chriss
-
Posts
158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chriss
-
-
"Designed for use at rope clipping end of a quickdraw, this extremely light and strong biner works mechanically in your favour."
When it comes to falling on less than bomber pro, I usually think of friction as my friend - it transfers the energy of the fall into heat and also onto other pieces. It seems like this biner would just transmit more energy to the piece holding the fall and increase the chances of failure. It also seems likely to transmit more force to the belayer.
I'm no physicist (and also no speller . . .), so maybe I'm way off. Anybody have a comment on this?
In this case friction is not your friend. The friction between the rope and the biner reduces the ropes ability to stretch and absorb the force of the fall. The section of rope between the falling climber and the load bearing biner gets stressed more than the section of rope below the biner because of this friction. The "pulley" would allow the rope to run more smoothly as it is doubled over 180 degrees at the biner. More active rope to absorb the force equals less force on protection.
As far as the belayer is concerned, the force will increase. This proves that more rope is being used. But this force can be no greater than the force on the other end.
chriss
-
Lot of climbing there. What did you need to know? There have been numerous guidebooks since the early 80s.
If in the wildlife refuge, find a place called the Narrows. Quartz Mtn. State Park has Mt Baldy.
What city is "the family" in?
chris
-
""i read somewhere that lowe stole the cam idea in turn from vitaly abalakov who had experimented with prototypes of eccentrically rotating protection in the 1950's or something and showed them to lowe at an exchange meet.... of course i also read in a biographical piece on lowe where he said abalakov stole the idea from him....
in fact Lowe has invented a lot of weird stuff but aside from the TRICAM not a lot of it is very good. mostly the refinement made by someone else is what has caught on. Footfangs were the shit for a while but no longer. Some of the "new" lowe inventions like the SBG belay device and Tri-Nuts strike me as silly.
""
(that should of had quotes around it)
I remembered reading an article about the "Abalokov Cams" in an old Off Belay magazine from February '78 (#37 looked it up). It mentions an article from #25, February '76, which I have lost over the years. The cams in the pictures (#37) look almost identical to the Tricams of today. The American/Soviet climbers exchange was also in '76. The article in #25 is about that event. So, if someone has the #25 issue of Off Belay around....
Of note is, cams were already being used passively, meaning no springs. CMI and SMC had Kirk's Cams and Camlocks in production and on the market in that same timeframe.
Lowe's Footfangs introduced a few concepts it took years for other manufacturers (and consumers) to grasp. Vertical frontpoints, "anti-bots", "step-in" bindings. Way, way ahead of their time. Considered standard on ice crampons today. Lowe had vision that's for sure.
chris
-
MisterE, not tri-cams...the original SLCD design was by Lowe, not Jardine. Greg Lowe invented the first SLCD...he patented it. He showed it to Jardine, who ripped off the idea, tweaked it (substantially, by adding the trigger among other refinements) and sold it to Wild Country. Lowe sued, and they settled out of court.
Ref: "Wizards of Rock"
Only partly true. Lowe had used a spring loaded cam in a climbing devise (early 70s). Jardine admits to using Lowe's concept. BUT concept only. Jardine's devise was far more refined that Lowe's, that's why it was copied by everyone else and is still with use today.
Lowe did sue. But it was ruled that he could not patent the cam portion of the devise. Cams have been around to long. Jardine's devise was different enough, in other ways, to win the case. He got the patent.
Every other cam manufacturer has used basically the same concept as Jardine's. He could not sue Chouinard for the Camalot design even though only the double-axle was new.
Give credit where credit is due.
chris
(sorry for the subject drift)
-
Thanks again Lummox for puttint things in perspective. I guess we know where everyone stands on the Gibbs. Though it was used in the old days as a self-belay devise, it was never designed for, nor tested for this use. And yes, it has been said a Gibbs will damage a rope at around 2000lbf. The Gibbs is said to have torn the sheath and slipped down the rope. Of note, 2000lbf is almost 9KN.
As I said before, DO NOT USE AN ASCENDER (Gibbs or any other)FOR SELF-BELAY, TR OR LEAD. There are modern tools better suited for this task.
chris
-
Well put there, Lummox. Thanks for adding that note about the dangers of improper use of climbing equipment.
The Gibbs was used as a solo device, both lead and toprope in the 70s. Which was the topic of the thread.
While hardly "notorious" for shredding ropes, it can and has damaged ropes in falls. It should also be noted that it is one of the strongest and most "rope friendly" ascenders. I understand there are modern versions that are designed for dynamic loading.
chris
-
The Gibbs is not an ascender like those of today. It had no "teeth". Didn't use a spring loaded cam. The load is not carried or applied by the frame.
>> Do not use this device for anything other than that recommended by the manufacturer. <<
And ropes will break in knots, in devices, anywhere the rope is compromised when stressed.
chris
-
There is thing, was popular for a while a few decades ago, called a Gibbs Ascender. These days they would be called rope clamps, or grabs or somesuch name. This "ascender" could be had with no spring in the cam that clamps the rope. Therefor it wouldn't "grab" until weighted. It was also "assembled" around the rope and reasonably strong.
I have one and have used it a few times. Works well enough. There are probably better specialized tools these days. I won't comment on how to use it. If you've seen one, you should be able to figure it out.
chris
-
Actually the conduit was inserted in a hole made by screwing inand removing an ice screw. The conduit is/was not rigid enough to drive into ice.
This was for rap anchors only.
chris
-
The different diameter thing has already been done. A french company, Rivory Joanny (sp?) did this in the late 80s. It was intended as a sport rope. Didn't catch on.
Sorry, it did sound like a good idea then too.
chriss
-
Check their website for conditions. codyice
Stay in town, the morning drive's not bad. There was a guide out about 10 years ago, just a marked up map kinda thing. Approaches are reasonable but canyon is bigger than it looks on the map.
chris
-
If the formula for the cam is a "constant contact angle" then the "holding power" of the cam will be the same throughout the range. From green to red.
Wild Country says anything between 1/4 to 3/4 cammed is good.
I guess the manufacturers want you to stay away from the ends. Maybe the potential for metal deformation is greater there.
chris
-
The B and T ratings from the CE.
B is for Basic, T is Technical. The T rated picks are required to be stronger than the B rated. Usage is up to you, though the design may have been intended for a specific use.
chriss
-
Didn't ABC offer a gore-tex tent for a while? Made by Alpine Designs? Or somebody like that? They still offer the bivy sack.
chris
-
www.mandatorygear.com/tent2.htm
Pound and a half---4 person tent.
Not exactly 4 season but gives an idea as to what's possible.
chris
-
catbirdseat said:
The last question was interesting. Which rope is better. The two were the same, except that the second had a lower impact force. Easy choice.
I'm not trying to start anything, BUT...
lower impact force does not always make the better rope. Both were listed as 10.5, 1 had a lower impact force than the other. You assumed all other factors were even. Don't buy ropes based on impact force alone. Everyone knows red ropes perform better.
chris
-
I'm afraid not.
The "working load" elongation is done with a 80Kg mass, in a static load situtation. Meaning the mass is hung from the rope, NOT dropped on the rope.
Sorry if I confused you about the breaking elongation. This can be done in either static OR dynamic loading. As both conditions can be made severe enough to break a rope.
Dynamic stretch as measured in the fall testing is NOT "working load" elongation NOR maximum elongation at failure.
chriss
-
Please note that the 4.4% elongation for that rope is "working load". That is for a static load.
Dynamic (in a fall) elongation is way different. I've read that some climbing ropes can go into the 30-40% stretch range before parting.
Impact load is important too, as said. But lower numbers are not always better there either.
chriss
-
So, I go over to check out this Olympus trek. After hearing all this talk, I think that could be fun. Solo, 1st time in the park, it's time to punish myself for getting out of shape.
Left the trailhead Thurs at 6PM, manage to make Elk Lake at 10PM. I am BEAT. Sack at in the shelter, get up at 6AM, thinking I'll probably be going down today. Think I'll at least hike up a little more just to see. At 12 I'm just below the summit piramid, wondering if I can reverse the rock moves in WET trail runners (no rope). I did't see it happening. Checked the so called SE 4th class option. After 20 or so minutes climbing on a loose choss pile, gave that up.
Set and talked with some packers back at Glacier meadows for a while, needed the break. Out to the 9 mile ranger station, 6PM, another long break. To the car, 9PM.
And I was spanked. About 27 hours round trip including the bivy. And worse yet I miss the last ferry back and had to sleep in the car last night.
GOOD time.
chriss
-
Tod
"Chlorine has little affect on giardia so the pool example does make perfect sense."
Chlorine does affect Giardia. Crypto however, not so well.
I have to agree with you, use judgement.
chriss
-
Would like to go up Wed or Thur (6/11or12?)
Long day or 2 day
Looking for partner
chriss
-
The answer to the question is neither.
Tie the flake off with a sling.
Both the cam and the nut take the downward force, multiply it, and transfer it to the sides of the crack.
Tieing to the flake will transmit only the force of the fall in the direction of the fall. If the flake is "open" upward and only attached at the bottom,tie off the flake so the force will be in compression and not pry the flake away from the face. Tension force if attached at the top only. If attached at the side, tie off as close as possible to the attachment point, to decrease leverage.
No multiplication of force in a tie off.
chriss
-
All good advise.
But just drop one of those heat packets in next to the bottle before it starts to freeze.
chris
-
Bolt-mania
in Spray
Don't judge trad climbing in Colorado by going to Shelf, or Rifle or any of the sport areas.
Try Turkey Rock, or Sheep's Nose, lot's of stuff in the South Platte. Go to Lumpy Ridge, or Eldorado, and you'll see where "trad"ition came from.
chris
twin ropes
in Newbies
Posted · Edited by chriss
Remember that these ropes are tested differently.
Side by side comparisons of the numbers is not realistic.
chris
(edited for typos)