|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Accident and Incident Analysis:
Re: [cracklover] Interesting accident at the gunks on Saturday :
Edit Log
|
|
benmoreite
Mar 27, 2010, 3:52 AM
Views: 7555
Registered: Dec 17, 2006
Posts: 64
|
cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: jt512 wrote: robdotcalm wrote: This is from “RG” on the Gunks thread concerning the accident (I assume this is the same as our RGold). It says exactly what I’ve been thinking and said it so well I’m posting it here. «Autolocking belay devices have their place for experienced climbers moving fast on multipitch or clients moving up. For cragging, I think they suck for giving upper belays because of the difficulty of paying rope back out to a second who wants to step down. Guides don't care much about this; let the client end up on tension, but for seconds who would actually like to climb the pitch, an autolocker belay is an annoyance. When it comes to lowering, they also stink. Depending on how much of the climber's weight is transmitted up to the belayer, the belayer might have to exert a lot of force in order to rotate the plate into lowering position. They might be tempted to use both hands to do this. When you release a loaded autolocker, there is a quite sudden loss of friction and the potential for a rapid drop, although the plate should lock back up in that situation once the raising force is released. All in all, what we have is a solution to a problem that never existed. Yes, it is slightly more convenient to use guide mode, easier on your back, for instance, but you are interposing another layer of technology and then practically inviting disaster by enjoying all the hands-free "benefits" conferred by the device.» As usual, Rich sums up my thoughts better than I do. Jay As Rich states, autoblock devices are generally a poor choice for ordinary cragging. They are best reserved for situations in which advanced climbers need speed at the expense of the second's ability to free climb the pitch, and other special situations. I have hypothesized that, despite their being a poor choice for routine climbing, they have become, for no good reason, the default choice among many climbers (especially n00bs, though I can't prove that). And now the data bears this out. Prompted by this thread, someone has started a poll in another thread, asking "How do you belay your second?" Here are the results to date. Half of all leaders responding to the poll say they belay their seconds (most often, we must presume, since respondents were forced to choose a single response), using an autoblocking device in autoblock configuration. Furthermore, if you want the benefits of a direct belay off the anchor, then the best "device" for this purpose—the munter hitch—is used the least. Jay I'd be very curious to see years of trad leading experience appended to that data. GO
I would too. I think a cross-tabulation of belay method and years climbing would provide some fascinating insight into this whole debate. I think that Jay is probably right that groupthink is driving a lot of the guide/reverso users out there. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little motivated by gear envy when I bought mine.
I would also be eager to see a comparison of those using a plaquette versus those who have:
-read the instructions for lowering
-have practiced lowering on the ground
-have practiced lowering in the vertical with some weight
-have practiced lowering in the vertical with full weight
To me, the most shocking part of this whole discussion has been the number of folks that have described using a plaquette without having full knowledge and ability to perform a competent and safe lower. I say use whatever device you want, but you damn well better know it backwards, forwards, and inside out.
edit because I can't spell
(This post was edited by benmoreite on Mar 27, 2010, 3:56 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by benmoreite
() on Mar 27, 2010, 3:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
