I've been humbled

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

does it really matter?

---

Not really, but it's kind of like wondering if the carpet matches the drapes - inquiring minds want to know...

---

curiosity killed the cat

[Dustin_B]

I haven't read the entire thread so this may have already been discussed but:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by glacier:

...I think in general it is 'safer' to rap in the case of a bad anchor. The forces on an anchor are much less when rapping than lowering - simply - You have the weight/force of one person (rappeller) rather than two (climber and belayer) acting on the anchor...

---

Regarding the forces on the anchor: I don't think you can count the "weight of the belayer" in when you are comparing the 2 situations. Imagine you were belaying/lowering directly off the anchor which was "anchored" to the earth. You would not count the "weight of the earth" in this situation. So the difference in force in the 2 situations would not necassarily be the weight of the belayer. Its Friday so I can't think that well at the moment, but it does seem logical that there is slightly more force in lowering.

--Dustin

[b-rock]

Right, in theory it would be the weight of the climber x 2.

[DavidW]

damn!.... i knew i should have posted that under an alias!

[allison]

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally opined by Dustin B, glacier, and others

...I think in general it is 'safer' to rap in the case of a bad anchor. The forces on an anchor are much less when rapping than lowering

---

I always prefer to rappel because I have a greater sense of control. But if you are comparing rapelling to lowering off an anchor and having intermediate anchors in place below the suspect (top) anchor, it is clearly safer to lower off if you have any significant faith in those intermediates and in your belayer. In this case, that is why Anna didn't deck - she was caught by the intermediate one - and in the hypothetical "average" situation, the greater force on the anchor (300 vs 150 pounds) probably isn't going to make much difference though perhaps the additional vibration introduced by lowering could be a factor in causing failure in rare instances.

[Peter_Puget]

I think it depends on the anchor. If you are either rappelling or lowering of a sling on tiny nubbin/horn/knob on a steep wall, setting up a rappel can be nearly impossible. I can think of many cases where if the lower point is ahighly directionally dependant that lowering would be the better choice.

 

PP

[Dustin_B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by b-rock:

Right, in theory it would be the weight of the climber x 2.

---

Okay, I'll buy that. It would be 2 x the weight of the climber if a "frictionless" pulley was used for lowering. The the real case there would be even more force because of the friction in rope-biner setup. So the force during lowering is more than 2 times the force during rappelling, correct? Wow, I figured that out on a Friday afternoon!!

 

Dustin

[Mr._Chips]

In this case, the anchor failed indirectly due to negligence. Simple. A textbook gear anchor would take 4 pieces, 3 down/ 1up. Every piece failed?!

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dustin B:

Wow, I figured that out on a Friday afternoon

---

Except you may have figured wrong. Consider this: if there were so much friction that the rope wouldn't pull through, it would be just like the climber was hanging from a single strand hung on the anchor. If this is correct, then wouldn't some lesser amount of friction maybe tend to reduce rather than aggravate the doubling factor?

[Dustin_B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shredmaximus:

This brings up interesting points and something that is pretty relevant to all of us given the forum that this discussion is taking place. I did not know Anna before that weekend. We had climbed Giverler's the day before and there was a whole bunch of C.C folks who were switching leads and belayers all over Caslte Rock. I don't think ANY OF US really had that good an idea of what the others limitations were...especially in regards to leading.

 

I was all geared up to lead the first pitch (which I later did by the way) and in a moment of enthusiasm Anna decided that she wanted to lead it. No problem...I wasn't fixated on leading it so I gave her my rack. I assumed she was up to the task...I'm sure at the time she did to. We've all been there. Your feeling good...you've got a day of climbing under your belt, you look up at the climb and say "I can do that" then you get on it and realize you are over your head! Sure as her belayer it was my responsibility to have gotten a better handle of her skills but I didn't...another lesson learned. I was not really in a position to tell Anna that she should probably not climb this because I assumed she could...as did everyone else that day. So in this age of finding random climbing partners on the internet, and C.C.com Rope Ups where you are climbing with lots of new folks, how do you get a handle on your partners limitations when you haven't really climbed with them before and may have only developed the leader/belayer relationship moments before???

---

I can't believe so many people jumped on the band wagon of blaming Anna's partners for "letting her climb something she wasn't prepared for"!! Come on folks. We all read the warnings on the equipment; it is up to YOU to keep safe while climbing. It doesn't sound like any one encourgaged her to lead something she didn't feel comfortable leading. That could be seen as irresponsible. The only way you could blame this on climbing partners is if they didn't catch the fall, or something along those lines.

 

Anna, didn't blame her climbing partners and I don't think anyone else should in this situation.

 

Dustin

[Mr._Chips]

Whatever. I call it negligence. Ya she stepped up to the climb but someone was going to second, that person should know what kind of anchor they will be climbing under.

[forrest_m]

dang you matt, you beat me to the draw... but i'll post it anyway:

 

actually, I think the friction in the rope setup would decrease the total force, i.e. force on the anchor is (2x weight of climber) – (amount of climber weight absorbed by friction an therefore not held by belayer) – (amount of climber weight and belayer strain absorbed by rope rubbing on rock). here’s my thinking:

 

if the climber weighs X pounds, the line from the climber to the anchor has X# of tension in it. anchor feels these X# completely. Friction at the anchor prevents some of this weight from being transferred to the other strand of rope, therefore the tension in the belayer’s strand of rope is less. Seems like rope friction on the rock would be greater in a lowering situation, since when rapelling, the rope below the rapeller is slack.

[Dustin_B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dustin B:

Wow, I figured that out on a Friday afternoon

---

Except you may have figured wrong. Consider this: if there were so much friction that the rope wouldn't pull through, it would be just like the climber was hanging from a single strand hung on the anchor. If this is correct, then wouldn't some lesser amount of friction maybe tend to reduce rather than aggravate the doubling factor?

---

So it would seem, now I am truely perplexed.

 

But ponder this: Lets assume this is the case. What is causing this much friction? Probably rope drag caused by the other end of the rope running through the other pieces placed while leading. So these pieces would be taking some of the force then.

 

Okay, my mental capacity is maxed for now. Maybe I'll ponder this issue on Monday with a fresh mind. Now it is time for and

[glacier_dup1]

Damn, the Petzl page is down. I guess I'll have to wait on the belay vs. rappel forces answer.

[iain]

1.6735:1.0000 on lower (carabiner of dia 0.6721cm)

[Dustin_B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forrest_m:

actually, I think the friction in the rope setup would decrease the total force, i.e. force on the anchor is (2x weight of climber) – (amount of climber weight absorbed by friction an therefore not held by belayer) – (amount of climber weight and belayer strain absorbed by rope rubbing on rock).

---

I'll give it another go (I just deleted my long ass response so this is shorter):

 

The increased friction is this scenario would not "decrease the total force of the system" (which remains constant), rather is would decrease the total force on the top piece. The resultant (missing, other) force would be felt by the rope on rock friction and rope drag through other pieces (and therefore increased force on those pieces). Afterall, these other things are what is causing some of the friction. Strictly speaking, assuming no other frictional forces exist, the friction between the rope-biner on the top piece can't reduce the force on the top piece, that is physically impossible. Now do I have it?

[texplorer]

my best advice to new trad leaders is always take the number 4 snaffle. That guy seems to fit everywhere and has saved my ass a number of times.

[iain]

not quite so I think, the more inefficient your pulley, the worse your mech advantage. An ideal 2:1 is....2:1. Introduce a non-ideal (real) pulley and you drop to the 1.7's, .8's etc. So w/ a really crummy pulley (dyn. rope over biner), I think it would stand to reason that you would reduce it further if the analogy stands.

[Tyrone_Shoes]

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Lets fly sometime Mister Chips...now that is something I know quite a bit about, and love too....still training in a 152 though....

 

ANNA ANNA ANNA... I was feeling bad for what Mr. Chips had said to you regarding some stupid judgment you and your party made climbing, until I read the above. For crying out loud! You don't a bloody damn thing about flying.

 

You said it yourself "still training in a 152"

 

I'm a pilot, endorsed, multi engine IFR, High Performance, land/sea, PPC's on BE200, BE90, DHC6. I flew medivac opperations in the arctic for 4 years and I THINK I STILL HAVE ALOT TO LEARN ABOUT AVIATION.

 

How much experience do you think someone needs to fly circuits around the strip VFR? or touch and go's at ZBB? not much.

 

It baffles me how cocky and ignorant newly licenced Commercial pilots are. Are you even Commercial?

 

I think what Mr. Chips is trying to say is, You don't know shit! probably about climbing and MOST DEFFINATLY ABOUT FLYING! so think long and hard about your choice of words and more importantly, your skill level. Your life depends on it!

 

thats OK, like you, all of started at the same place. Just know where you are starting from.

 

KNOWBODY wants to hear about your demise on some alpine route or read about your Navajo flying into a granite cloud.

 

So to everyone reading this, Next time your doing your slide shows or telling your Starbuck's war stories. Remember, you're only half as good as you say you are. Someone can always do it better but never talks about it.

 

Anna, Fly/climb safe

[bellemontagne]

This is a lesson for all the tradsters out there. Make sure you bring along plenty of horsecock on your rack.

 

[Mr._Chips]

Here it is again. A valid and extremely important issue comes up, Tyrone, you raise excellent points and parrallel the ideals and views I have. BUT some joker comes in and smothers the thread under a pile of 'horsecock and snafflehounds' like it's funny or something. Bellemontagne, you are not even close to being funny. Unless that is as good as the humour gets here.

[iain]

the real question is how many avatars can get involved in one conversation

[Mr._Chips]

Sherlock, different avatars dude. They are very similar, but I guarantee they're not the same person. The real question is does anybody have a real response to Tyrone's posting. His information and ideas are right on the money as far as I am concerned.

[allthumbs]

Fuck off Chips and take Tyrone the cock sucker with ya.