Author Topic: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)  (Read 151 times)

DLottmann

  • Guest
Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« on: October 29, 2003, 09:16:35 AM »
Well I am about halfway through this new edition of what many consider "The Bible of Mountaineering" and I wanted to say it is a very worthwhile purchase.  The 6th edition was my primary learning resouce when I started climbing 10 years ago, and I probably hadn't read the book in 8 years.  For anyone who has the 6th, there really is alot of good new info in the book, and it is keeping me interested.  I can't wait to get to the updated sections on aid, light alpine, and waterfall ice climbing!

Offline YoYo

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • I love Honney!
Re: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2003, 09:34:06 AM »
I like the book , but I disagree on the way that they have the chest harness put together with a  sling.
It should have a slip knot in the back or be constructed with two shoulder slings girthed hitched in the back to prevent it from riding up and strangling the poor victim. :'(
If you get the harness stuck on ...flake, piece hook or what ever, it will strangle the poor bastard.
Aside from that ...WAY COOL ! ;D

Offline Admin Al

  • NEClimbs Administrator
  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7177
  • Climb 'till your forearms turn to jelly!
    • NEClimbs
Re: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2003, 12:20:10 PM »
I got a copy to review this winter. just looking through it, it looks very good. a solid improvement over rev 6. we'll see when I get around to giving it more than a skim.

Al
Al Hospers
____________________________________
my music
 https://www.facebook.com/BlackMountainRamblers

web hosting, design and software programming:
 http://www.cambersoft.com

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2003, 12:31:59 PM »
Al,

One big technical change that raised my brow was "they" no longer recommend the "magic x" as a way of equalizing a double bolt anchor since in lacks the "no extension" quota.  They cited some study that showed it could freeze up and not properly equalize under sudden load.  I wish they cited the study as I will probably still use this when the bolts are bomber.

Also, no mention of the two biggest reasons I like to belay off the anchor.

1) Easier self-rescue (and more comfortable)
2) 1/2 as much force on the anchor if a second falls

We are way behind Europe adapting this as the most used belay method.

Dave

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3886
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2003, 01:45:54 PM »
Kind of depends on how good the anchor is ;D I  remember one time  I laybacked a loose flake up to the stance and wild woman said " don't pull on that it is the belay ; :o

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of the Hills (7th Edition)
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2003, 04:28:34 PM »
Pg. 422 Fig 18-43
I think this is a very bad setup!  A pulley has been created doubling the force of a second's fall onto a single ice screw.  Why not put the munter off the re-direct screw instead, halving the force it must hold?  If that re-direct screw fails there is serious shock-loading, and in Fig. 18-44 complete belay failure.  I can not think of 1 reason to use the setup in 18-43, and would like to know if anyone could explain it validity.