layton

real men carry the heaviest shit possible

Still a very small group when compared to Boulder or SLC. Having excellent cragging minutes away vs. hours makes a HUGE difference, as does weather and length of season. Also, a good gym makes a difference. Seattle and portland have OK gyms (sorry guys), but nothing like Boulder and SLC do. I can get 6 **** pitches in before or after work almost every day of the year, not to mention our gym is world class, and we have ice and mixed super close. The skiing and mtn biking around here is too good, and drags down the climbing community a bit more than the Boulder crew.

did you tell him about the twinkie?

stop that! they don't have those commercials out here, i forgot how much i hate that DING!

oh, I thought they activated at more.

not if the screamer doesn't activate on the harness, which in your scenario gene, I don't think it would.

The force generate on the questionable gear will be far beyond the force at your tie-in point, making that useless. In other words, if that screamer ripped, then the force on the piece you fell on would be huge and would probably hold concidering those forces.

so basically it's access and weather, plus a general lack of info about how good some of the hard alpine routes are. I bet those craggers never heard of that route you did on Baring, Blake.

I've thought about this a lot (for whatever reason) in regards to PNW climbers. First, I think there are folks that get after both (you and the L-town crew being a good example). But many WA alpine routes are a pain in the ass to get to and there are a lot more factors to shut you down (mainly weather). Also, the season is short for both. So if you really want to do an alpine route, you may have to try a couple times and are too pooped to crag after or just don't have enough time for both. Other places you can climb year round and high quality difficult "alpine" climbs are much much easier access - and the cragging can be done year round. Kinda like ice climbing - maybe you are able to lead WI5 by the end of the season, but 9 months of off time put you back at square one. On the flip side, Washington has many more "mountaineering/scrambling" type routes to draw in many more non-technical "climbers" than areas like Colorado - where the aforementioned group is replaced by backpackers, and they don't make it on your radar. Since the "mountaineer" type in WA already own harness, helmets, whathaveyou, they have a small inclination to sometimes go cragging than do backpackers in other areas who don't have any technical gear. People like me are the other reason. They want to do hard alpine routes so badly that cragging seems like a waste of a beautiful day, and then wonder why they are forever stuck in 5.10+ mode. I've told myself so many time how much better of a climber I'd be if I cragged and projected more, and saved the alpine stoke for just a couple routes a season.

knots do, but you have to untie/retie in I don't think adding more knots to the rope is a good idea, but I do wonder if there is an on the fly way to improvise a screamer without added equipment like this product (http://www.e-climb.com/cintas_en/dissip_en)

There's no membrane in Powershield. What sort of construction is it? Polartec's website calls it a membrane, FWIW. http://www.polartec.com/shelter/polartec-power-shield/how-does-it-work.aspx Not trying to be right, just curious. It's mildly fleece lined with tight woven exterior- feels like stretchy neoprene. LOVE IT for softshell winter bottoms, usually just use light weight long underwear underneath

and that's why I asked the question a lot of know-it-all answers and jibs at it being a high school physics problem, but simple things we take for granted sometime provide very interesting surprises

thank you!

total basic high school science stuff

shit's not over yet I've heard that article has some problems with it, as does John Long and Sterling's tests

wayne and I couldn't believe the potential when we went in there. still tons to do - some of the best rock ANYWHERE

well thank you! and great article kurt! ok, i think we beat this one into a pulp

I violated that rule about 15 times today

i agree (and I took my 3 semester of college physics fyi) I think people are assuming the "pieces" i'm talking about are worthless. I'm saying these theoretical "pieces" are sketchy, but still have some holding power (like a micro nut). I just don't feel satisfied by the statements made that the pieces that blow don't absorb much force (the friction of the piece blowing or distortion/snapping or metal/wire is negligible). Is it because the rope (or anchor cord) is now fairly static, and/or the acceleration between pieces (let's say two feet) is enough to bring the forces back up close to original levels? edit: dru's post snuck in between chirps and this one. Ok, thank you! So the point of this thread is that most (I'd say almost all) climbers don't realize this. Like me, it makes sense to assume that each piece reduces the force - on down the line. And this assumption probably creates some dangerous anchors or lead decisions. So, is there any point to putting in a marginal piece to "slow you down" or to have an unequalized anchor made up of a bunch of crappy pieces? If there is a valid reason, please explain why.

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. why? wouldn't a piece failing absorb quite a bit of energy and lessen the force to the next piece? none of you ever do this?

I get totally CF'ed with slider aiders

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.

This is the only sentence I care about "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" 1st, is this true? how? 2nd, if you applied this in a lead situation (pieces are not equalized and are shock loaded), wouldn't that mean ripping gear would not lessen then force on each successive piece?

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

yeah, none of this is new - and I assume is correct and what I was hoping to hear. what i was wondering was if that our assumptions (based on pretty logical thinking) were wrong - as they sometimes are. i think the only qualified response would be someone with a PhD in physics...sure we got one here somewhere? I'd ask skykilo but he majored in magic