Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
kevbone

Huge fall at Smith

Recommended Posts

Sobo....reread the original post. I do believe it covers your question.

I don't need to reread the OP. I have excellent reading comprehension skilz. It does not cover my question. Please see below (with grammatical correction):

...He had led it and most of his crew had top roped it and cleaned all the gear. Then he grabbed his rack and top roped up to the anchor which was two quick draws on two bolts. He (passed) pasted (sic)the anchor and started leading up the 5.11a next pitch.

So my original question remains unanswered. Alex leads the first pitch, then apparently lowers off after setting it up for toproping. His friends TR it, and clean all the gear. At this point, we have the first pitch cleaned of all gear and a TR situation set up. Alex then takes a rack, TRs back up to the first pitch anchor, and then continues to lead, moving into the second pitch. The question remains: Why does he link the two pitches into one? As I stated, it's been over 15 years since I led this climb, and I don't recall the pitch lengths, but is it even possible to link these two into one, and if not, what was he thinking by doing so? Please answer that.

 

Sobo. Sorry you’re not getting it. I believe it is written clear. I will try again. As to the climbers intent….I don’t know. I am not him. But it looked like he was trying to put the rope up on the second anchor. I have no idea if this was premeditated or an after thought after leading the first pitch and lower off. I does look like one rope would get him down…..or maybe he has a 70m rope. Either way it is exactly as I wrote. He top roped up to his anchor and continued passed the anchor and started to place gear…..then the fall.

As to the first emphasized phrase: That was all you needed to say the first time around. I got the impression that since you were there and in obvious proximity to Alex, you were privy to the events that caused him to take this course of action.

 

As to the second emphasized phrase: I still don't know what Alex was thinking here. Obviously, neither do you. I wish someone would explain this course of action.

 

As to the third emphasized phrase: Does anyone here know the pitch lengths of P1 and P2 to verify this? In essence, that is my real question: can the two be linked safely with a standard climbing rope?

 

As to the fourth emphasized phrase: Same comment as second emphasized phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap... Lotsa talk here. Internet is a weird place. I climbed the first pitch, lowered off and realized there were upper anchors so I attempted to climb to them later. Unfortunately I fell... Then went and climbed other things. I think thats about it.

 

Alex

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy crap... Lotsa talk here. Internet is a weird place. I climbed the first pitch, lowered off and realized there were upper anchors so I attempted to climb to them later. Unfortunately I fell... Then went and climbed other things. I think thats about it.

 

Alex

 

 

Ah, a voice of reason, not to mention first-hand.

 

That could have been it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can the two be linked safely with a standard climbing rope?

 

What is a "standard" climbing rope? 50m 60m 70m ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 stars to you for the attempt. Well done……any thoughts on wanting to go back and get the send?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Alex, for joining in the discussion.

 

By climbing up to the second anchors (I'm assuming that they would be the belay atop P2), could you have lowered successfully from there with one rope? Or was your intent to bring up your second at that point as is standard multi-pitch climbing practice? As I've indicated twice before here, it's been over 15 years since I led this climb and I do not recall the pitch lengths and therefore whether or not one could successfully link them into one long pitch with a standard climbing rope. That is all I'm trying to work out here. Since (I assume) that you are the Alex in question, you would now know whether or not this would be possible. Thanks for your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can the two be linked safely with a standard climbing rope?

 

What is a "standard" climbing rope? 50m 60m 70m ???

When I started in this game, 45m ropes were being phased out in the early 1980s. I got a 45m rope (on close-out) as my first rope (started climbing in 1983). Then it grew to 50m in the mid-to-late 80s. Then it grew to 60m during the late 80s/early 90s. It went for 60m for some years. Now within the last several years, "some folks" are buying/using 70m ropes, although I would not say that length is the current "standard" length.

 

I would surmise, as I'm sure many others would, that 60m is the "current standard length" of a climbing rope, simply because most routes are set with that as the upper limit for distance between belays at this time. I'm sure as rope technology improves and weight is reduced and strength/elasticity properties improve, that 70m will become the standard.

 

So 60m is my final answer, Regis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy crap... Lotsa talk here. Internet is a weird place. I climbed the first pitch, lowered off and realized there were upper anchors so I attempted to climb to them later. Unfortunately I fell... Then went and climbed other things. I think thats about it.

 

Alex

 

weird place indeed. 11 pages deciding if a fall was HUGE...Really BIG, kinda big, not so big, sorta small, or just plain weeny.

 

Still kinda fun watching some fireworks.

 

duty_calls.gif

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Did it look anything like this?

 

LionsChair.jpg

 

 

 

If memory serves, I went to the top of p2, in 2 pitches, where the climb did get scary where the angle kicked back but the pro looked scarce. I don't remember the distances.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Did it look anything like this?

 

LionsChair.jpg

 

 

 

If memory serves, I went to the top of p2, in 2 pitches, where the climb did get scary where the angle kicked back but the pro looked scarce. I don't remember the distances.

 

Sure looks like it to me. Complete with the Fires, I see. I did it in the same shoes. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet pictures!

 

I also love cc.com

-------------------

I've taken lots of bigger falls than 28 feet indoors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my original question remains unanswered. Alex leads the first pitch, then apparently lowers off after setting it up for toproping. His friends TR it, and clean all the gear. At this point, we have the first pitch cleaned of all gear and a TR situation set up. Alex then takes a rack, TRs back up to the first pitch anchor, and then continues to lead, moving into the second pitch. The question remains: Why does he link the two pitches into one? As I stated, it's been over 15 years since I led this climb, and I don't recall the pitch lengths, but is it even possible to link these two into one, and if not, what was he thinking by doing so? Please answer that.

 

this question still seems to be unanswered so i'll do my best to clear it up. the anchor that was first led to is NOT the top of the first pitch. it is a retro anchor that was placed so the first half of the pitch could be led at 10c with no severity rating. the original anchor is higher and if you lead the first pitch complete you'll have to climb 5.11a r.

 

disclaimer: i was not there when the fall was taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my original question remains unanswered. Alex leads the first pitch, then apparently lowers off after setting it up for toproping. His friends TR it, and clean all the gear. At this point, we have the first pitch cleaned of all gear and a TR situation set up. Alex then takes a rack, TRs back up to the first pitch anchor, and then continues to lead, moving into the second pitch. The question remains: Why does he link the two pitches into one? As I stated, it's been over 15 years since I led this climb, and I don't recall the pitch lengths, but is it even possible to link these two into one, and if not, what was he thinking by doing so? Please answer that.

 

this question still seems to be unanswered so i'll do my best to clear it up. the anchor that was first led to is NOT the top of the first pitch. it is a retro anchor that was placed so the first half of the pitch could be led at 10c with no severity rating. the original anchor is higher and if you lead the first pitch complete you'll have to climb 5.11a r.

 

disclaimer: i was not there when the fall was taken.

 

 

Well it’s the first pitch now……so that might be the confusion. Sobo might not have known about this lower anchor, there for the confusion…..

 

Thanks Mark.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my original question remains unanswered. Alex leads the first pitch, then apparently lowers off after setting it up for toproping. His friends TR it, and clean all the gear. At this point, we have the first pitch cleaned of all gear and a TR situation set up. Alex then takes a rack, TRs back up to the first pitch anchor, and then continues to lead, moving into the second pitch. The question remains: Why does he link the two pitches into one? As I stated, it's been over 15 years since I led this climb, and I don't recall the pitch lengths, but is it even possible to link these two into one, and if not, what was he thinking by doing so? Please answer that.

 

this question still seems to be unanswered so i'll do my best to clear it up. the anchor that was first led to is NOT the top of the first pitch. it is a retro anchor that was placed so the first half of the pitch could be led at 10c with no severity rating. the original anchor is higher and if you lead the first pitch complete you'll have to climb 5.11a r.

 

disclaimer: i was not there when the fall was taken.

 

 

Well it’s the first pitch now……so that might be the confusion. Sobo might not have known about this lower anchor, there for the confusion…..

 

Thanks Mark.

I did not know about the retro-bolting of the anchor, if indeed that is what it is. I seem to recall the route was three pitches when I did it years ago, and they were very long pitches (especially the first one??). It damn near fried me dead. Retro-anchoring would explain a lot, as did Alex's recent PM to me about the distance from the ground to the "second" anchor he was aiming for as he passed the "first" anchor.

 

Thanks alexbaker, markd, and kevbone for clearing up an old man's hazy recollections of a route during his heyday. And a special thanks goes out to Cairns for the Blast From the Past pic of the route, complete with the original Fires. :tup: :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you about to take HUGE 30 foot falls at Smith,

 

WE SALUTE YOU!

 

 

WvrHTXzMCQg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you about to take HUGE 30 foot falls at Smith,

 

WE SALUTE YOU!

 

 

WvrHTXzMCQg

 

Best laugh of the week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My question is this, with all these knowledgeable folks already weighing in, how is it we have not been able to determine if this fall was IN FACT AND IN ACTUALITY one of these: "big, massive, huge, gigantic, large, colossal, giant, enormous, tall, sick, considerable, substantial, hefty, monumental, burly, colossal, man-size, brawny, medium, normal, or heaven forbid, even: small, diminutive, little, miniature, minuscule, minute, petite, tiny, wee....puny, undersized, teeny-weeny, Lilliputian or perhaps just teensy-weensy.

 

Perhaps we can spend a few more pages pinning this one down and achieving a consensus. Who's with me here on pursuing this elusive adjective? It looks like Alex drifted off, probably to go climbing, which is why he's bad-ass and most of us have carpel tunnel in the wrists?

 

Onward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who left you alone with the thesaurus? :grin:

 

Onward... to lunch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×