num1mc Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Screamers are not usually used except on crappy pro, A4 or suspect ice Comeon, you do you really feel ok falling on any trad climb? Just the potential gear damage itself is worth avoiding, much less human safety. Most people trad climb multiple grades below their sport to avoid falling. Some people climb for years with only a one or two trad falls. Well if we could take a lot of the forces out we could safely and push trad climbing more. You are making many assumptions here, several of which are incorrect. I plainly don't see much gear damage because of falls on trad gear. Why is falling further safer, and how are people being injured by (by your definition) non static belays. All belays are dynamic by design of the rope. What evidence do you have that this design dynamism is insufficient, and should be increased? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldfinger Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Prince you're being a bit stubborn.... Let's say you combine a screamer and a non-locking belay device. So you're telling me you want your belayer to have to deal with a MOVING belay device (nevermind the noise and distraction) as the screamer rips???????? There are enough elements in the system that cushion the impact force already (i.e. putting the screamer on the pro WHERE IT IS DESIGNED TO GO!). Others include rope stretch, using a DMM Revolver, the belayer being MOVED (remember the belayer is not a static anchor like a bolt), or the belayer (GASP) actually either moving deliberately or taking in slack......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 a load limit device (at 4kn) at the belay would theoretically limit the top piece to 8kn a load limit device (same 4kn) at the top piece would limit it to 4kn. which setup sounds better? Friction inherent in the system will dramatically affect these numbers and always in a negative undesirable way but the idea is the same. The top piece will be taking more force if you use the load limiter on the belay. Actually a better way to ask is should we put a load limiter on the climber? The answer is still no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 probably the best answer is Alex's which would be the insane number of load limiters you would need to a typical sport climbing day. Every lead fall would activate the device. If this catches on, then I will need to buy stock in yates. (yeah I know it is not a publicly traded company) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 My suggestion of a dynamic device for a belayer or climber uses a screamer as an example, ie, just to help you understand the concept. The device is not literally a screamer. There are alot of things that could pay out a little rope during a fall to the force. no special device is needed to create what you are describing. A simple device like a atc will feed out a slight amount of slack in a hard fall. This is why it is a good idea to not have your brake hand within a couple inched of the device. Belay gloves too. The rope will slip through the device as the force is reduced to a point where no more slip happens. It sounds like you are wanting to use a gri gri for trad climbing or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason4 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 My belayer is a screamer. But don't tell her I said that here. This is the best answer here. Other than that, listen to the guys who understand physics, freebody diagrams, and applied forces in a pulley system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasso1am Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 It's called a dynamic belay. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 My belayer is a screamer. But don't tell her I said that here. This is the best answer here. Other than that, listen to the guys who understand physics, freebody diagrams, and applied forces in a pulley system. Marmot Prince doesn't need no Physics! He climbed some 14ers!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdDog Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 A sitting hip belay with gold line would turn most belayers into a screamer as the rope shredded the skin off their lower back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Come on, you do you really feel ok falling on any trad climb? Just the potential gear damage itself is worth avoiding, much less human safety. Most people trad climb multiple grades below their sport to avoid falling. Some people climb for years with only a one or two trad falls. Well if we could take a lot of the forces out we could safely and push trad climbing more. You are making many assumptions here, several of which are incorrect Have to go with num1mc here, you clearly have a lot of misconceptions around the question and even more around trad climbing. What some people do, though, is extend the belay down below the anchor to put some distance between themselves and the first piece (or to use the anchor as the first piece) - no devices of any kind required. Trad climbing falls are no particular problem and trad climbing doesn't need any "forces taken out". Also, if you want to spend some idle time pondering something then consider starting with this - "safely push trad climbing more..." - then maybe try to stop thinking about trad climbing that way. Trad climbing isn't 'safe' and why would you want it to be? If it were, it wouldn't be trad climbing. A sitting hip belay with gold line would turn most belayers into a screamer as the rope shredded the skin off their lower back. They don't call it a 'back belay' for a good reason, the rope should never by up on your lower back, it should be down on your hip. Pretty hard to stop falls if it's up around your waist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZimZam Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmot Prince Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Prince you're being a bit stubborn.... Let's say you combine a screamer and a non-locking belay device. So you're telling me you want your belayer to have to deal with a MOVING belay device (nevermind the noise and distraction) as the screamer rips???????? There are enough elements in the system that cushion the impact force already (i.e. putting the screamer on the pro WHERE IT IS DESIGNED TO GO!). Others include rope stretch, using a DMM Revolver, the belayer being MOVED (remember the belayer is not a static anchor like a bolt), or the belayer (GASP) actually either moving deliberately or taking in slack......... I agree there are ways to take the load off the belayer. But a brief look at any climbing crag suggests that leader falls are still painful and potentially dangerous. Surely we are not arguing about this? You're right that maybe a load limiter at the belay device isn't optimal. But why wouldn't one at the climber be useful? probably the best answer is Alex's which would be the insane number of load limiters you would need to a typical sport climbing day. Every lead fall would activate the device. If this catches on, then I will need to buy stock in yates. (yeah I know it is not a publicly traded company) Again, as I stated before, the device does not have to be a screamer. The screamer was an example of a load limiting device to help understand my question. I'm discussing a hypothetical device that trades some extension for a reduction in the peak forces. An elastic band for example does this and does not require replacement. Also you probably wouldn't be using this in sport climbing where the bolts can take any reasonable force. Why is falling further safer Why do you climb on dynamic ropes and not static ones? how are people being injured by (by your definition) non static belays. All belays are dynamic by design of the rope. What evidence do you have that this design dynamism is insufficient, and should be increased? Few people get injured in most climbing falls. I'm not saying the "design dynamism is insufficient", I'm asking why couldn't there be ways to lower the fall force further. Trad climbing falls are no particular problem and trad climbing doesn't need any "forces taken out". Also, if you want to spend some idle time pondering something then consider starting with this - "safely push trad climbing more..." - then maybe try to stop thinking about trad climbing that way. Trad climbing isn't 'safe' and why would you want it to be? If it were, it wouldn't be trad climbing. Not sure what to say here. I've climbed with alot of people. Although we all enjoy the feeling of climbing, I know the majority don't consider the possibility of accidents a plus. I don't understand the responses in this thread. I'm asking why wouldn't taking some load off be useful? Are we really arguing that people die or are seriously injured every year when protection fails? Why do people spend $$$$ on trad gear and why is new gear constantly entering the market if falling on gear is not a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenwesh Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 most leader falls are not painful or dangerous. sorry but your fucking wrong and don't understand shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenwesh Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 actually I'm not sorry, you're just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genepires Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) if one needs a more dynamic system, just get a rope that stretches more. Adding more links to the system creates more points to possible fail. Adding a item that elongates at either the belayer or climber end, clearly has the possibility of failure. Why don't people lead with lockers between tie in knot and belay loop? If we can't trust a locking biner, how can anyone trust load limit device? This thread is becoming what I am talking about. The longer it gets, the more points of failure till it has absolutely failed right now. P.S. And I am not talking about screamers. Notice the "load limit device" use. Edited January 5, 2012 by genepires Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
num1mc Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'm not saying the "design dynamism is insufficient", I'm asking why couldn't there be ways to lower the fall force further. You are saying that the design dynamism is insufficient. The fall force is a function of the dynamic qualities of the rope. If you want to lessen the fall force, you increase the dynamic properties of the rope or introduce a dynamic belay into the system. But again, I don not think there is any evidence that the fall force from ropes and belay techniques is unsafe. All methods to decrease fall force will result in falls of greater length. Are we really arguing that people die or are seriously injured every year when protection fails? Why do people spend $$$$ on trad gear and why is new gear constantly entering the market if falling on gear is not a problem New gear is constantly entering the market due to periodic increases in quality, and consumer culture. Very little gear fails, most failures are the result of placement errors. You could conceivably lower the fall force in the system until a leader could fall onto an A3 hook. The problem is, length of the fall in order to have such a low fall force would typically result in ground falls. Where is the evidence that fall forces are too great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldfinger Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hey! Does this thread (and the shovel one) best belong in the gear critic? Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Does this thread (and the shovel one) best belong in the gear critic? Just sayin' No, they both best belong in the dumpster. Just sayin'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drederek Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Actually a better way to ask is should we put a load limiter on the climber? The answer is still no. I'd think it would be more effective here than at the belay though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I don't understand the responses in this thread. The problem goes a lot deeper than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You should probably just lead on a bunch of screamers girth hitched to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvallisclimb Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 this is how my harness is usually rigged, main belay device on two screamers, grigri on a shorty screamer, then backup device and tiblock on a scream aid girth hitched through the belay loop. i think this is what most guys in yosemite are doing these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 How is the pug attached to your harness? Do you use a Screamer for that, too, or do you use a Howler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvallisclimb Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 For the pug I like the via ferrata style leashes with the screamer built in, gives him a little more wiggle room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.