Simulclimbing Do's & Don'ts

[robertm]

This trick seems fine in theory but inevitably it creates a cluster f(*@# with the rope. I suppose if you spend a lot of time with the tibloc placement and setup this can be reduced (but if you are spending minutes with each placement why simulclimb?) but if you wander to the left or right too far the tibloc wants to turn and then it jams. The other thing is that the second sometimes needs some slack to manuever around down below. So when the leader down climbs a bit the second still doesn't get any slack.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Catch what Isn't a real belay better and back to my original comment - if you need tiblocs then you dont need to simulclimb.

[iain]

and just from a conceptual point of view, I think the tibloc works by pushing itself into the rope in ascender mode. I don't see that necessarily happening in this "simulclimbing" setup so that would make me worried about its ability to lock when someone falls. are people actually using this setup or was this just a joke?

[forrest_m]

my understanding of the tibloc thing is that it is a technique developed by the "in a day" yosemite crowd, many of whom are simulclimbing on 5.10 and harder terrain, and that it works best on very steep routes. i've always thought that for most alpine terrain, it would be a recipie for snarls and tangles because of the broken terrain, changes in direction, would keep the rope from feeding properly. i've never done it, but it's in my "maybe i'll use this technique someday" file...

 

norman, while i agree that simulclimbing may not be right for everyone or every situation, my experience has been that it is widely applicable and usually faster (for me) than either standard belays or soloing. i'm comfortable simuling at a much higher level than i am soloing (even if i could do it w/o a rope, i'd spend a lot of time moving up and down, etc). simulclimbing is much faster than belayed climbing because you are both moving at the same time AND because for a given number of vertical feet, you have fewer "changeovers" where neither one of you is moving.

[Cpt.Caveman]

It gets you to the bar faster you just have to pratice it a bit.

[Terminal_Gravity]

Take a hard fall on a tybloc --- you get to live another day --- so that you can go back to work --- so that you can afford to buy a new rope.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Whatever I never need the things. Must be overrated for gumbies like me.

[Terminal_Gravity]

Caveman, I agree with you. I think if you need a tibloc you shouldn't be simul-climbing. I own two but only use them for roped glacier travel.

 

That being said I think they are a good idea for simul-climbing if the leader is really drunk and may not be able to properly belay the second anyway.

[genepires]

If the lower climber keeps slack from forming (like glacier travel) then there shouldn't be much of a shock at all on the tibloc and the rope should not be damaged. Think about the people going up the fixed lines on denali. If they trip and fall then the ascender gripping the rope catches them. Is the rope damaged? Yeah a 4 foot fall on a ascender may cause rope damage but what fool would simu with that much rope at their feet.

Better yet, who cares about rope damage when looking at the consequences of the lower climber pulling the upper climber off and then careening into the last peice of pro, possibly creating a static shock onto it which would surely rip it out.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I carry a belay device. It works fine for me. Guess everyone has their own tricks.

[Ben]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norman Clyde:

I think the situations in which simulclimbing is more favorable than either careful unroped climbing, or the usual belay are fairly limited.

---

To me it seems like you'd benefit from simuling on portions of just about every Cascades moderate. Unless you have perfect route beta, unroping (coiling), reroping, unroping (coiling), etc seems like a huge waste of time. The fact is that most of those climbs have long steps of 3rd/4th class which you could probably solo, but the time spent unroping (and then retying a few hundred feet later) would be silly. Yes, simuling introduces a new element of risk (if your partner falls you might fall too -- but are they death falls?), but you need to weigh that against the benefits.

 

As people have pointed out: communicate with your partner. If one of you is tired or sketched or whatever, then by all means belay. But if you're feeling good (and you want or need to get to the top before the sun sets) then move together.

[texplorer]

responding to forrest M,

All the valley speedsters I know of and spoke with never once mentioned a tibloc. Not to say they haven't used em but they are not really used extensively by the "speedsters".

 

In general it comes down to your comfort level. I think of simul-climbing like soloing with just maybe a chance of survival if you fall. Notice I said maybe.

[forrest_m]

Tex – Well, you may be right. I first heard of the tibloc thing on rec.climbing, and someone was crediting Hans Florine with showing them the technique, but who knows if that’s really true. But it was a record-setting long thread, and I couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing. There’s a good summary here: http://www.tradgirl.com/climbing_faq/advanced_2.htm#tibloc_simul

[Cpt.Caveman]

The first time I saw Hans he was in Tuolomne kickin ass on 10 domes in a day. I saw the leader took a whipper on the pitch of the last climb (we were on their intended route and moving like slugs!) so they did the 10.c fingers. I dont think tibloc's existed then and the fall was arrested fine. Other than that I dont know shit. I bet Hand has stuff on his site but it doe not always pertain to gumbies like me and that is all I give beta for!

[Cpt.Caveman]

Oh yeah and we were so baked that he recognized us 2 days later (we thought who was he?) and he was not leading. Some other dude was (Co dude?).

 

Either way have fun!

 

[ 07-31-2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Cpt.Caveman ]