subject) appear to have less detail (at least for this area).

Sadly, I only own a 2wd. But could borrow if neccessary.

Thanks for the beta...sounds like the road is 2wd accessable at least as far as Salal Creek road. Good to know as Alpine Select suggests otherwise. Also sounds like a recent Backroads Mapbook would be in order. Anybody know if the road is 2wd accessable all the way to the trailhead?

Thinking of climbing Moonraker this weekend or next. Wondering what the road condition is like (Don Serl indicated in a June 2004 trip report that the lower road was in bad condition and wouldn't last the season w/o maintenance...is this road being maintained?) Also, if anyone can comment on the route conditions (clear of snow etc.) that would be fantastic (pardon the pun).