Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Dear climbers!

 

At the Center for Experimental Mechanincs (CEM) we are trying to improve the properties of climbing ropes. To do so we first have to determine which are the worst properties of existing ropes on the market.

We have therefore prepared an online poll.

 

We kindly ask that only people who climb and are acquainted with climbing techniques answer the following questions.

 

You can find the poll at:

http://www.ef.uni-lj.si/spik/anketaeng.asp

 

Thank you for your cooperation!

  • Replies 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Terminal_Gravity said:

Do you think I will now be safe from roving bands of Slovene climbing thugs??

As long as you don't get between them, their choss, and their Union Pivo you should be fine ....
Posted
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.

 

Yes they just want to know who the dumb climbers are I guess.

Posted
vegetablebelay said:

I particularly like the free-write question #15 - If there was a perfect climbing rope, what would it be like? TG answered it just fine right here. wave.gif

 

I filled out the survey and quoted some of TG's remarks as well as commented on the whole "dry rope" deal.

Posted
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

Posted

All things being truly equal a lower impact force IS always better. But unfortunately other things are not equal. A lower impact force means more stretch for a given impact, which almost always means lower number of max falls and a longer body weight stretch: all three of which are bad so lower impact is a compromise.

Posted

If I recall correctly, the comparison stated they had the same elongation, so more stretch as a result of a lower impact force is not an issue. I think the intent was to see if climbers understood that a smaller number is better when talking about forces. There is an advertising phenomenon where consumers will buy something because there are higher numbers on the package, weather they mean anything or not.

Posted
boatskiclimbsail said:

If I recall correctly, the comparison stated they had the same elongation, so more stretch as a result of a lower impact force is not an issue. I think the intent was to see if climbers understood that a smaller number is better when talking about forces. There is an advertising phenomenon where consumers will buy something because there are higher numbers on the package, weather they mean anything or not.

It's interesting you mention that - the root directory of the survey leads to the business school. I'd be interested to see if there was a regional analysis done.

Posted

Elongation is not the same thing as the rope stretch resulting from a fall. Elongation is a measure of the low-load stretch in the rope; it is a measure of how stretchy the rope is when you are jugging or rapelling. A rope with a lower impact force will stretch more durring the high impact of a fall than a rope with a high impact force. cantfocus.gif

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...