Author Topic: Fall at Rumney  (Read 779 times)

Offline juanpaab

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2007, 06:06:59 PM »
That is correct, my math was a bit off as well.  But on the other issue you would fall 200' assuming the anchor is at your feet,  400' if the anchor was 200' below.

Offline DWarriner

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
  • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Fall at Rumney
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2007, 12:29:07 PM »
But on the other issue you would fall 200' assuming the anchor is at your feet,  400' if the anchor was 200' below.

You're one bad-ass climber if you're mentally calculating 200 and 400 foot falls.  I wish I was tough enough to climb with a 70 meter rope and no gear.  ;)

-David

There are no stupid questions - only stupid answers.