Winter Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 I ain't no pyshicistist either, but isnt' it: Force = Mass * Velocity Velocity = Acceleration * Time Acceleration under the influence of gravity is contstant unless you've got some funky wieght to area ratio like a parachute. If you fall from 20 feet vs. 5 feet, your acceleration is the same, your velocity when your weight hits the bolt is greater, the force is greater and you'll likely pull the manky ole' spinner and deck out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Winter: I ain't no pyshicistist either, but isnt' it: Force = Mass * Velocity Velocity = Acceleration * Time I made it out of engineering school on a wing and a prayer, but I remember a couple things. F = Mass * Acceleration, where "Acceleration" is gravity, g=32.2-fps/s during a climbing fall. So, the longer the fall, the more time you spend accelerating and the greater the impact force once you stop. Rope stretch would be a factor, as well, as it absorbs some of the force generated. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 TC HAS GONE LCEAN FOR A COUPLE YEARS...EVEN a weak ass aid climber like myself can do it without even considering pins...... and scottp your wish to climb the manky bolt ladders is stupid....keep drving your car around if you want to be scared by machines and steel.... old people....sheesh!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 you guys are confusing force with work. F=ma, and w=Fd where d=distance. Work has units of energy. A longer fall intuitively produces more work than a shorter one, and that energy will need to be dissipated by rope stretch, muscles sagging over skeleton, rope slippage through the belay device, etc. So two falls of different lengths will load the top piece differently given that all other things are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjay Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Winter: I ain't no pyshicistist either, but isnt' it: Force = Mass * Velocity Velocity = Acceleration * Time quote: Originally posted by Greg: I made it out of engineering school on a wing and a prayer, but I remember a couple things. F = Mass * Acceleration, where "Acceleration" is gravity, g=32.2-fps/s during a climbing fall. So, the longer the fall, the more time you spend accelerating and the greater the impact force once you stop. Rope stretch would be a factor, as well, as it absorbs some of the force generated. Greg's got it right- F=M*A, where A=acceleration due to gravity=change in velocity with time. What matters here is the time-integral of the force, which is called the IMPULSE, and this is equal to MASS*CHANGE IN VELOCITY. Since your initial velocity was zero, here it's just MASS*VELOCITY (i.e. your momentum...). So yes, the longer you fall, the greater your velocity and the greater the impulse force. However, Greg's also correct that the force you put on the piece/bolt will depend on how much of the force of your falling body is absorbed by the stretch of the rope. In a very short fall, there is less rope to stretch and absorb the force so the piece/bolt takes almost all of the impulse force. In a really long fall, you've accelerated for longer and your body has a greater impulse force, but a larger fraction of that is taken up by rope stretch. That's why we climb with dynamic and not static ropes... So there's some ideal fall length (not too short, not too long depending on the rope and your size) where the rope stretch optimally counteracts your extra velocity and the piece takes a minimum load. (Note that WORK=FORCE*DISTANCE comes into play when you realize all the WORK you gotta do climbing back up to where you fell from ). Any of you that have read all of this and are still awake are even more of a geek than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 My original point was that if you have a large run out, there is more rope available to absorb the impact of the fall, hence less force on the piece. It has allways been my understanding that short falls have a higher impact force, or fall factor. Don't you reach terminal velocity pretty quickly? Petzl has some good info and diagrams about the subject on their web site . I also agree with eric...I don't really see the thrill of clipping into crappy bolts. I think that preserving bad bolts on trade routes is unrealistic. [ 05-13-2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Lambone ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 yeah, it is f=ma. Sometimes I should think before I post. Even worse, I confused acceleration with velocity. My point was that a longer fall will mean you are going faster and therefore you will tend to exert more force on the top piece. Sorry for being such a birdbrain. Erik- I already climbed the manky bolt ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 The amount of force acting on a piece of pro during a fall is a factor of several things (weight of climber, length of fall, the amount of stretch in the rope, harnesses, bodies, etc, and the "fall factor". The "fall factor" is the ratio of the total distance the leader falls to the amount of rope out. So, if the leader falls above the anchor with no gear, that is a factor 2 fall. (Leader falls twice the rope length). I'm no physicist either (I'm a geneticist), so I don't know the formula to calculate the force of a fall (the rope stretch issue is complicated I think), but I think a factor 2 fall (falling from 10 feet above anchor to 10 feet below anchor) generates twice as much force as a factor 1 fall (falling 5 feet above your piece of gear which is 5 feet above anchor for a total of 10 feet of rope). This is why factor 2 falls are BAD. Always put a piece of gear in above the anchor, even if it's easy climbing. Don't fall on the anchor. Damn my brain hurts... I need a beer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b-rock Posted May 13, 2002 Share Posted May 13, 2002 quote: Originally posted by ScottP: Charlie sez: "Does anyone have a topo for Orbit that they could post on here or email me?" "Better yet, somebody want to meet me at the trailhead tommorow with the topo, then climb it with me?" "still need the topo...." "So, no topo??? " Somebody get this guy a tissue. Ha! And he even got his topo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by ScottP: Erik- I already climbed the manky bolt ladder. good for you, cuz so have i, and i have even done the new one too!!! trump! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMAZONIA Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 I have some questions? First let me say I defentialy don't believe in retrobolting established problems. I would like to know who and why it was retrobolted was there extenuating circumstances? Was this the line Wallstein retrobolted ? [ 05-14-2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: CAMAZONIA ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Manky rotten bolt ladders are stupid. It's not like they take any extra skill to climb, just the balls to run the gauntlet. It's unrealistic to pretend that we can use ancient bolt ladders on trade routes forever. Then again, I think they do have a bit of astheic, historical value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 I talked to Fred about this route recently. He was wondering if someone freed it yet... Fred thought that replacing them if they were manky was a great idea. Just got back from Coast Range now headed to Stuart Range by 1 PM. See you next week homies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMAZONIA Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Lambone: Manky rotten bolt ladders are stupid. It's not like they take any extra skill to climb, just the balls to run the gauntlet. It's unrealistic to pretend that we can use ancient bolt ladders on trade routes forever. Then again, I think they do have a bit of astheic, historical value. I totaly aggree with replaceing rotten hardware in some circumstances , but not at the cost of ruining a classic line. So my question is still unanswered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Lambone: Manky rotten bolt ladders are stupid. (snip) Then again, I think they do have a bit of astheic, historical value. I swore to myself I wasn't going to get into this argument, but... make up your mind already! (BTW, I agree with you on the aesthetics and history.) quote: It's not like they take any extra skill to climb, just the balls to run the gauntlet. Mental skill and physical skill: The mental skill is the wherewithall to step onto shitty pieces, regardless of what they are. The physical skill is the ability to move smoothly, carefully and delicately on shitty pieces, regardless of what they are. quote: It's unrealistic to pretend that we can use ancient bolt ladders on trade routes forever..Who said anything about forever? When one of the studs snaps, it is replaced. In my opinion, climbing is about risk. Remove the risk and much of what climbing is is removed also. In essence it becomes vertical hiking, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 looks like the fa chimed in, so i guess this tired debate is over..... how does replacing scary bolts and fixed gear make the route less aesthtic??? are not the bolts the original detractant from a purley aesthic stand point??? why dont we go out and remove all the installations and patch the holes, then you can go out and re-drill it on lead. for your boldness..... if you are looking for scare, go do an fa or a harder route..... abaraxas should suit you fine.... i think soo many people miss the point of bolts ladders/sport routes(too) these are in for protection and the link features...... the replacment of fixed gear is the responsibilty of all climbers, certainly an fa put those in, but with what intention??? fred used modern technology when he did it, and it has now been restorted with the use of modern tech.... bolts are not permant or bomb proof forever and to belive so, shows your ignorance and stupidity..... enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 If you are so into risk in climbing why don't you just stop using the manko bolts and a rope too? Don't impose your world view of climbing on others (that goes two ways of course). Even when safe, it is far from vertical hiking. Certainly risk is a part of climbing, but I do not believe that risk is the goal of climbing. Another aspect, to be historical in a non-material object sense, is the experience of the first party. They climbed on those spinners when they were fresh as a daisy, not rusty trustys. Saying the rusty bolts are in some way better is similar to arguing that you should keep driving your classic car with original tires until they bald, blow out and cause an accient- minor or major. I've replaced scary ass bolts on lines before and I feel that it was the right thing to do. I added no additional placements, just maintained the level of protection. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappellini Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 truely stupid......i love 1/4 inch bolts...they are faster to place...when they are new, they are not manky, when they are old they are old not manky, if someone wants to waste there time replacing them before they pull out on there own who cares...as long as they aren't doing it when i need a partner to do some real climbing and they are too busy waisting there time pulling out perfectly good old bolts..old 1/4 inch hangers placed by a climbing icon of the past four decades look really cool on your coffee table and make for excellent conversation pieces...i love to acquire old relics while climbing...i have a whole wad of the shit....drilling a bolt ladder on lead is by no means a big deal, it is a ladder, you are protected by your last bolt while drilling.....whoopdeedoodadaydipshit i drilled a bolt ladder on lead i am so brave!!!!!!!!! drill it on rappel if you can get to the anchor by another means, who #$%%^^@ing cares!!!!!truely stupid indeed....to experience the legacy left by the first ascent, the fixed pro should be replaced following each successive ascent........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 OK, here is my rant, to add to the list of rants above... I think Scott does have a valid argument, although his logic seems a little off to me. Why isn't climbing a manky bolt ladder also a vertical hike? What's the difference? Does a old bolt ladder really take more skill to climb than a new one...come on now, get real. I do agree that the character of the route should be somewhat preserved. What do you guys think? If 1/4 inch button heads were placed on the fa, shouldn't they be replaced with the same thing? Or should we just sink a new 3/8 inch bolt with a stainless hanger on it? I'm not sure...points could be argued both ways. After all, a 3/8" would be much more permenant. BTW Scott, your post wouldn't be such a waste of bandwidth if you hadn't used it to "snipe" me. I'll make up my mind when I'm goddamn god and ready, "Mr. I've got it all figured out...." [ 05-14-2002, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Lambone ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 A nice new button head properly placed is, on a bolt ladder, as effectively bomber as bomber can be. I don’t think it is a case of making the route too bomber. The replacement protection should be a long-lived as possible. I say use 1/2” stainless. In fact I’d go so far as to say 3/8” is irresponsible. Besides if a stud does break it is possibly impossible to clean out, so over time the use of 1/4” will lead to more degrading of the route. The fixed gear throughout the non-bolted sections of the route clearly have changed the character vis-a-vis the FA time than the replacement of old bolts on a ladder. - both visually and difficulty wise. Yet where are the complaints? Question for Lambone: I just did a FA and by error placed a ton of defective bolts. Should the bolts be replaced with defective bolts? Good bolts? Does my opinion as FA matter? What if my opinion can’t be determined? PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 PP, I just mentioned 3/8" because that is the standard the ASCA is using down in Yosemite. Probably because they are hand drilling so many. Trust me, I complain about fixed gear also. unless it will damage the rock to remove it. I think the tripple roof pitch is a joke, and am considering cleaning it, at least all the tat cheater sling. If you read my post more closely, you will see that I am not suggesting either way is right, I'm asking for the opinion of others. No, I dont think defective bols should be replaced with defective bolts...what kind of question is that anyway??? I think the first assencionist should be considered when rebolting a route. Out of respect if nothing else. If they are dead...oh well, see 'em in hell. As far as the original character of the route... case in point: Pitch 5 of Zodiac A new bolt ladder has been place straight up the wall, where Charlies old bolt ladder takes the dunken sailor route to the left then way back right. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but when I was up there it definately left a bad taste in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 clueless well the original retro boltng attempted to not turn the ladders into machined lines. all orignial hardware was replaced with 1/4" split shank stainless buttonheads. all hand drilled. these bolts were manufactured by american hardware or some shit. two of the buttons heads broke off insde their holes. about 1/16"-1/32 depth.......these came from a weak batch of bolts made. after talking with some powers at be it seems that many stainless 1/4ers have had issues over the MANY decades.. they were replcaed with 3/8 and 1/2 stainless hardware. power drilled. there was an attpemt to resotre it with some original flavor. unfortuantly something out of EVERYONEs control went wrong. luckily no one was hurt or injured. this goes to show that all fixed gear and all bolts should be treated with some skepticism. the retro bolter still feels bad about it. what is done is done. like i said, maybe we need to remove it all and erase the route, so everyone can enjoy the original piece of stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Lamb – I wasn’t accusing you of anything - just giving my opinion and asking for yours so I can better understand what you mean by “the character of the route should be somewhat preserved.” It seems that it could be argued that 1/4" bolts are in some sense a defective technology. As far as fixed gear: what if removing all the fixed gear made the route impossible to climb clean. What if it changed the rating to C5? Does the original rating of the route have any implication on the nature of the fixed gear that is acceptable? Erik – As far as the guy who placed the bad bolts – we should all give him a beer or two for all his efforts. Very few people seem to be willing to make much of an effort in helping to maintain routes. Feels bad? He shouldn’t! He went through a ton of work placing them and when he found out they were defective he posted a thread about them on Rec.climbing (where I first heard of this) and then had to listen to the internet BS machine crank up and slam him. I was amazed how much BS was thrown his way when he should have been praised. Your point on fixed gear is well made. PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: Lamb – As far as fixed gear: what if removing all the fixed gear made the route impossible to climb clean. What if it changed the rating to C5? Does the original rating of the route have any implication on the nature of the fixed gear that is acceptable? PP PP, Cool, no worries. That is a tough question. here is what I usualy do regarding fixed gear, or at least what i've done on the few trade routes I've done. If it can come out without damaging the rock, then it should. If it's obvious that nothing else but that pin will work, I leave it. But tattered fixed sling, especialy on roofs, has got to go. It allows the gumby to stay low and comfy in the aiders. You might as well have a cheater stick. I didn't know all the history behind Town Crier's bolts, so I was never trying to make acusations towards anyone. I was just speeking of aid routes in general, and I'm more concerned with the walls down in the valley. You guys hear about Alex Lowe's 60m bat hook ladder up on Teh Great Trango! Wow! Talk about initail character of the route. I'd be pissed if someone went up and added rivets to those holes. Escpecially if I had some desire to follow in Alex's footsteps (which I dont). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Harding Lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts