NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Fall at Rumney  (Read 674 times)

DWarriner

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 506
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2007, 02:37:42 PM »

Between having a good belayer, knowing when to stick clip, not hanging out below other climbers, and not being a complete spaz,

>>>>Oops, that'll eliminate a lot of folks...
Funny!

Perhaps they were using the [now obsolete] "ground belay?"

-David


It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the bottom.
Logged
There are no stupid questions - only stupid answers.

Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2007, 07:49:36 AM »

This is a technique you quickly learn ice climbing, which I wish was applied more often on sport routes.  It seems many are bolted to clip from a good stance while reaching as high as you can, so you can TR through the hard move.  Would be nice if new age bolting considered placing the bolts at waist level for atleast the clips near the deck.


This is a common misconception about this technique.  Dig out your pencils and paper...
While clipping from the waist is no doubt easier it does not reduce the length of fall.
Logged

lefty

  • Guest
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2007, 08:57:49 AM »

won't it reduce the length of a fall by an arm length?? That would be how much extra rope would be out vs clipping from your waist
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3836
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2007, 09:46:07 AM »

Best thing to do is yard up an armfull of rope, clench firmly in teeth, yard up another armfull of rope and pitch off ;D Don't forget to clinch teeth firmly now :o
Logged

Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2007, 09:53:10 AM »

Example:
2 bolts, one is 4' above the other.

clipping at waist: 4' above the lower bolt, total length of fall = 8'.

clipping from 2' below:  2' of rope above lower bolt + 4' of rope needed to make the clip (2' up to bolt + 2' back down to climber's waist) = 6' of rope out.  Fall = 6' of rope (the distance the climber would hang below the bolt if they down climbed) + the 2' of the distance above the bolt.  Total length of fall is 6' + 2' = 8'

Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2007, 10:04:28 AM »

Example:
clipping from 2' below:  2' of rope above lower bolt + 4' of rope needed to make the clip (2' up to bolt + 2' back down to climber's waist) = 6' of rope out.  Fall = 6' of rope (the distance the climber would hang below the bolt if they down climbed) + the 2' of the distance above the bolt.  Total length of fall is 6' + 2' = 8'

Your math is off Jim.  In this example your climber has 6 feet of rope in his hands above the last bolt, that equals a 12 foot fall. (all dynamic effects removed).
Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2007, 10:05:41 AM »

If he had climbed until the bolt was at his waist instead, he would never risk more than an 8-footer.
Logged

Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2007, 10:44:29 AM »

Your math is off Jim.  In this example your climber has 6 feet of rope in his hands above the last bolt, that equals a 12 foot fall. (all dynamic effects removed).

Nope, the math is not wrong.  He's only 2' above the bolt.  Let's suppose he isn't clipping and falls from the 2' above the bolt, that equals a 4' fall.  Now add the 4' needed to clip (2' up to the bolt and 2' back to waist).  8' fall.

draw it out and you will see.
Logged

lefty

  • Guest
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2007, 10:48:56 AM »

yup, as i was writing jim responded

if you fall 2 feet above the bolt, fall of 4 feet

if you fall 2 feet above bolt + 4 feet of rope out (2 feet out to bolt + 2 feet back to climber) trying to clip the bolt 2 feet above: fall of 8 ft

I still like clipping above my head though because it feels so good 8)
Logged

DWarriner

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 506
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2007, 11:36:32 AM »

The length of the fall is the same, but there is one very important point that should be noted....

Although both falls are 8 feet, one of these falls starts 2 feet below the other.  Sometimes this is significant.

To continue this example; if the first bolt is 5 feet off the ground, clipping at the waste results in a clean fall that ends 1 foot above the ground.

The second fall starts 2 feet lower - so clipping over your head results in an ankle-breaker - one foot below the ground.

Granted this only comes at the start of a climb, but should be considered. 

-David

Logged
There are no stupid questions - only stupid answers.

M_Sprague

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1567
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2007, 12:11:26 PM »

Thanks Jim, for pointing out my inexactness. What David wrote was more to the point of what I was trying to say. The end result is that you end up not as low at the end of the trajectory. Correct, no?
Logged
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is not a path and leave a trail."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2007, 12:24:54 PM »

Thanks Jim, for pointing out my inexactness. What David wrote was more to the point of what I was trying to say. The end result is that you end up not as low at the end of the trajectory. Correct, no?

This is true and is important to note when ground out or ledge out is possible.
In the above scenario the climber will end up 4' below the bolt when doing the clip at the waist.  When clipping overhead they will end 6' below the bolt (dynamics not included).  The FF will be lower in the later case which is important to note when the gear is sketchy.
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3836
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2007, 12:38:37 PM »

last spring on one of my first days out I was supprised by the change in dificulty since the flake fell/trundled from lies. I pitched onto the second bolt and was not anywheres near the ground. Must have been pretty bad belayer error there for groundfall.
Logged

old_school

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2334
  • "Climb Now, Work Later."
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2007, 03:00:05 PM »

last spring on one of my first days out I was supprised by the change in dificulty since the flake fell/trundled from lies.

Definitely a different and stiffer climb now that the flake is gone Nick...I have seen some folks up there get caught off guard as well.  Too bad that section couldn't be better protected...but I guess it is fine if you are aware of the changes. Used to be a better route in my opinion...but still a Rumney classic.
Logged
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you will be a mile away from them and you will have their shoes."

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2007, 03:46:29 PM »

I'm getting a headache trying to draw this out.  Someone (Jim) help me with this question:

True or False?  Blowing a clip while clipping above your head will generate a bigger fall than blowing a clip at your waist, if in both scenarios the last bolt is 4 feet below your feet.  I'm not advocating climbing up to the higher bolt, then clipping at the waist, rather a well put together route might put the bolts at waist level at the clipping stances.

To further illustrate, you are at a stance 4 feet above your last bolt.  If the bolt is at your waist, and you slip while clipping, you fall 8 feet.  If you are at that same stance, and the bolt was placed 2 feet higher, you will introduce 4 feet of rope into the equation, lengthening your fall should you blow it while clipping.

How does clipping from the waist NOT decrease your length of fall during a clip.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.261 seconds with 22 queries.