Jump to content

alpine et

Members
  • Posts

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by alpine et

  1. 1 person on scene said helmet was on

    2 persons on scene said no helmet

     

    ??seems like there isn't lots of grey area, other than perhaps helmet on with loose chin strap or something like that.

     

    hope for a good recovery for the guy, regardless of circumstances.

     

    I reported back that he was wearing a helmet. I could have sworn I saw one on (didn't witness the fall) and ceratinly heard folks who did witness it say it would have been much worse without one. But I could certainly be incorrect.

  2. comments regarding no helmet aren't true. I was there - he had a helmet on. as for other details, I didn't see or observe enough to comment.

     

    hoping everything works out for all those involved.

     

    as a newer trad leader I hope to gain some insight from what happened - hope I don't have to sift through too much junk here to do so.

  3. Looks like I may end up climbing at Vantage according to the weather. Haven't been there yet, looks like there's some trad climbing there :tup:

     

    I haven't explored Vantage as much as many people on here I'm sure, but I think you'll be dissapointed if you are going there with trad in mind. There are some gear climbs, but there seems to be a lot more bolted face climbing.

  4. Roger that, "posts like this" was actually referring to MY post. I'm not sure why people always say, I've pm-ed about it. I guess to try and claim it?

     

    pm sent on screw... but why do people write posts like this? I'm also going to get some orange juice on my way home from work... anyone care?

     

    he's the OP, replying that he doesn't want to trade for more gear.

  5.  

    Why not?

    If a 7kN force rips a piece rated to 6kN, wouldn't that piece have absorbed 6kN regardless of rope stretch, or any other dynamic elements?

    This is the heart of my question.

    Son, you're lacking perspective. You asked a question regarding work, then limit your vocabulary to force. The answer to your question is probably no (the scenario you describe is too incomplete to say no definitively). The explanation can be found in previous posts.

     

     

    I think the most revelant reason is that a piece is going to blow because it wasn't set well or the rock wasn't solid. I'm not usually too concerned with the kN rating on the gear itself. 6kN is a hell of a lot.

     

    But if we're in the situation where a bomber piece blows beacuse of mechanical failure, energy would be absorbed while breaking the cable, but if your pieces are spaced in a normal manner, you're free falling between them, and quickly picking up energy to throw at that next piece...

  6. found this on rockclimbing.com

    http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2589801

    "A situation to watch out for with three-point anchors arranged horizontally is that a piece on one of the two outer arms is relatively weak. This should be avoided if possible. If an outer arm blows with the standard symmetrically rigged configuration, all the load will transfer to just a single piece, the middle piece, and the third arm will not be loaded unless that middle piece also blows, setting up the cascade failure scenario that seems the most likely way for a multi-point anchor to fail. (The fact that there is no momentary relaxing of tension in this scenario means that the extraction of anchor pieces will not reduce fall energy to any significant degree.) "

     

    that defies common sense to me

     

     

    This scenario is quite different than climbing on lead. If the pieces are equalized, then the coredelette will not relax inbetween the first piece failing and the next one ripping out. That's not to say that the first piece didn't decerase the load, though[i mean load decreased via rope stretch, not cordalette, while this piece rips, not much energy absorbed by the actual piece blowing]. There is presumably a rope in the system that is stretching and taking load as that fisrt piece of the anchor fails. So the load can be lower on the next piece, but not beacuse of any energy absorbed by the cordelette. However I think this gets a bit too academic, as when I build my 3 point anchors, I make damn sure the 3 pieces are bomber.

  7. I can't imagine that any two pieces would be put so close together that the rope wouldn't be able to unload after the top one blows. The rope is a really long spring and once stretched will recoil very quickly. The pieces would have to be almost equalized to keep the rope from relaxing... the second piece would have to be recieveing load before the first one failed.

  8. Enjoyed a new route out at x38 after a tip from some knowledgeable folks. Anyone know who puts up routes with a salamander stamped into the hanger? Or maybe I'm showing my lack of experience here and that is a brand??

     

    Not sure it's up to me to broadcast the location and details, but if anyone wants to know of a new 5.8 at gun show, drop me a line.

     

    Erik

  9. Thanks for your thoughts... seems like your setup felt odd because of the difference in technical nature of the tools, and less so the length difference. I think the two axes will still swing & stick fairly similarly, so I'll give it a go.

     

    I haven't bought the hammer tool yet... was scoping out thoughts before I picked up the other one and was stuck with a mismatching set... but I think it's worth a try- got one of them at discount, at least.

  10. I picked up a factory second Petzl sum'tec 59cm adze version. I had planned on pairing it up with a 59cm hammer for alpine ice climbing. I only notice now, however, that Petzl only makes the hammer in a 52cm length.

     

    Will it be weird to have one tool at 52cm and another at 59cm? I guess they're going to weight slightly differently anyway, with the adze / hammer difference, but will that extra 7cm feel weird while climbing? Or will it be hard to notice it in practice? Anyone use mismatching ice tool lengths?

     

    thanks...

     

  11. I think in both circumstances you get what you put into it. I took the basic alping climbing course with mountaineers last year and am most of the way through intermediate course now. There were several times when I was shown a skill or taught something that was not correct.... it's volunteer run. You will not get that if you hire a guide.

     

    However, if you get a guide it's much more up to you to be proactive and learn the skills instead of just being guided up something. I haven't been on any guided trips, but I've witnessed many of them in the mountains - most of the time it was unfit folks being dragged up a mountain. Short roped all the way up Shasta... did they not learn self arrest?

     

    I paid somewhere near $300 for the basic course. It's a time commitment, and I was lucky to get a really good instructor for basic who taught us the basic skills and the why/when behind them.

     

    either way... good luck. The mountaineers have a decent layout of their programs on the website: www.mountaineers.org

  12. I researched this route recently as well - agree that most were heading up Lightning Creek instead of going to White Pass. If you want to go via White Pass, why not check out the newly reopened N. Fork Sauk road? I worked up the mileage of White River via Lightning Creek as ~ 32RT, which was somewhat similar to the mileage along the N. Fork Sauk -> White Pass route. Within a few miles, so basically the same given I'm just drawing lines on google earth.

     

    via lightning creek: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/609959/glacier-whiteriver.html

  13. Excellent!

     

    You don't even need an intervalometer, just set your camera to manual, exposure to 30 seconds, shutter to continuous, and lock down a manual shutter release cable (the $40 one, not the $200 one). It's lighter, too :)

     

    yeah - good call! the intervalometer isn't too heavy (I mean, I already had the rope, tripod, 60D, tent......) but the cheapo one I have is big, and is annoying to pack. Continuous shooting works well with most time lapses in the backcountry... most things are moving quick enough (clouds or meteors) that you want to be capturing rather continuously.

     

    With daytime timelapses it might be nice to be able to insert a few seconds between each frame... your camera will really be going bonkers nailing out 1/100" exposures over and over.

  14. Thanks! I have an intervalometer I use for timing the shots. Canon has a spendy one but if you google around there are good cheap alternatives.

     

    Yup, adobe premiere...brought them into Lightroom and applied a real subtle adjustment, and then to premiere. Pretty easy, really...just lucky the views were so good and the moon didn't wash it out halfway through...

     

    this is basically what I have (Link). Canon makes one that is about double...

×
×
  • Create New...