Simul-climbing - I don't get the appeal

[Couloir]

BTW it was a Saturday afternoon and the Mirror Pond was tasty and probably had somehting to do with my motivation for even attemting all of this.

Your neighbors must think you're crazy!

The wife wasn't all too impressed either. "WTF are you DOING?!"

[montypiton]

Why the incdredulousness at belaying the entirety of the complete north ridge of stuart in a comfortable day? Its been soloed car to car in a day by numerous folks, and Croft must have completed it in a couple of hours or less when he traversed the whole range in a day. Fact is, I usually climb more confidently, hence more quickly, when I'm belayed. And the rest I receive at each belay allows me to carry a faster pace overall. True, I do on occasion simulclimb, but my experience with partners who are not amga-trained guides has been discouraging. Most amateurs, even vastly experienced ones, tend to leave much too long a rope interval between simulclimbers to be safely managed. Most have never practiced holding a falling partner without a formal belay under controlled conditions, and consequently have no real idea whether they even can. For those who would like to approach this activity safely, I suggest a practice regimen: With an open-minded partner, rope up together at a short interval, say, 2 to 5 meters. Anchor one of you to a bombproof anchor with a foot or two of slack to the anchor, and have the anchored climber try catching the other climber's fall without a formal belay, and without loading the anchor. As you become adept at the catch, try longer rope intervals between team members, and less-secure stances. Vintage belay techniques like the hip-belay, shoulder belay, and ice-axe belay on snow may be useful because these can, with practice, be effectively performed "on the fly". A few hours of such practice will at least provide you with an informed idea of what your safe simulclimbing limits might be.

Also, I would take issue with the recommendation that the weaker climber lead when simulclimbing. Any significant difference in ability levels between climbers is likely to apply to routefinding and rigging/protecting skills as well as pure movement ability. The stronger climber should lead because he/she is less likely to fall, most likely more adept at routefinding, will most likely provide better anchorage/protection for the rope team, and is more likely to be capable of holding a falling partner without a formal, anchored belay. Having the weaker climber lead puts the entire rope team at greater risk of catastrophic system failure should either climber fall.

[W]

Also, I would take issue with the recommendation that the weaker climber lead when simulclimbing. Any significant difference in ability levels between climbers is likely to apply to routefinding and rigging/protecting skills as well as pure movement ability. The stronger climber should lead because he/she is less likely to fall, most likely more adept at routefinding, will most likely provide better anchorage/protection for the rope team, and is more likely to be capable of holding a falling partner without a formal, anchored belay. Having the weaker climber lead puts the entire rope team at greater risk of catastrophic system failure should either climber fall.

 

The merits of who should lead are pretty much irrelevant; Simul terrain is, for me at least, terrain where the only reason either climber would fall is being careless and/or an act of nature (broken hold, rockfall, etc.), but otherwise it's terrain neither climber would fall because of the difficulty. I think it goes without saying that both climbers should be of similar skill level, or the terrain pretty damn easy, if you're going to be simul climbing.

 

All that said, I strongly disagree that a lead fall by the leader while simuling is worse than one by the follower. If the second comes off, the leader doesn't just take a gravity leader fall, he is PULLED DOWN by gravity plus an additional force. If his last piece is 15 feet below, for example, the rope likely will whip back through the biner if the second continues falling unchecked; when the falling leader passes the pro, he'll be violent slammed statically into the rock. It would be like a leader fall with pro at your knees, but already at terminal velocity. I'm not at all in agreement that a leader is somehow more able to hold a falling second just because they are the stronger climber- if the leader is pulling a 5th class move and is suddenly hit with a 180 pound dynamic downward load, they're likely coming off. With that theory in mind, the stronger technical climber always goes second on the basis that if a fall did occur, you'd want to increase the chances that it's #1 taking it... but nonetheless, the caveats of paragraph #1 rule above all. It is bad no matter what. If one member's routefinding and protecting skills are weak enough that having them lead is thought provoking, it already sounds like a proper belay is in order, with that person having the top rope.

 

 

 

 

[bstach]

Monty,

 

I think the concensus here is that simul-climbing should only be done on terrian where there the chance of either climber falling is slim to none. The idea isn't for a fall to be 'held'...the chances of either climber holding the other's fall is slim to none. The idea is to prevent total disaster should one of them actually fall. Your suggestion that this be practised is laughable.

 

Edited January 7, 2007 by bstach