Mathematically ideal bolt/pro placement?

[bozeb]

I am wondering if anyone knows of some literature about the ideal spacing between bolts/pro. I am thinking that there must be someone who has actually figured out what the ideal spacing is, and I just want to know. I know there are a lot of variables in climbing but some things can be figured out... looking for some help here. (I have read "Rope System Analysis" by Stephen W. Attaway, and though it is very insightful, it doesn't deal with the spacing...)

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Peace.

bb

[G-spotter]

For a fall factor <1, and say you put the first piece in ten feet off the belay, then the next piece goes in at 20, then 40, then 80, then nothing till the top!

[kublaicon]

hahah this discussion seems perfect for rc.com

[JosephH]

"...don’t lead out more than 1/4 the belayed rope length."

 

The world would be short a lot of good climbs if everyone follows all of Steve's advice to the letter...

[bozeb]

Thanks for the help all.

 

peace.

bbb

[billcoe]

For a fall factor <1, and say you put the first piece in ten feet off the belay, then the next piece goes in at 20, then 40, then 80, then nothing till the top!

 

Of course, if it's a multi-pitch route, if someone fell 9 feet off the belay while trying to clip, it would be an 18' fall - massive fall factor 2 right onto the anchor. Hanging belay would add the weight of the belayer onto the calculation. If there was a ledge, add potential 2 broken ankles to the score. You don't say anything about the route. What is this anyway, Canadian new math?

[kevbone]

There is no ideal bolt/pro placement. You must find the answer yourself.

[geoff]

The rock determines the ideal pro placement not the climber/developer.

[eldiente]

Worst CC thread ever. Can we have a vote?

 

-Nate

Edited December 29, 2008 by eldiente

[G-spotter]

For a fall factor <1, and say you put the first piece in ten feet off the belay, then the next piece goes in at 20, then 40, then 80, then nothing till the top!

 

Of course, if it's a multi-pitch route, if someone fell 9 feet off the belay while trying to clip, it would be an 18' fall - massive fall factor 2 right onto the anchor. Hanging belay would add the weight of the belayer onto the calculation. If there was a ledge, add potential 2 broken ankles to the score. You don't say anything about the route. What is this anyway, Canadian new math?

 

The route is called BILL SWALLOWS THE HOOK

[kevbone]

So you admit you were spraying......

[hemp22]

 

The route is called BILL SWALLOWS THE HOOK

That must be an extension to the popular trade route, BILL SWALLOWS?

[/spray]

[genepires]

it definately must follow a fibonaci sequence. 1ft ,1ft ,2ft ,3ft ,5ft ,8ft ,13ft ,21ft ,34ft ,55ft ,89ft, ect.

 

there needs to be 2 bolts at 1ft away from the anchor for the high fall factor. With this spacing, it will be so natural that strict traditionalists will like it.

 

Maybe the golden rectangle can fit in there somehow.

[billcoe]

 

The route is called BILL SWALLOWS THE HOOK

 

DOHHH! ...

 

.

.

.

 

 

That must be an extension to the popular trade route, BILL SWALLOWS?

[/spray]

 

OUCH!

 

 

[JayB]

Seems like the useful take-aways from techno-threads involving traditional pro usually amount to something like:

 

1. If you're on a multi-pitch route, get in bomber pieces as soon as you can to protect against a factor two fall onto the anchor.

 

2. All things being equal, putting in pro at closer intervals after you've started a route/pitch will help reduce the risk that the high-impact forces generated by small amount of rope between you and your belayer will result in a ground/factor-2 fall, but you can space things out a bit more as you move away from the ground/belay if the pro's good and you're looking at a clean fall.

 

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

Sort of related...

 

~Doubling up on pro before sections that are cruxy and climbing through them to the next good stance/placement instead of thrutching around pumping out while trying to get an intermediate piece of gear in the cruxy stretch seems to be useful for me, when the conditions allow it, but that's more of a "mentally optimal pro" thing than a "mathematically optimal pro" thing.

[112]

it definately must follow a fibonaci sequence. 1ft ,1ft ,2ft ,3ft ,5ft ,8ft ,13ft ,21ft ,34ft ,55ft ,89ft, ect.

 

there needs to be 2 bolts at 1ft away from the anchor for the high fall factor. With this spacing, it will be so natural that strict traditionalists will like it.

 

Use the sequence as a limit on the distance between bolts (not the overall elevation), and you cover both G-spotter's and Billcoe's points well.

 

Maybe the golden rectangle can fit in there somehow.

 

It already does. The limit as N -> infinity, where N is the number's position in the sequence; G.R. = (N+1)/N or N/(N+1) (depending on which ratio you are interested in). Any sequence of the form (N+1) = N + (N-1) does...

 

 

[kevbone]

Can a mod move this to spray?

[denalidave]

Can a mod move this to spray?

I thought you said it was all spray?

[kevbone]

I said all trip reports are spray.

[Cairns]

 

You must be the golden rectangle, gp.

 

What would be ideal? If you want to limit the peak force in a fall then yes, you could space the pro farther apart as you got higher, but that would be scary. Most climbers prefer to limit the distance fallen, so pro should be spaced at equal intervals. From what I see on bolted routes we live in an ideal world.

[Gary_Yngve]

Any sequence of the form (N+1) = N + (N-1) does...

 

As long as your initial conditions f(0), f(1) are both not 0.

[mike1]

Dude asks a freakin question and some of you are actually trying to answer him respectfully. I think that’s pretty cool. So what the hell is wrong with the rest of you?