Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
Gear Tuggers know nothing???
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 


microbarn


Oct 27, 2007, 5:08 AM
Post #1 of 96 (6606 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Gear Tuggers know nothing???
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have seen it said numerous times "Tugging on gear doesn't tell you if a piece will hold a fall." In my opinion, it helps ensure the piece won't fail under lower loads, and it can help identify if the piece is likely to walk (more useful to beginning trad leaders).

Here is how I categorize the strength of individual placements:

1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
6) holds any fall

How would you change this list and why? I get the impression that many feel the sharp tug doesn't even belong on the list. Why wouldn't it be on the list?


andypro


Oct 27, 2007, 5:51 AM
Post #2 of 96 (6588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

WOOHOO My thousandth post! Only took what? 4 years to get here? Maybe 3?


I'm a firm believer of tugging on gear. even nuts...not just cams. I regularly climb on the Niagara escarpment (where Chossy was in that thread) and I've had pieces slide around or come out completely with a good sharp tug. Had I not tugged, I'd probably have been in the same boat as him.


Maybe people who only climb on good quality granite and have never had to deal with less than spectacular rock would think it's a silly practice, but I propose that anyone who doesn't tug knows nothing! Get yourself on some good low quality limestone, fractured frozen alpine crap, dirty slime filled whats-its and whosawheres... tugging not only makes sense, but can save your life.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

--Andy P


chossmonkey


Oct 27, 2007, 6:03 AM
Post #3 of 96 (6583 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28413

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall



I think giving a sharp tug is useful in some cases, but it really doesn't properly test a piece. I think the best it does is shows that there might be enough friction for the device to do its thing. But it is on no way a substitution for a bounce test.

I always pull on Ballnuts. Half the time they pull out so I'll reset, retest, and then if it sticks I'll hope that it is stuck enough to work. The other time is when cams are sitting funky or there are a lot of crystals to break off and the piece might shift or the cam looks otherwise suspect. Sometimes the tug will seem to settle the cam into the placement.

On some routes body positioning can make it hard to impossible to really give it much of a yank.


microbarn


Oct 27, 2007, 6:26 AM
Post #4 of 96 (6574 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [chossmonkey] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chossmonkey wrote:
In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall



I think giving a sharp tug is useful in some cases, but it really doesn't properly test a piece. I think the best it does is shows that there might be enough friction for the device to do its thing. But it is on no way a substitution for a bounce test.

I always pull on Ballnuts. Half the time they pull out so I'll reset, retest, and then if it sticks I'll hope that it is stuck enough to work. The other time is when cams are sitting funky or there are a lot of crystals to break off and the piece might shift or the cam looks otherwise suspect. Sometimes the tug will seem to settle the cam into the placement.

On some routes body positioning can make it hard to impossible to really give it much of a yank.

I can see how you would reposition the tug in the list as you did. It kind of depends on how good of a tug you get. Sometimes I feel a tug is almost as good as a bounce test. It would be up to the climber to determine how much that particular tug reassures them on a climb.


notapplicable


Oct 27, 2007, 7:26 AM
Post #5 of 96 (6541 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't think it fair or accurate to say that tugging on a piece will or wont provide you with valuable info. 100% of the time. Some placements (especially passive) are so obviously solid that yanking on them is only going to serve the purpose of seating the gear and won't provide you with any new info. On the other hand I have had just about every kind of piece (passive and active) pull with just a swift yank, when I thought they would hold fine. For what its worth, having gear fail while testing it has caused me to nearly fall so there are risks associated with the behavior.

I yank on just about every placement. Some of them hard, to test placement quality and some gently, just to set them.

I have found it to be a useful practice and doing so can provide a climber with valuable information, while not doing so could leave you in the dark.


wanderlustmd


Oct 27, 2007, 7:30 AM
Post #6 of 96 (6537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I tug on placements fairly often, but not in any sense of "testing." Purely for the purpose of making sure that they are set nice and solid and to confirm that the direction of pull makes sense in relation to the piece.


microbarn


Oct 27, 2007, 7:36 AM
Post #7 of 96 (6530 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
I don't think it fair or accurate to say that tugging on a piece will or wont provide you with valuable info. 100% of the time. Some placements (especially passive) are so obviously solid that yanking on them is only going to serve the purpose of seating the gear and won't provide you with any new info. On the other hand I have had just about every kind of piece (passive and active) pull with just a swift yank, when I thought they would hold fine. For what its worth, having gear fail while testing it has caused me to nearly fall so there are risks associated with the behavior.

I yank on just about every placement. Some of them hard, to test placement quality and some gently, just to set them.

I have found it to be a useful practice and doing so can provide a climber with valuable information, while not doing so could leave you in the dark.

and that is the benefit of tugging in my eyes. You at least rule out that there is something obviously wrong. If you don't tug on those pieces, then you are possibly climbing into dangerous situations thinking you are well protected.


billl7


Oct 27, 2007, 7:54 AM
Post #8 of 96 (6516 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Passive gear: I usually give a tug but most of the time I do so to seat it (e.g., a nut). Once in a while I'll tug something passive as a test but more often than not this just confirms that it is a crap placement.

Active gear: I only just started using sliding nuts; seems for them that tugging has a real purpose that is hard to replace with anything else. Cams I have never really tugged on but am reconsidering in light of choss's story! I distinctly recall wathcing a mentor place cams in a slimey wet weakness and yanking them around a lot.

1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2.X) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2.X) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
4) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
5) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

On the 2.X's, I'm tempted to say resisting a sharp tug has more merit than holding an ooze onto the piece since a sharp tug can impart some semblance of the arbitrary shock of an actual fall (albeit not body weight).

Bill L


notapplicable


Oct 27, 2007, 8:12 AM
Post #9 of 96 (6505 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [wanderlustmd] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

wanderlustmd wrote:
I tug on placements fairly often...to confirm that the direction of pull makes sense in relation to the piece.


Good point, that is valuable information to have.

As a friend from my childhood used to say, "knowing is half the battle".


el_layclimber


Oct 27, 2007, 8:44 AM
Post #10 of 96 (6484 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 550

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:

As a friend from my childhood used to say, "knowing is half the battle".

You were friends with GI Joe?


notapplicable


Oct 27, 2007, 9:19 AM
Post #11 of 96 (6464 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [el_layclimber] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

el_layclimber wrote:
notapplicable wrote:

As a friend from my childhood used to say, "knowing is half the battle".

You were friends with GI Joe?

Indeed, he kept me company on many a Saturday morning.


moose_droppings


Oct 27, 2007, 11:27 AM
Post #12 of 96 (6399 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3348

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Many times after giving a cam a tug, they'll move slightly in reaction to the direction of the tug, which is the direction I'm anticipating a fall would go. Then I'll give them a second tug to make sure thats where they'll settle in at and give them a good eyeing over. Just about all my passive placements get a tug or a pull into place to seat them, but I've never got any complaints on setting them to hard. Well, maybe a couple times with the smaller tricams.

Nothing short of falling on a piece will guarantee it will hold. Even a trapped nut has variables beyond your scrutinizing eyes. But I do feel a little warmer knowing the piece is set well.


microbarn


Oct 27, 2007, 11:36 AM
Post #13 of 96 (6391 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I was thinking about it a bit more. There are many aid climbers that say they thought a piece was too tentative to tug on. So, they eased their weight on it. So, I am not alone in thinking that a tug can impart more force on a placement than slowly transitioning to it.


moose_droppings


Oct 27, 2007, 12:27 PM
Post #14 of 96 (6362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3348

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
I was thinking about it a bit more. There are many aid climbers that say they thought a piece was too tentative to tug on. So, they eased their weight on it. So, I am not alone in thinking that a tug can impart more force on a placement than slowly transitioning to it.

Definitely, parts of placing in aiding is a different ballgame when your piece only requires body weight or little more.


microbarn


Oct 27, 2007, 1:32 PM
Post #15 of 96 (6320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [moose_droppings] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
microbarn wrote:
I was thinking about it a bit more. There are many aid climbers that say they thought a piece was too tentative to tug on. So, they eased their weight on it. So, I am not alone in thinking that a tug can impart more force on a placement than slowly transitioning to it.

Definitely, parts of placing in aiding is a different ballgame when your piece only requires body weight or little more.

We might agree, but your wording makes me think I was unclear.

People in this thread keep saying this is the order for strength of placements:
In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

The list above implies that even a small tug puts less force on a piece then a slow rock onto it. When a person doing aid avoids tugging, but eases their weight onto the piece anyways. They are expressing that the list is AT LEAST this:

In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

To me, this makes sense. Impact forces can be very large. I can easily see someone putting a lot of force onto a placement with a few short jerks on the low elongation sling.

Independent on the exact placement in the above list, I think this is only reaffirming that tugs have some (if limited) use. I was really hoping to have some anti-tuggers responding.


moose_droppings


Oct 27, 2007, 2:55 PM
Post #16 of 96 (6279 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3348

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

Yep, I do agree with this list.


tradrenn


Oct 27, 2007, 3:15 PM
Post #17 of 96 (6265 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 15, 2005
Posts: 2990

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I like to test all my pieces, mainly cause I started trad in Ontario.

I don't see anything wrong with setting your gear, except the fact that it may take longer to clean it.


stymingersfink


Oct 27, 2007, 9:31 PM
Post #18 of 96 (6181 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
microbarn wrote:
I was thinking about it a bit more. There are many aid climbers that say they thought a piece was too tentative to tug on. So, they eased their weight on it. So, I am not alone in thinking that a tug can impart more force on a placement than slowly transitioning to it.

Definitely, parts of placing in aiding is a different ballgame when your piece only requires body weight or little more.

We might agree, but your wording makes me think I was unclear.

People in this thread keep saying this is the order for strength of placements:
In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

The list above implies that even a small tug puts less force on a piece then a slow rock onto it. When a person doing aid avoids tugging, but eases their weight onto the piece anyways. They are expressing that the list is AT LEAST this:

In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
6) holds any fall

To me, this makes sense. Impact forces can be very large. I can easily see someone putting a lot of force onto a placement with a few short jerks on the low elongation sling.

Independent on the exact placement in the above list, I think this is only reaffirming that tugs have some (if limited) use. I was really hoping to have some anti-tuggers responding.

Strange that some would place "hold's weight of rope" anywhere above "holds a sharp tug". I always give it a tug before i clip it.

Dangerous that one would be placing a piece to hold a TR fall and have anything less than a SERENE anchor.Crazy

Funny that "holds slow transition to body-weight" is even an answer in a "trad" forum. That one belongs in the aider's bag. Even if it's A0.

so, i guess my trad list would read more like:

1. Fits placement and seats well, responds in appropriate manner when given a sharp tug in directions of anticipated loading (down or out)
2. Successfully holds short, low FF falls. Rule: Upon being subjected to such a fall, the piece would be inspected and reset or backed up if necessary.
3. Successfully holds long, moderate FF falls. Same rules apply here as to #2
4. Fails the above requirements, resulting in a possible trip to the ER and a thorough reassessment of protection skills and motivations.

Other than that, what else is there?


Aiding is a whole 'nother story. If you really want to open that subject perhaps you should post your question to the "Big Walls and Aid" forum.


healyje


Oct 27, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #19 of 96 (6162 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If this thread is about aid climbing then it should be moved; if it's about non-aid trad climbing then that's a very different story.

In most situations I go passive first, cams second. I rarely ever 'set' passive gear, but rather consider working with the geometry a major part of the craft. And I rope-solo about 50% of my multipitch climbing which means I second my own pitches or 'eat my own dogfood' as it were. Decades of seconding myself while trying to move fast has trained me to only rarely set pro. If I have doubts about a piece, I'm generally more likely to whip in an opposition piece than yank on it.

When I run across someone who hard 'sets' every piece and who cleans passive pro by simply yanking on it (especially up), I think the person simply isn't really "getting it". Deft work placing and cleaning pro really requires becoming a quick study of the fine details of a placement. Finesse and subtlety, rather than force or finageling, are what you should be aiming for in my opinion.

Appropriate slinging is also of paramount importance in trad climbing. Good placement and slinging skills work synergistically to insure good placements stay that way and that the system runs as smooth as possible.

As far as ball nuts go, using them is a real art form which plays out with incredibly close inspection almost down to the millimeter of every placement. I spent last Wednesday whipping on a #3 trying to turn a roof with a great deal of choss above it. I took about 5 dives onto it before finding something solid to move up on. When I went to clean it, it came right out as they generally always do if you put the effort in upfront to really study the placement of them.

For more commentary on ball nuts see:

Ballnutz / Careful consideration when putting your balls on the lineÖ


(This post was edited by healyje on Oct 27, 2007, 10:30 PM)


microbarn


Oct 28, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #20 of 96 (6103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

stymingersfink wrote:
Strange that some would place "hold's weight of rope" anywhere above "holds a sharp tug". I always give it a tug before i clip it.

Dangerous that one would be placing a piece to hold a TR fall and have anything less than a SERENE anchor.Crazy

Funny that "holds slow transition to body-weight" is even an answer in a "trad" forum. That one belongs in the aider's bag. Even if it's A0.

so, i guess my trad list would read more like:

1. Fits placement and seats well, responds in appropriate manner when given a sharp tug in directions of anticipated loading (down or out)
2. Successfully holds short, low FF falls. Rule: Upon being subjected to such a fall, the piece would be inspected and reset or backed up if necessary.
3. Successfully holds long, moderate FF falls. Same rules apply here as to #2
4. Fails the above requirements, resulting in a possible trip to the ER and a thorough reassessment of protection skills and motivations.

Other than that, what else is there?


Aiding is a whole 'nother story. If you really want to open that subject perhaps you should post your question to the "Big Walls and Aid" forum.

The question is ascertaining your confidence a placement will hold a fall after a tug. This applies in both trad and aid, but I look to apply the knowledge in trad. You can feel free to answer the question without any list at all. I am curious as to how much you feel a tug can reassure you about the strength of a placement.

Sty,
You seem to be saying that there is some value in the tug.

healyje,
I think the above also answers your questions too, but your post concentrates on setting/cleaning passive placements mostly. What triggered me to first ask this question is a thread where the cams failed:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1708704#1708704

For the purposes of this question, I don't care how difficult it is to clean the gear. I am curious if a tug will give you any reassurance about the piece holding. Directing the conversation away from the above list that seemed to be adding confusion....

If you have a placement that you were able to make a solid tug on, are you more confident that the piece will hold a fall? Do you think the tug was a waste of time (even if you were placing from a ledge)?


stymingersfink


Oct 28, 2007, 10:12 AM
Post #21 of 96 (6029 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
If you have a placement that you were able to make a solid tug on, are you more confident that the piece will hold a fall? Do you think the tug was a waste of time (even if you were placing from a ledge)?
Well, I guess that's two different things, really.

Generally, when trad climbing, if I've got little or no confidence that I'll be able to make a secure placement, then I'll not waste my time trying to make something work.

If, OTOH, I've cruxed out and experiencing that "oh fuck my last piece is waay down there and there's nothing here" feeling, I'll usually step back down to a good placement.

Continuing along this train of thought (and that piece waay down there is actually the last good piece of gear possible), if I don't feel up to pulling through the crux and getting to a placement, the prudent thing would be to BTFO! Will I always BTFO? Well, now it depends on the objective/subjective dangers of the potential fall I'm looking at.

If I'm not willing to take that fall, then there's no point in marginal gear which takes time+energy to place and may actually warp my perception of my safety margin.

Again, OTOH, if the fall is something I'm willing to take but would rather not if at all necessary, then sure, perhaps I'll place some marginal gear if that's all that presents itself, knowing full well the cost:benefit may be a toss-up.


microbarn


Oct 28, 2007, 5:17 PM
Post #22 of 96 (5933 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

stymingersfink wrote:
microbarn wrote:
If you have a placement that you were able to make a solid tug on, are you more confident that the piece will hold a fall? Do you think the tug was a waste of time (even if you were placing from a ledge)?
Well, I guess that's two different things, really.

Generally, when trad climbing, if I've got little or no confidence that I'll be able to make a secure placement, then I'll not waste my time trying to make something work.

If, OTOH, I've cruxed out and experiencing that "oh fuck my last piece is waay down there and there's nothing here" feeling, I'll usually step back down to a good placement.

Continuing along this train of thought (and that piece waay down there is actually the last good piece of gear possible), if I don't feel up to pulling through the crux and getting to a placement, the prudent thing would be to BTFO! Will I always BTFO? Well, now it depends on the objective/subjective dangers of the potential fall I'm looking at.

If I'm not willing to take that fall, then there's no point in marginal gear which takes time+energy to place and may actually warp my perception of my safety margin.

Again, OTOH, if the fall is something I'm willing to take but would rather not if at all necessary, then sure, perhaps I'll place some marginal gear if that's all that presents itself, knowing full well the cost:benefit may be a toss-up.

I think I understand everything you have posted, but I am not feeling as though you are addressing my question yet. Maybe I am misreading you. Please reread my posts knowing that I am trying to push for the same idea through the whole thread so far. Perhaps the sum of my posts will make it clearer what I am trying to address.

Let me try to get my question answered in yet another way. Here is a scenario:
A climb is maybe 2-3 grades below your onsight limit, but it is sustained from top to bottom. Since it is sustained at a level just below your onsight limit, you will be placing gear "during the crux", but the alternative is freesoloing. You come up to a stance where it is appropriate to place gear. You could go up two feet up or down and get a placement too, but you choose here. Since it is sustained, you want to place the gear and go as quickly as possible. Do you bother tugging on the gear? Do you pull on the gear less heavily so that you can keep your balance and flow better? Is the tug required at all? What if you are placing from a layback position, and your vision of the placement is not 100% clear?

For the general reader of the thread:
When do you feel a tug is needed, and how much do you feel that tug tells you about the piece holding a fall?

Sty, you seemed to say you tug every piece just after placing it. Is this true even in the above situation? If so, is it a good assumption on my part that you gain some reassurance that the piece will probably hold a fall?


notapplicable


Oct 28, 2007, 5:30 PM
Post #23 of 96 (5917 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rock type plays a huge role in whether or not I feel a need to test every piece but I usualy do anyway. You did hit on a point I hadnt thought about yet, not in this discussion anyway. I think testing a blind or partially blind placement is important and a swift tug can tell you alot about the stability of your handy work. I would definently gain confidence from yanking on a blind cam placement, even if thats only to feel comfortable making another move or two so I can visualy inspect.


stymingersfink


Oct 28, 2007, 8:55 PM
Post #24 of 96 (5837 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
For the general reader of the thread:
When do you feel a tug is needed, and how much do you feel that tug tells you about the piece holding a fall?

Sty, you seemed to say you tug every piece just after placing it. Is this true even in the above situation? If so, is it a good assumption on my part that you gain some reassurance that the piece will probably hold a fall?

Generally I'll tug passive gear (depending on the constriction it's placed in) to set the piece well, ensuring it won't lift out later. This tug should really tell me nothing about the piece's ability to hold a fall, as if I'm placing a piece I fully expect it to hold a fall from the route anywhere up to point X, by which time I'd better place another piece regardless, else (by my calculations) I'm going to risk potential gear/placement failure (these calculations are done on the fly with a basic understanding of gear failure modes, a rough estimate of rock quality, and how gripped I might be at any given time) resulting in striking a feature/ground due to fall length either with or without placement failure. Quite simply it's a feeling I get when I place my gear. If I don't feel it, I try to identify what needs to happen to GET that feeling flowing, then do it.

I don't tug cams as often, but then I don't place cams as often in questionable placements. Tugging cams can help identify weaker placements, especially with micro-cams or chossy rock (not that there's much of that in LCC).

If you think a piece resisting a tug tells you anything about the piece's ability to hold a fall, I would think you're gravely mistaken. What it may tell you, but not guaranteed to tell you, is the gear's inability to hold a fall.

Bounce testing placements while aid climbing is far more severe than any tugging one might do on a piece, probably more closely representative (or even harsher than that) of an actual fall in most situations. Yes, when aiding there are pieces which do not receive bounce tests. In fact some of these pieces require one to exhale fully before easing one's weight to them, while thinking light thoughts and sending prayers to the climbing gods that the piece holds.


vegastradguy


Oct 28, 2007, 9:08 PM
Post #25 of 96 (5830 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i only tug passive gear if i'm stressed out and need some psychological reassurance. otherwise, slot and go.

cams...generally will place and clip. i generally tug them if they're in a weird spot, and thats only to see how the lobes behave. if they do weird things (this is especially true with small cams), then i will adjust the placement accordingly. i do this more in jtree than anywhere else- and usually only on .10s and up- something about gear there.

otherwise, placement categories are:

psychological- wont hold crap, but it makes me feel better.

marginal- probably will hold a fall, but then again, maybe not.

good- a good piece- definitely will hold a fall.

bomber- plug and go.


microbarn


Oct 29, 2007, 4:20 AM
Post #26 of 96 (2102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Sweet, those were the kinds of answers I was looking for. Thanks guys.

stymingersfink wrote:
If you think a piece resisting a tug tells you anything about the piece's ability to hold a fall, I would think you're gravely mistaken. What it may tell you, but not guaranteed to tell you, is the gear's inability to hold a fall.

This is a different way of wording my thoughts about tugging. If it holds a tug, it could hold a fall. If it didn't hold a tug, then I need a new placement. It does serve some purpose for me.

I like that you said it that way. Perhaps all the people that say "tugs are worthless." Are just not completing the whole thought as you did above.


granite_grrl


Oct 29, 2007, 5:14 AM
Post #27 of 96 (2094 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14704

Re: [tradrenn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

tradrenn wrote:
I like to test all my pieces, mainly cause I started trad in Ontario.

I don't see anything wrong with setting your gear, except the fact that it may take longer to clean it.

Ah Wojtek, I hope you don't take this the wrong way. Part or being a fast efficient leader is placing gear that is easy for your second to clean. Giving a death yard to every singe placement does not allow for quick cleaning ever. Not such a big deal on single pitch stuff, but you get to stuff that's more than 2-3 pitches the time it takes cleaning can really slow you down.

So that being said, I only tug on gear as much as I feel I have to. If its a maginal placement that will be garbage if it walks, I yard on the thing (and then sling it long, etc). If its in a nice bottle neck I just pull it enough to make sure it's sitting okay. I apply this to passive gear.

Cams I rarely pull on, and I think in good rock in a good placement there isn't much pulling on a cam can tell you. Also, unless there are no other gear options, I'm usually placing cams because they are quick and I'm getting pumped out or in a percarious position. Yanking on a cam in these situation isn't always viable.

But if you are warry about the rock quality (which normally wouldn't be rock that I'd push myself on anyway) pulling on a cam to verify that the rock could be too slick or made too slipery is a very good idea.


Partner cracklover


Oct 29, 2007, 6:19 AM
Post #28 of 96 (2089 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Good topic.

First of all, the force generated by a sharp tug on a sling is tiny. The realization of that fact is key to any further discussion on this topic. Generating significant force is not such an easy thing to do (not talking about funk devices).

When I decided to test my suspect Aliens (stick with me here - I'm not going off topic) I figured the easiest thing to do was to bounce test them. But having a scientific mindset, I wanted to make sure I wasn't over-stressing them. Or under-stressing them, for that matter. I figured the best way to tell how hard I could bounce on them was to add a screamer or two to the mix. You see a screamer is a load-limiting device. The important thing for this discussion is that it activates at 2kN. I knew that if I put two screamers in parallel and bounced, they'd rip a little at 4kN. Well guess what I found out?

I could not get a single screamer to rip. Not with my hardest bounce, not a single stitch. So that means I could not generate 2kN (450 lbs) of force by jumping hard on static nylon aiders.

Now I'm a lightweight, at only 150 lbs, so maybe some of y'all could do better. But my point is - a 2kN force is very easily attainable in a short fall. But even with the harshest bounce, I could not test my gear to that. You think you can give your gear any kind of useful test with the weight of your HAND?

For a small cam in a poor placement, tugging on it in an odd direction can generate enough torque to rip it out if it's no good. I've done that lots of times. Otherwise, hand-tugging on a cam is indeed useless. If you place a cam in a polished flaring crack and pull straight out, it will hold your tug every single time. Whip on it, and it will rip out 9 times out of 10.

What you need to do is understand what holds and what doesn't*, learn to recognize that visually, and place gear accordingly. Even so, the only guarantee is to not fall.

I won't comment on the utility of tugging in order to set gear - that's a completely different matter.

GO

* I wound up using a better method to test my Aliens. It generated 3-4kN of force. I was surprised that my first few attempts at testing with my new method failed - because the cam ripped out of the rock before it got to the required 3-4kN of force I was applying. After a few tests, I recognized the better placements from the worse, and only had one more (in about 10+) cams rip out.


microbarn


Oct 29, 2007, 7:13 AM
Post #29 of 96 (2082 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

finally, it looks like one of the naysayers joined in Tongue Glad to see it.

Have you read Chossy's TR where he got hurt? http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1708704#1708704

I don't know his experience, but he seems to have a bit of gear climbing under his belt. Chances are he has more than I in any case. He judged 3 pieces in a row to be pretty good. The fall he took was still below the highest placement. He doesn't really know why the three cams failed, but he threw out a guess of maybe some slime on the rock. What is your reaction to that? Wouldn't a little tug have identified slime on the rock (if indeed this was the cause)? Perhaps a tug will not always identify slime, but there is a chance the tug will identify it.....doesn't that still help the leader know he needs a new placement?

The other tangent I disagree with you on is the force generated by a tug in relation to the expected fall forces.

First, I will define my method of tugging on gear. I pull the sling up into the air, and I yank down. So, my tug is similar to a mini-funkness device. I test gear from the shoulder because I was taught by my mentor that this moves a person off balance less in the event of placement failure.

You seem to be saying that you were doing even more dramatic jerks on the screamer, and you could not get 2kN of force. Well, that is about three times your weight. I am willing to believe that 3 times your weight is difficult to generate from just one arm's movement. However, I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight. Therefore, a tug *could* approach similar forces as that fall.

Even if your potential fall is 4kN, it would be nice to know the placement won't hold a tug of 0.0001 N. It would prompt me to look for actual protection rather than believing the junk piece will catch me.


vegastradguy


Oct 29, 2007, 8:14 AM
Post #30 of 96 (2072 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
I am willing to believe that 3 times your weight is difficult to generate from just one arm's movement.

perhaps you should read this again (emphasis added):

cracklover wrote:
I could not get a single screamer to rip. Not with my hardest bounce, not a single stitch. So that means I could not generate 2kN (450 lbs) of force by jumping hard on static nylon aiders.

and this:

cracklover wrote:
But even with the harshest bounce, I could not test my gear to that. You think you can give your gear any kind of useful test with the weight of your HAND?

i think he was pretty clear on this point.....


microbarn


Oct 29, 2007, 10:51 AM
Post #31 of 96 (2049 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [vegastradguy] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You are right. I still think the next sentence stands:
In reply to:
I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight.

If he couldn't get that much force with a static sling bounce test, then the fall described above would still be less.


chossmonkey


Oct 29, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #32 of 96 (2005 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28413

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
You are right. I still think the next sentence stands:
In reply to:
I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight.

If he couldn't get that much force with a static sling bounce test, then the fall described above would still be less.
Its likely the first cam wouldn't have held body weight. That still doesn't change the fact that all a tug does is proves the gear would hold a tug. In my case it may or may not have held a tug. If it didn't I guess I wouldn't have been as quick to keep climbing upward. If it had held a tug I think I still would have hit the ground.


Partner cracklover


Oct 29, 2007, 6:22 PM
Post #33 of 96 (1994 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
Have you read Chossy's TR where he got hurt? http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1708704#1708704

Just did, thanks for the link. Scary stuff! Glad to read that he's mostly okay.

In reply to:
I don't know his experience, but he seems to have a bit of gear climbing under his belt. Chances are he has more than I in any case. He judged 3 pieces in a row to be pretty good. The fall he took was still below the highest placement. He doesn't really know why the three cams failed, but he threw out a guess of maybe some slime on the rock. What is your reaction to that?

A number of folks in that thread are saying that cams in limestone can be very fickle, and should not be expected to hold in parallel sided cracks. I have pretty limited climbing experience (maybe a dozen pitches at most) placing gear in limestone, and I was climbing way below my limit. So I don't have anything direct to add about the solidity of cams in limestone. Perhaps folks who do a lot of climbing in the Dolomites (uasunflower?) have a better developed eye for what holds and what doesn't in limestone.

In reply to:
Wouldn't a little tug have identified slime on the rock (if indeed this was the cause)? Perhaps a tug will not always identify slime, but there is a chance the tug will identify it.....doesn't that still help the leader know he needs a new placement?

There's a chance, yes. But in my experience in placing cams, if it's such a poor placement that a tug in the direction of the stem of the cam would rip it out, it is a very very obviously poor placement to the naked eye.

In reply to:
You seem to be saying that you were doing even more dramatic jerks on the screamer, and you could not get 2kN of force.

I was bouncing in aiders.

In reply to:
Well, that is about three times your weight. I am willing to believe that 3 times your weight is difficult to generate from just one arm's movement.

No, it's not hard, it's impossible. Try putting 450 pounds on the ground, put a sling on it, and then "tug" on it. See if it raises up even a little.

In reply to:
However, I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight.

Why do you have a hard time with that? Rgold has shown mathematically that merely sitting back on a rope generates a peak force double that of the weight of the climber. And that's just in the climber side of the rope. The top piece experiences that force, plus 2/3 of that force from the belayer side (remember, we lose some force due to friction over the top biner). So just from sitting back on the rope, you should expect the top piece to see 3 1/3 times the weight of the climber.

In reply to:
Therefore, a tug *could* approach similar forces as that fall.

You've lost me there.

In reply to:
Even if your potential fall is 4kN, it would be nice to know the placement won't hold a tug of 0.0001 N. It would prompt me to look for actual protection rather than believing the junk piece will catch me.

If a cam placement looks like crap, it is crap. If it doesn't look like crap, but it actually is (such as in this poor guy's case), I do not believe that a tug will be particularly enlightening. But again, my experience with limestone is very limited.

Beyond the physics of the matter, I wonder if what's really going on here is that you're looking for a higher level of certainty - a better "test" than is actually possible. Gear judgement is just that - a judgement call. Not until you fall will you know for sure. And even then - plenty of people have fallen three times on a piece, and then the fourth time it failed. All you can do is learn to judge a piece as well as you can - and experience will help.

GO


stymingersfink


Oct 29, 2007, 7:50 PM
Post #34 of 96 (1978 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Why do you have a hard time with that? Rgold has shown mathematically that merely sitting back on a rope generates a peak force double that of the weight of the climber. And that's just in the climber side of the rope. The top piece experiences that force, plus 2/3 of that force from the belayer side (remember, we lose some force due to friction over the top biner). So just from sitting back on the rope, you should expect the top piece to see 3 1/3 times the weight of the climber.

Sure about that? Maybe you should think a minute about the words you're trying to put into RGold's mouth, cause I doubt he'd agree with what you's tryin to say he said.

Sure, the top piece will feel 2x the climbers weight, but with friction loss the belayer will feel 2/3's the climbers weight. That's just a static "take". In a fall change "weight" to "Force" and it would still read the same.


moose_droppings


Oct 29, 2007, 8:33 PM
Post #35 of 96 (1970 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3348

Re: Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Maybe some of it depends on the rock your placing a pro into that guides your preference. Our granite out here is far from smooth. Its covered with little crystals and irregularities. The lobes don't sit in full contact with the rock, usually its in contact with tips of tiny crystals or some other small nubin, unless your on a trad route thats been worn. The crystals are very brittle, a good tug on the cam will settle it in.

Gear routes tend to weave around out here. If I fall on my top piece, even with good slinging on a wandering route, the other pieces below are going to get a rope tug. I sure hope all the passive pieces have been set in case I need the next one down too.

But, all the bolts here are smooth and theres a million of em.
Maebe sum day I'll learnt what thays fur.
Smile


Partner dominic7


Oct 29, 2007, 8:41 PM
Post #36 of 96 (1967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

Re: [chossmonkey] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chossmonkey wrote:
microbarn wrote:
You are right. I still think the next sentence stands:
In reply to:
I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight.

If he couldn't get that much force with a static sling bounce test, then the fall described above would still be less.
Its likely the first cam wouldn't have held body weight. That still doesn't change the fact that all a tug does is proves the gear would hold a tug. In my case it may or may not have held a tug. If it didn't I guess I wouldn't have been as quick to keep climbing upward. If it had held a tug I think I still would have hit the ground.

Speaking from a nasty experience I had similar to Chossy's (around the time Rebecca fell) -- I placed a cam blind, gave it a couple of good tugs and clipped it at chest height, then fell on it while moving over to look at it. It popped and I fell.

As a result, I don't bother tugging on active pro anymore. I visually inspect the placement, I wiggle the sling up and down to see what they'll do after I move on - but from my rather painful experience, tugging on cams doesn't do anything to enhance my comfort level. As always, your mileage may vary...


gramps


Oct 29, 2007, 9:43 PM
Post #37 of 96 (1949 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 40

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm surprised to see so many people talk about tugging on gear. I'll set a nut placement some of the time, but I hardly ever pull on a piece to "test" it, and I don't think anyone I climb with does either. If the placement is so marginal that you think a hand tug might rip it out, why are you bothering placing it in the first place? I have confidence that every piece I place will hold a hand tug, so I consider it pretty useless to me to "test" it in that way. If the placement looks so bad that I'm wondering if it will hold a hand tug, the odds are really bad that it will hold a fall, so I put it back on my rack. There have been times where I've been desperate and left a bad looking placement in for a little psychological pro, but I'm hardly in a position to give it a good tug when I might peel off at any second. So yeah, if I saw anybody consistently tugging on their placements, I'd wonder where their head / knowledge level was at.


ajkclay


Oct 29, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #38 of 96 (1943 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 1564

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The amount I tug on gear is proportionate to the chance of it coming out without "seating."

*note* I don't climb crap rock, there's too much good quality here for that.

I never tug on cams, visual inspection is generally sufficient.

I will tug on passive gear only hard enough to make it bite a little if I think there's a chance that friction will pull it out.

I climbed with a guy once who tugged so hard on every piece that seconding him was the biggest pain in the butt ever! Every damned piece needed to be bashed out... screw that, if you're too scared to trust your own placements I reckon maybe you've found the wrong sport.

My 2c

Smile

Adam


andypro


Oct 29, 2007, 11:36 PM
Post #39 of 96 (1929 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1077

Re: [ajkclay] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A curiosity currently on my mind: What kind of rock (be it type or general condition) did everyone learn to lead on?

I cut my teeth on Ontario slimestone. I'm a tugger. but that's within reason. In Yosemite, I almost never tugged. But in Tahoe, I found myself feeling better if I did tug. Sandstone is another one where I may or may not tug. Limestone I pretty much always tug. I don't yard on it, just a little yank to make sure it's staying put and blocks aren't going to catch up to me on the way down.

Where did you all pay your dues? do you think that would have anything to do with the tugging habit or not?

--Andy P


notapplicable


Oct 30, 2007, 4:13 AM
Post #40 of 96 (1916 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [andypro] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I learned gear at Seneca mostly, with a little SC granite and New River sandstone for variety. Although the rock at Seneca is not especially soft (like sand and lime stone) it has a tendency to be very polished (imagine placing a cam between two panes of very hard glass) and sometimes brittle. I would say that I do tend to test gear alot more at Seneca than I do at the New or Red River (man is it nice to have solid, hard as nails sandstone to climb on!).


Edited because I forgot a word.


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Oct 30, 2007, 4:14 AM)


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 5:01 AM
Post #41 of 96 (1908 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

stymingersfink, you are mistaken in a variety of ways. I think I spelled out the forces pretty well in my post above. It doesn't seem to be an issue of you not getting it, but not even trying to. For that, clarifying my points will do nothing, so I'll leave it alone.

Cheers,

GO


roclmbr


Oct 30, 2007, 5:14 AM
Post #42 of 96 (1905 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think a simple physics lesson will tell you that tugging a piece of pro will not give any indication about whether it will hold a fall or not. The forces in a fall vary a lot, but can easily reach over a 1000 lbs, with a theoretical limit towards 4000 lbs. This is the force on the top piece. This is about the weight of a car. Now image yourself hanging off a cliff by one hand and pulling on a sling with the other. How close to lifting that cat off the ground do you think you will come. Tugging is only good to check whether the piece is well placed and this would be better served by gently pulling and watching to make sure it is seated well.

If you want to learn about pro placement try aiding. When you aid a route you get to see how every piece reacts when weighted. It is amazing how the pieces will shift and seat themselves, and this is only under body weight.

I have seen 4 people hit the ground in falls. In all cases they had several pieces of pro in good quality rock. They hit the ground because the system failed and the direction of the forces caused the pro to pull out. I saw one fall where the top piece held for a brief time, allowing all the pieces below it, from the first piece upward, to pull out. Then the top piece failed and the climber fell 40' to the ground.

I place gear with the intention of it being there when I need it. My gear generally stays in place, and is often hard to remove. I never tug on it but rather rely on looking at the crack and building a good system that will work in the correct direction of the force. This being said, I am not above placing a 'slow me down' piece if it gives me the confidence to get up a route.

Tugging should be avoided since it serves no better purpose than a simply pull and it places the climber in a potential situation where they could be put off balance should the piece pull out. Climbing is about control and tugging is wrong.


stymingersfink


Oct 30, 2007, 5:51 AM
Post #43 of 96 (1898 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
stymingersfink, you are mistaken in a variety of ways. I think I spelled out the forces pretty well in my post above. It doesn't seem to be an issue of you not getting it, but not even trying to. For that, clarifying my points will do nothing, so I'll leave it alone.

Cheers,

GO
yeah. impossible to get anything more than the climbers weight on the climbers side of the rope with a simple "take". Not going to happen.

sure, the piece at the top will experience 2x climbers weight (the weight of the climber + the counterweight necessary to hold him there.

this 3 1/3 x climbers weight thing tho? ... huh.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

*Shrug* I'm off to work. good day.


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 6:35 AM
Post #44 of 96 (1892 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
I learned gear at Seneca mostly, with a little SC granite and New River sandstone for variety. Although the rock at Seneca is not especially soft (like sand and lime stone) it has a tendency to be very polished (imagine placing a cam between two panes of very hard glass) and sometimes brittle. I would say that I do tend to test gear alot more at Seneca than I do at the New or Red River (man is it nice to have solid, hard as nails sandstone to climb on!).


Edited because I forgot a word.

This is my essentially my experience. I climb at Seneca, NRG, and other similar places to the NRG. The polish that occurs on some seneca placements is amazing. The placement could be textbook, but the polish on the rock will not allow the cam to hold. No slime is required to make the placement more slippery.


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 6:39 AM
Post #45 of 96 (1888 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
stymingersfink, you are mistaken in a variety of ways. I think I spelled out the forces pretty well in my post above. It doesn't seem to be an issue of you not getting it, but not even trying to. For that, clarifying my points will do nothing, so I'll leave it alone.

Cheers,

GO

I think Sty is right.

I would like a link to rgold's post that you referred to or a better explanation. You are just giving the jt512 validation right now.


(This post was edited by microbarn on Oct 30, 2007, 7:16 AM)


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 6:43 AM
Post #46 of 96 (1886 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [roclmbr] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

roclmbr wrote:
I think a simple physics lesson will tell you that tugging a piece of pro will not give any indication about whether it will hold a fall or not. The forces in a fall vary a lot, but can easily reach over a 1000 lbs, with a theoretical limit towards 4000 lbs. This is the force on the top piece. This is about the weight of a car. Now image yourself hanging off a cliff by one hand and pulling on a sling with the other. How close to lifting that cat off the ground do you think you will come. Tugging is only good to check whether the piece is well placed and this would be better served by gently pulling and watching to make sure it is seated well.

I don't claim that a tug is going to be that strong.

In reply to:
Tugging should be avoided since it serves no better purpose than a simply pull and it places the climber in a potential situation where they could be put off balance should the piece pull out. Climbing is about control and tugging is wrong.

How is this so hard to follow? If the piece pulled out with a low force tug....doesn't that mean the piece was crap? Wouldn't you rather find this out with a tug then climb another 10 feet and fall onto the crap piece?????


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 7:14 AM
Post #47 of 96 (1872 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
In reply to:
Wouldn't a little tug have identified slime on the rock (if indeed this was the cause)? Perhaps a tug will not always identify slime, but there is a chance the tug will identify it.....doesn't that still help the leader know he needs a new placement?

There's a chance, yes. But in my experience in placing cams, if it's such a poor placement that a tug in the direction of the stem of the cam would rip it out, it is a very very obviously poor placement to the naked eye.

I suppose I am just trying to learn from others' experiences. Right now, I am hearing that good looking placements fail sometimes under low loads. I gave you the example of chossy's thread, and I can dig up another example of a leader that was at Seneca earlier this summer. That leader was hang dogging on their piece.

Everyone that says tugs are worthless hasn't had any reasoning to back that up. The most that I am extracting out of the posts here is that some people haven't ever pulled out good looking placements. However, the people that never pull out good looking placements are also the ones that never tug on their pieces. I wonder if there is any correlation... Maybe some of the untested pieces were worthless, and you never knew.

In reply to:
In reply to:
You seem to be saying that you were doing even more dramatic jerks on the screamer, and you could not get 2kN of force.

I was bouncing in aiders.

In reply to:
Well, that is about three times your weight. I am willing to believe that 3 times your weight is difficult to generate from just one arm's movement.

No, it's not hard, it's impossible. Try putting 450 pounds on the ground, put a sling on it, and then "tug" on it. See if it raises up even a little.

In reply to:
However, I have a hard time believing that a fall most of the way up a 40 foot climb with slack equivalent to top rope slack generates three times your weight.

Why do you have a hard time with that? Rgold has shown mathematically that merely sitting back on a rope generates a peak force double that of the weight of the climber. And that's just in the climber side of the rope. The top piece experiences that force, plus 2/3 of that force from the belayer side (remember, we lose some force due to friction over the top biner). So just from sitting back on the rope, you should expect the top piece to see 3 1/3 times the weight of the climber.

In reply to:
Therefore, a tug *could* approach similar forces as that fall.

You've lost me there.

All of the above logic is why I was hesitant to believe your figures earlier. I believe it is possible to generate 3 times my weight with a sling. You didn't, and I don't have a screamer to test my theory.

You were bouncing on a screamer with an aider. This means NO loss of energy, and it means any impact force is worse then on a rope. The fall in Chossy's thread had lots of rope for energy absorption and probably less slack then you can generate by jumping in an aider. His piece was subject to a doubling of the load though.

Perhaps we should go dig up rgold's force calculations, and then we can prove it with numbers? Probably not worth the effort. This is a branch of the discussion that doesn't really even relate to the thread. The only important part is that I don't think a tug approaches three times our weight. It definitely would be much less.

I think we both agree with that.


In reply to:
Beyond the physics of the matter, I wonder if what's really going on here is that you're looking for a higher level of certainty - a better "test" than is actually possible. Gear judgment is just that - a judgment call. Not until you fall will you know for sure. And even then - plenty of people have fallen three times on a piece, and then the fourth time it failed. All you can do is learn to judge a piece as well as you can - and experience will help.

GO

This thread is here to get a feeling for others' experiences. I have seen yourself and others saying that tugs are worthless. I am hoping to understand your reasoning. After I understand it, I may or may not change my ways. Right now, I believe there are times when a bomber looking piece will fail under a tug. I would rather expend the effort and find out sooner rather than later.


chossmonkey


Oct 30, 2007, 7:15 AM
Post #48 of 96 (1870 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28413

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
roclmbr wrote:
I think a simple physics lesson will tell you that tugging a piece of pro will not give any indication about whether it will hold a fall or not. The forces in a fall vary a lot, but can easily reach over a 1000 lbs, with a theoretical limit towards 4000 lbs. This is the force on the top piece. This is about the weight of a car. Now image yourself hanging off a cliff by one hand and pulling on a sling with the other. How close to lifting that car off the ground do you think you will come. Tugging is only good to check whether the piece is well placed and this would be better served by gently pulling and watching to make sure it is seated well.

I don't claim that a tug is going to be that strong.

You pretty much did in your first post by putting a sharp tug just below a hard fall.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Tugging should be avoided since it serves no better purpose than a simply pull and it places the climber in a potential situation where they could be put off balance should the piece pull out. Climbing is about control and tugging is wrong.

How is this so hard to follow? If the piece pulled out with a low force tug....doesn't that mean the piece was crap? Wouldn't you rather find this out with a tug then climb another 10 feet and fall onto the crap piece?????
I think most people are insinuating that they can tell by eye when a piece is crap enough to pull out with a tug. There will always be exceptions to this and in the odd situation tugging might give you a warning. This is why 95% of the time I don't tug. I think in large most people feel it is a waste of time and effort.


wanderlustmd


Oct 30, 2007, 7:18 AM
Post #49 of 96 (1863 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8149

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If a piece is bad enough to pull out under the force of a tug you'll probably (read: should) be able to tell visually before it happens.

Now, of course, I see what you are saying. I was aiding the other day and placed a nut in flare that was obviously a bad piece. I gave it a tug prior to bounce testing and it flew right out. If I was free climbing, I'd have never placed the piece in the first place because it was obviously garbage.

Conversely, I placed a tricam a few feet higher and it felt great when I tugged. It was a blind placement, so I gave it a good bounce test and it flew right out. Like CL outlined, there was no way I could have matched the bounce test with a tug, and the piece would have failed under the load of a fall.

Like I mentioned above, I do tug on pieces, purely to set them, test the fall direction and to make my head happy. My seconds have never had a problem cleaning my gear, so I don't see this as a "bad" thing.


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 7:23 AM
Post #50 of 96 (1861 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [chossmonkey] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chossmonkey wrote:
microbarn wrote:
roclmbr wrote:
I think a simple physics lesson will tell you that tugging a piece of pro will not give any indication about whether it will hold a fall or not. The forces in a fall vary a lot, but can easily reach over a 1000 lbs, with a theoretical limit towards 4000 lbs. This is the force on the top piece. This is about the weight of a car. Now image yourself hanging off a cliff by one hand and pulling on a sling with the other. How close to lifting that car off the ground do you think you will come. Tugging is only good to check whether the piece is well placed and this would be better served by gently pulling and watching to make sure it is seated well.

I don't claim that a tug is going to be that strong.

You pretty much did in your first post by putting a sharp tug just below a hard fall.

I placed it higher than low fall factor falls. This isn't enough to activate a screamer or move a truck. I don't think it is essential to my point either way.

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Tugging should be avoided since it serves no better purpose than a simply pull and it places the climber in a potential situation where they could be put off balance should the piece pull out. Climbing is about control and tugging is wrong.

How is this so hard to follow? If the piece pulled out with a low force tug....doesn't that mean the piece was crap? Wouldn't you rather find this out with a tug then climb another 10 feet and fall onto the crap piece?????
I think most people are insinuating that they can tell by eye when a piece is crap enough to pull out with a tug. There will always be exceptions to this and in the odd situation tugging might give you a warning. This is why 95% of the time I don't tug. I think in large most people feel it is a waste of time and effort.

This is what I had gathered, and everyone else's posts are confirming it so far.


chossmonkey


Oct 30, 2007, 9:40 AM
Post #51 of 96 (1480 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28413

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
chossmonkey wrote:
microbarn wrote:
roclmbr wrote:
I think a simple physics lesson will tell you that tugging a piece of pro will not give any indication about whether it will hold a fall or not. The forces in a fall vary a lot, but can easily reach over a 1000 lbs, with a theoretical limit towards 4000 lbs. This is the force on the top piece. This is about the weight of a car. Now image yourself hanging off a cliff by one hand and pulling on a sling with the other. How close to lifting that car off the ground do you think you will come. Tugging is only good to check whether the piece is well placed and this would be better served by gently pulling and watching to make sure it is seated well.

I don't claim that a tug is going to be that strong.

You pretty much did in your first post by putting a sharp tug just below a hard fall.

I placed it higher than low fall factor falls. This isn't enough to activate a screamer or move a truck. I don't think it is essential to my point either way.
I guess a 'low fall factor' is very open to a lot of interpretation.

For what its worth according to the chart at Yates a FF of just .05 puts 3.8kN onto the anchor you're falling on.


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 9:59 AM
Post #52 of 96 (1471 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
cracklover wrote:
stymingersfink, you are mistaken in a variety of ways. I think I spelled out the forces pretty well in my post above. It doesn't seem to be an issue of you not getting it, but not even trying to. For that, clarifying my points will do nothing, so I'll leave it alone.

Cheers,

GO

I think Sty is right.

Nope. Even if he was correct that the peak force from sitting back on a dynamic line is not higher than the weight of the climber, he is still wrong about his calculation on the force the top piece feels. It would not feel 2X the weight of the climber, but ~ 1.6X. Do you know why?

In reply to:
I would like a link to rgold's post that you referred to or a better explanation. You are just giving the jt512 validation right now.

I will provide a link shortly (as soon as I track it down!) Meanwhile, if you don't actually care about the math, you can just confirm his results by going to the Petzl fall simulator. Put in a fall factor zero, and you will see it reports the force on the top piece at ~ 3.4 times the weight of the climber.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Oct 30, 2007, 10:10 AM)


granite_grrl


Oct 30, 2007, 10:41 AM
Post #53 of 96 (1455 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14704

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Nope. Even if he was correct that the peak force from sitting back on a dynamic line is not higher than the weight of the climber, he is still wrong about his calculation on the force the top piece feels. It would not feel 2X the weight of the climber, but ~ 1.6X. Do you know why?

Do you know why? In the simplist form, ignoring and losses from friction, etc it is 2x the climber's weight. But any one who has a mediocer understanding of physics would understand that there will never be exactly 2x the person's weight on the rope.

Likewise to proclaim that it's very close to 1.6x is also ignorant. How much friction is there? What is the angle of the rock? Does the person have one or two legs (or nothing) thouching the rock? Does the person have a nice little ledge to put their feet on? Is the person hanging straight down or are they pushing back from the peice? Simplier to just do a basic calc sans friction, vectors, etc.

Edited to add that I haven't done a statics course since second year university and I'd like to cracklover the benifit of the doubt and have him explain his calcs a little better.


(This post was edited by granite_grrl on Oct 30, 2007, 10:50 AM)


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 10:49 AM
Post #54 of 96 (1450 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
I suppose I am just trying to learn from others' experiences.

Sure doesn't sound like it. My experience (and the experience of others on this thread) has shown that the force applied on a cam (in the direction of the stem) is nowhere near enough to rip it out of a poor placement unless the placement is obviously crap. I'm telling you, when I was testing Aliens, I placed a bunch of cams, tugged on 'em all, they held great. Until I found good enough placements, none could hold the 3-4kN that I was testing them to. Ripped 'em all right out.

How much force do you think your tug is putting on your gear? I really don't know what you think. You say both:
In reply to:
I believe it is possible to generate 3 times my weight with a sling.
and
In reply to:
I don't think a tug approaches three times our weight. It definitely would be much less.

So which do you actually think? Go ahead - take my earlier suggestion: Go to the gym, take a stack of the big 45 lb iron weights. The kind that fit on a barbell. Put your sling through the middle of them, and give them a nice upward tug, just like you would give your gear a downward tug. See if they budge. If they do, congratulations, you can generate 2kN of peak force with a tug. Please let me know I'm wrong, and I'll send you a beer. If they don't - I'm sorry you've bruised your hand trying. Next time, think about it a little harder.

In reply to:
Everyone that says tugs are worthless hasn't had any reasoning to back that up.

Nonsense. I gave specific examples, and so have other posters.

In reply to:
All of the above logic is why I was hesitant to believe your figures earlier. I believe it is possible to generate 3 times my weight with a sling. You didn't, and I don't have a screamer to test my theory.

Can you please explain what is wrong with my logic?

In reply to:
Perhaps we should go dig up rgold's force calculations, and then we can prove it with numbers? Probably not worth the effort. This is a branch of the discussion that doesn't really even relate to the thread.

I brought it up, so if it doesn't relate to the thread, I apologize. But I thought you wanted to know if tugging was useful. Your premise is that it is, because it generates a force equivalent to a small fall. I tried to explain the amount of force various things put on the gear, to show that you were mistaken, and to give both real-world examples and mathematical explanations.

On cams, tugging in the direction of the stem is not useful because the amount of force generated is miniscule compared to even a small fall. Because it works by friction, miniscule forces are simply useless in telling you how well a cam (or tricam) will perform given a force up in the kilonewton+ range. That's why the cam will not just fall out of a poor placement (in flaring cracks, crumbly rock, dirty cracks, slimy cracks, polished cracks, soft stone).

GO


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 11:05 AM
Post #55 of 96 (1438 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [granite_grrl] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

granite_grrl, I agree that that level of precision in calculating a toprope fall is not relevant to this discussion. It was merely part of a larger point I was making.

But I hope you're not suggest that 2 is *more* accurate than 1.6-1.7. In simplest terms, at rest, a belayer standing on the ground will put approximately (that's what the little "~" sign means) 2/3 the amount of force on the belay strand as the climber at rest puts on the other strand (irrelevant to any intermediate protection between the belayer and the top piece, or any friction between the rope and rock between the belayer and top piece).

Of course, if the belayer sits down and holds herself up with the friction on the belay device, the top piece will feel the weight of the belayer plus the weight of the climber, which would indeed be ~ 2X the weight of the climber.

Make sense?

GO


granite_grrl


Oct 30, 2007, 11:18 AM
Post #56 of 96 (1426 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14704

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
granite_grrl, I agree that that level of precision in calculating a toprope fall is not relevant to this discussion. It was merely part of a larger point I was making.

But I hope you're not suggest that 2 is *more* accurate than 1.6-1.7. In simplest terms, at rest, a belayer standing on the ground will put approximately (that's what the little "~" sign means) 2/3 the amount of force on the belay strand as the climber at rest puts on the other strand (irrelevant to any intermediate protection between the belayer and the top piece, or any friction between the rope and rock between the belayer and top piece).

Of course, if the belayer sits down and holds herself up with the friction on the belay device, the top piece will feel the weight of the belayer plus the weight of the climber, which would indeed be ~ 2X the weight of the climber.

Make sense?

GO

Okay, you'll get off easy this time!! ;)

To me it wasn't clear that you assumed that the belayer was getting pulled off the ground and adding his weight minus the friction of every peice in between to the force seen by the top piece.

Enough of this silly statics and dynamics talk. There's a reason why I didn't go into mechanical engineering. Electricity is much more predictable and maliable.

As far as thread drift goes....unless someone actually has a mesurment of the force that's generated by yarding on a peice of gear, this thread will just keep going around in circles.


roclmbr


Oct 30, 2007, 11:26 AM
Post #57 of 96 (1421 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Static test versus dynamic test of climbing protection


To compare the 2 methods of testing protection we need to make some assumptions:

1. How strong is a static test.

Since this is more controlled than a dynamic test we can use more of our body mass to pull. If we were to perform a dynamic test with all our power it would put us in a very dangerous position if the piece failed. Real world experience shows that a dynamic test (tug) is performed mostly with the arm.

A strong pull could probably lift a 90 lb (40 Kg) load off the ground an inch or so. This corresponds to a force of 400 Newton.

2. Dynamic test.

How fast is the protection traveling during the tug?

A baseball pitcher throws a baseball at a velocity of 44 m/s, and gravity would have the pro traveling at 3 m/s after 50 cm. I used 50 cm to simulate a 25 cm sling being pulled up then down. Assuming that our tug will not be anywhere near as fast as a baseball from a pitcher the velocity of the pro is assumed to be 10 m/s.

Nylon slings will stretch about 5% under small loads (more under heavier loads. I have stretched slings 100% before they broke) which will give us a stretch of 1.25 cm. This is the distance over with the braking will occur and allows us to calculate the acceleration during the application of the tug.

a=(v.v)/2x = 100/0.025 = 4000 m/s

Assuming a mass of 100g for sling and pro this gives a force of

F = ma = 0.1 x 4000 = 400 Newton

Comparing the 2 forces we can see that they are the same, therefore I would suggest that it is better to exert a controlled force rather than a dynamic one.

This assumes the intent is to generate the maximum force on the pro. It is interesting to note that the forces are about 1/5th the force that could theoretically be generated in a fall.


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 11:52 AM
Post #58 of 96 (1410 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
microbarn wrote:
I suppose I am just trying to learn from others' experiences.

Sure doesn't sound like it. My experience (and the experience of others on this thread) has shown that the force applied on a cam (in the direction of the stem) is nowhere near enough to rip it out of a poor placement unless the placement is obviously crap. I'm telling you, when I was testing Aliens, I placed a bunch of cams, tugged on 'em all, they held great. Until I found good enough placements, none could hold the 3-4kN that I was testing them to. Ripped 'em all right out.

You weren't posting any of this unprompted. I am playing devil's advocate to a great extent to hear people's reasoning.

In reply to:
How much force do you think your tug is putting on your gear? I really don't know what you think. You say both:
In reply to:
I believe it is possible to generate 3 times my weight with a sling.
and
In reply to:
I don't think a tug approaches three times our weight. It definitely would be much less.

So which do you actually think? Go ahead - take my earlier suggestion: Go to the gym, take a stack of the big 45 lb iron weights. The kind that fit on a barbell. Put your sling through the middle of them, and give them a nice upward tug, just like you would give your gear a downward tug. See if they budge. If they do, congratulations, you can generate 2kN of peak force with a tug. Please let me know I'm wrong, and I'll send you a beer. If they don't - I'm sorry you've bruised your hand trying. Next time, think about it a little harder.

You are taking the quotes out of context. I believe a person with a sling/aiders can generate three times their weight in a bounce test. I believe a tug is going to be dramatically less because we can't apply our full body weight or jump from higher steps with abandon.

To have a worst case scenario bounce test, one can loop their bottom foot in the bottom step of an aider. Stand on the second to last step. Jump up. Just before your weight hits the bottom step, jump from the bottom step.

Your weight + height fallen + jumping + no elongation = enormous force for a split second....I would be surprised it this wasn't at least 3 times the weight of the person executing it.

Your example of lifting the weights does not apply because all of the above utilizes gravity.

If all of that isn't enough to get three times your weight, then you could always follow Sty's suggestion. Put the screamer on a redirect piece and essentially double your forces. (Yes, minus friction which wouldn't be much since there is limited sling elongation.)

In reply to:
In reply to:
Everyone that says tugs are worthless hasn't had any reasoning to back that up.

Nonsense. I gave specific examples, and so have other posters.

In reply to:
All of the above logic is why I was hesitant to believe your figures earlier. I believe it is possible to generate 3 times my weight with a sling. You didn't, and I don't have a screamer to test my theory.

Can you please explain what is wrong with my logic?

From your recent posts, I now gather that you meant the force on the top piece of gear. Earlier, I was taking your statements to mean the force on the climber. This is probably my mistake in reading too quickly. Above I explained where I expect the bounce test forces to be much higher than your findings.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Perhaps we should go dig up rgold's force calculations, and then we can prove it with numbers? Probably not worth the effort. This is a branch of the discussion that doesn't really even relate to the thread.

I brought it up, so if it doesn't relate to the thread, I apologize. But I thought you wanted to know if tugging was useful. Your premise is that it is, because it generates a force equivalent to a small fall. I tried to explain the amount of force various things put on the gear, to show that you were mistaken, and to give both real-world examples and mathematical explanations.

Perhaps what I bolded explains why we are failing to see eye to eye. My premise is not that a tug generates a force equivalent to a small fall, but that there is some non-negligible force that a tug generates. Using that statement I move on to say "If a placement fails during a tug, then I should not use that placement."

roclmbr, I saw your post, but I don't have time to address it. I will try to post again tonight if others don't already reply.


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 12:31 PM
Post #59 of 96 (1393 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [roclmbr] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

copying your equation from your 'dynamic' section and altering:

F = ma = (0.1 + mass of arm) x 4000 + (your definition of 'static force') = way more force

I will leave it to you to make up the numbers.

roclmbr wrote:
Static test versus dynamic test of climbing protection


To compare the 2 methods of testing protection we need to make some assumptions:

1. How strong is a static test.

Since this is more controlled than a dynamic test we can use more of our body mass to pull. If we were to perform a dynamic test with all our power it would put us in a very dangerous position if the piece failed. Real world experience shows that a dynamic test (tug) is performed mostly with the arm.

A strong pull could probably lift a 90 lb (40 Kg) load off the ground an inch or so. This corresponds to a force of 400 Newton.

2. Dynamic test.

How fast is the protection traveling during the tug?

A baseball pitcher throws a baseball at a velocity of 44 m/s, and gravity would have the pro traveling at 3 m/s after 50 cm. I used 50 cm to simulate a 25 cm sling being pulled up then down. Assuming that our tug will not be anywhere near as fast as a baseball from a pitcher the velocity of the pro is assumed to be 10 m/s.

Nylon slings will stretch about 5% under small loads (more under heavier loads. I have stretched slings 100% before they broke) which will give us a stretch of 1.25 cm. This is the distance over with the braking will occur and allows us to calculate the acceleration during the application of the tug.

a=(v.v)/2x = 100/0.025 = 4000 m/s

Assuming a mass of 100g for sling and pro this gives a force of

F = ma = 0.1 x 4000 = 400 Newton

Comparing the 2 forces we can see that they are the same, therefore I would suggest that it is better to exert a controlled force rather than a dynamic one.

This assumes the intent is to generate the maximum force on the pro. It is interesting to note that the forces are about 1/5th the force that could theoretically be generated in a fall.

um, 1/5th the force of a fall? That still seems pretty substantial to me. (Also, where are you getting the maximum fall force?)

The same statement again applies:
If a placement fails with 1/5th the force of a fall, then I would like know and make a different placement to protect my climbing.


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 12:55 PM
Post #60 of 96 (1387 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
cracklover wrote:
microbarn wrote:
I suppose I am just trying to learn from others' experiences.

Sure doesn't sound like it.

You weren't posting any of this unprompted. I am playing devil's advocate to a great extent to hear people's reasoning.

Okay, well if you're taking a stance you don't really believe, simply to hear people's reasoning, then perhaps you are trying to learn.

In reply to:
Your weight + height fallen + jumping + no elongation = enormous force for a split second....I would be surprised it this wasn't at least 3 times the weight of the person executing it.

I couldn't generate it with a simple bounce test, but feel free to give it a shot. Oh, don't get me wrong, I found a way to generate that force, I'm just saying I couldn't do it with a simple bounce test.

In reply to:
Your example of lifting the weights does not apply because all of the above utilizes gravity.

Huh? The force required to lift 450 lbs is... (drumroll please)... 450 lbs! Lbs are a unit of force. This is not complex science, this is 1=1!

In reply to:
From your recent posts, I now gather that you meant the force on the top piece of gear. Earlier, I was taking your statements to mean the force on the climber. This is probably my mistake in reading too quickly. Above I explained where I expect the bounce test forces to be much higher than your findings.


Yes, that's the point. You think you can generate more force with a bounce and with a tug than you can. Go ahead, go to the to the gym, give it a shot and let us know. If the stack of ten heavy plates moves up at all, you have put a higher force on it than gravity (450 lbs). Simple test, really. I'm not going to bruise my hand on a sling to do it, though; I leave it up to you. And if you can't lift a stack of 10 heavy plates with a sharp tug, try 9. Try 8. Let me know what it winds up being, I'm curious. And if you think this is silly, then you're right, it is. The idea of lifting a stack of ten heavy iron plates with a flick of your forearm is exactly as silly as testing a cam this way, for exactly the same reason!

In reply to:
My premise is not that a tug generates a force equivalent to a small fall...

In reply to:
1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
5) holds a sharp tug from the climber
6) holds any fall

Um... Dude? That's what you said! Laugh How many sides of the fence do you want to play?

In reply to:
... but that there is some non-negligible force that a tug generates.

Which is also wrong (for cams). It's negligible.

Just admit that you're wrong and move on.

GO


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 1:24 PM
Post #61 of 96 (1376 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You seem determined to mix bounce test forces with tugging forces. I give up arguing with you on that front. I see these two as distinct items, but above you mingle everything with no distinction.

Others in this thread are saying good looking placements are failing under loads of a good yank: (my bold)

microbarn wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
I don't think it fair or accurate to say that tugging on a piece will or wont provide you with valuable info. 100% of the time. Some placements (especially passive) are so obviously solid that yanking on them is only going to serve the purpose of seating the gear and won't provide you with any new info. On the other hand I have had just about every kind of piece (passive and active) pull with just a swift yank, when I thought they would hold fine. For what its worth, having gear fail while testing it has caused me to nearly fall so there are risks associated with the behavior.

I yank on just about every placement. Some of them hard, to test placement quality and some gently, just to set them.

I have found it to be a useful practice and doing so can provide a climber with valuable information, while not doing so could leave you in the dark.

and that is the benefit of tugging in my eyes. You at least rule out that there is something obviously wrong. If you don't tug on those pieces, then you are possibly climbing into dangerous situations thinking you are well protected.

Your only response to this seems to be "MY placements either hold or they look really bad." Did I miss another response to this? Is there anything else that you want to say with respect to this?


Partner dominic7


Oct 30, 2007, 1:47 PM
Post #62 of 96 (1372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Posts: 18646

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
Is there anything else that you want to say with respect to this?

I would like to point out that "Gear Tugging" is a euphemism for masturbation.

Angelic


microbarn


Oct 30, 2007, 1:57 PM
Post #63 of 96 (1365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [dominic7] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dominic7 wrote:
microbarn wrote:
Is there anything else that you want to say with respect to this?

I would like to point out that "Gear Tugging" is a euphemism for masturbation.

Angelic

I debated about entitling the thread "Pro Tuggers know nothing," but I never would have gotten a useful response to the thread.


Partner cracklover


Oct 30, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #64 of 96 (1352 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
You seem determined to mix bounce test forces with tugging forces. I give up arguing with you on that front. I see these two as distinct items, but above you mingle everything with no distinction.

How so? Where am I mixing up my forces? You are the one dodging questions and changing your story every few posts. I've given you a challenge. Go see how much force your tug really has and report back. Put up or shut up.

In reply to:
Others in this thread are saying good looking placements are failing under loads of a good yank: (my bold)

notapplicable wrote:
I have had just about every kind of piece (passive and active) pull with just a swift yank, when I thought they would hold fine.

Your only response to this seems to be "MY placements either hold or they look really bad." Did I miss another response to this? Is there anything else that you want to say with respect to this?

I would respectfully suggest that notapplicable was either not yet proficient at analyzing his gear in general, or on that specific rock, at the time that this happened. Simply put - even halfway good cams can't get yanked out in the direction of force. As I've said several times (and perhaps this is what notapplicable meant in relation to his failing cams) if you have a marginal cam, and you're not sure about the contact of one or more of the lobes, yanking it sideways *can* produce enough torque to show that those lobes aren't biting. Even though yanking it directly probably would not cause it to fail! That's how useless a direct yank is! The piece will often stay in place on just one lobe!

So to use your original list, here is how I would categorize the strength of cam and tricam placements:

1) holds its own weight and the weight of the rope.
1.01) holds a sharp tug from the climber
2) holds body weight and a slow transition onto the piece is required
2.8) holds vigorous bounce test
3) holds a top rope fall (body weight applied quickly)
4) holds a fall with a low fall factor
5) holds any fall

GO


stymingersfink


Oct 30, 2007, 2:43 PM
Post #65 of 96 (1347 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So far, the only thing I've gotten from this thread is that some people do not generate very high loads when bounce testing.

Ergo, I would correlate that on those really dicey pitches with nothing but copperheads should be lead by the lightest person.

Crazy


ajkclay


Oct 30, 2007, 5:32 PM
Post #66 of 96 (1334 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 1564

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

... and I learnt that there's more than one way to say "Nyahey!"

Umm to an earlier question, I learnt on quartzite. Nice, clean solid rock with good placements.

No need to tug anything except to "seat something to stop dislodging from friction. Unless of course one has a problem with finding and recognising decent placements. Visual inspection generally suffices. And once I'm past a piece it's good, it's good, it's good... honest, it will hold, it will!

I am aware of a number of instances where climbers have fallen while tugging on gear and decked as a result - interestingly they seem to happen frequently in positions where a fall would not have occured without the tug.

It is an important consideration I think - if you are a tugger, make sure that your balance will not be jeopardised if the piece comes out while you're tugging.

Cheers tuggers!

Adam Smile


(This post was edited by ajkclay on Oct 30, 2007, 5:34 PM)


roclmbr


Oct 31, 2007, 4:55 AM
Post #67 of 96 (1295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 26, 2007
Posts: 9

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
"microbarn"]copying your equation from your 'dynamic' section and altering:

F = ma = (0.1 + mass of arm) x 4000 + (your definition of 'static force') = way more force

I will leave it to you to make up the numbers.

It is always difficult to figure out how simple you can make a problem and still get a valid result. I agree that you could probably include the mass of the hand, however if you include the mass of the arm then you have to start to include the upward pull caused by the resistance of the sling, pro etc. Assuming that you don't start applying more force when you feel the resistance of the sling then I believe the force will be diminishing and the maximum force will be less than at the point of impact. I am not sure of the mass of the hand, but it would certainly increase the total force.

The main point is that the magnitude of the forces generated either by tugging or by pulling, in a real world situation, are in the same realm. Therefore, it is better to perform a controlled pull to test the placement.

Whether 1/5th the fall force is sufficient is up to debate. In some cases, insufficient force will not give an accurate representation of what will happen under full force. How many times have you seen climbers test a foot hold by placing the shoe on the hold without weighting it, only to have the foot slip off. However, confident climbers will use the same hold by committing their weight to it. The amount of holding power is dependant on the force applied. The same may apply with cams since their holding power is generated by friction.


microbarn


Oct 31, 2007, 8:41 AM
Post #68 of 96 (1275 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [roclmbr] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

roclmbr wrote:
The main point is that the magnitude of the forces generated either by tugging or by pulling, in a real world situation, are in the same realm. Therefore, it is better to perform a controlled pull to test the placement.

I agree with you. A controlled tug is often almost as good of a test, and it won't pull someone off balance. If I am in a balancy situation I won't do the same tug as I would on a hands free ledge. However, if I were trying to test a piece for security, I would want to maximize my test force. The dynamic test would be the maximum I could do while free climbing. I let the situation determine how close I approach that max.

In reply to:
Whether 1/5th the fall force is sufficient is up to debate. In some cases, insufficient force will not give an accurate representation of what will happen under full force. How many times have you seen climbers test a foot hold by placing the shoe on the hold without weighting it, only to have the foot slip off. However, confident climbers will use the same hold by committing their weight to it. The amount of holding power is dependant on the force applied. The same may apply with cams since their holding power is generated by friction.

Good example with the feet slipping when climbers don't commit their weight. I don't believe this is the case with cams. Cams increase the outward force in proportion to their load. Friction is proportional to the normal force. A tug that generates outward forces exceeding the standard spring tension on a cam will give an idea of how a cam will perform.

We aren't running hard numbers, so let's make the assumption that you are correct. A given placement will not hold a tug, but it will hold a fall. Below is my response.

Let's say you come to a place where your foot slips when you don't commit your weight. Wouldn't you rather find a place where it sticks with minimal weight commitment? This would imply better friction, and it would provide a better safety margin during use. Also, there are times where I committed 100% of my weight onto my shoes and they still slipped.

Applying your analogy to gear, I would rather know the safety margin is not present. I can choose to look for a better place, or I can try to adjust the current placement. If there is no better placement available, then maybe I will have to make do. At least I know that piece isn't bomber, and I can look to back it up as soon as possible above it.

ajkclay wrote:
I am aware of a number of instances where climbers have fallen while tugging on gear and decked as a result - interestingly they seem to happen frequently in positions where a fall would not have occured without the tug.

It is an important consideration I think - if you are a tugger, make sure that your balance will not be jeopardised if the piece comes out while you're tugging.
Excellent point! Any time one tugs, you should be prepared for a failure.

A friend who is a guide pulled on an old anchor during a trip to patagonia. It pulled and he fell an estimated 90 feet. He ended up going to the hospital.

cracklover,
Perhaps you are right. Maybe you have a better eye for placements than ALL the guides, and ALL the other trad climbers that have pulled out good looking placements. I don't believe I am infallible or exempt from the physics that rule others. If I am currently well protected and the crux is coming up, I will probably continue to tug on that piece. I will probably tug on blindly placed pieces. I may tug on others too. I will probably continue to avoid tugging on the first piece after a run out or mid crux. I will probably tug more often on the polished Seneca climbs and on limestone. I won't assume the piece is bomber just because it held a tug, but I will be able to quiet my mind just a little bit. It will make the unknowns with respect to that placement slightly smaller.

(I still am interested in the rgold link if you have it.)


Partner j_ung


Oct 31, 2007, 8:52 AM
Post #69 of 96 (1270 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Apologies if this has already been covered, but gear tuggers know if their cams will hold in a horizontal flare or if the angle is just too wide.


notapplicable


Oct 31, 2007, 9:00 AM
Post #70 of 96 (1264 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [j_ung] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Apologies if this has already been covered, but gear tuggers know if their cams will hold in a horizontal flare or if the angle is just too wide.

Yeah, I have definently confirmed the worthlesness of a few placements at the Gunks and Looking Glass with one swift jerk.

I would say that testing gear with a tug falls into the 'Not always needed but sometimes useful' catagory. But doesnt just about everthing in life. If somebody wants to call me a gumby for testing gear I got no beef, it serves a purpose for me.


notapplicable


Oct 31, 2007, 9:42 AM
Post #71 of 96 (1242 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ajkclay wrote:
I am aware of a number of instances where climbers have fallen while tugging on gear and decked as a result - interestingly they seem to happen frequently in positions where a fall would not have occured without the tug.

It is an important consideration I think - if you are a tugger, make sure that your balance will not be jeopardised if the piece comes out while you're tugging.

Cheers tuggers!

Adam Smile

roclmbr wrote:

Tugging should be avoided since it serves no better purpose than a simply pull and it places the climber in a potential situation where they could be put off balance should the piece pull out. Climbing is about control and tugging is wrong.

cracklover wrote:
Further, there is a very real downside if the piece rips. If there's no benefit, it's just not worth it.

I was doing a little catching up and came across a number instances where this opinion was expressed. It seem to me to be a bit contradictory to the overall position that testing gear with a tug serves no valid purpose.

If you can infact jerk a piece of gear out of the wall then you did confirm that the piece would have not held a fall there by gathering very useful data. If these climbers had climbed 7-8 ft. above that piece and then fallen their situations would have been signifigantly worse.

Concerning the risk of falling as a result of tested gear failing, I think that this sport is full of calculated risks and everyone has to judge for themselves. I dont however think that yanking on a piece is any more sketchy than pulling on one but again every instance is different.

Edited to add cracklovers quote


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Oct 31, 2007, 3:34 PM)


notapplicable


Oct 31, 2007, 10:08 AM
Post #72 of 96 (1235 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that notapplicable was either not yet proficient at analyzing his gear in general, or on that specific rock, at the time that this happened. Simply put - even halfway good cams can't get yanked out in the direction of force. As I've said several times (and perhaps this is what notapplicable meant in relation to his failing cams) if you have a marginal cam, and you're not sure about the contact of one or more of the lobes, yanking it sideways *can* produce enough torque to show that those lobes aren't biting. Even though yanking it directly probably would not cause it to fail! That's how useless a direct yank is! The piece will often stay in place on just one lobe!
GO


While it would be wildly false to claim that I am any type of expert on gear climbing of any kind, I have been at it for awhile now with a relativly steep (read: self taught) learning curve. I am not trying to defend my experience level, it simply is what it is.

You are correct on two fronts.

1. Yes some of the gear I had pull while testing was in the early years of my trad climbing and most of it was due to a poorly executed or missjudged placement.

This however, does not (IMO) invalidate the usefulness of jerk testing a piece of gear because the reality of the situation is that there are alot of novices out there. Testing and having gear fail can serve a very useful role in getting a new climber to the point that they can judge a placement at a mere glance. Tugging on gear may not be a useful tool for all skill levels but that does not invalidate it as an information gathering tool.


2. You are also correct that alot of the times I test a piece of gear, I am trying to get it to fail. Sometimes I am concerned about an odd direction of pull because of the way the rope runs or from where I will be falling. Other times it's because the constiction I am using has a 'back door' and I want to make sure the piece isnt going to walk right out it.


In reference to the cams that have failed with a swift jerk, they are so few I doubt I would need more than half of the fingers on my right hand to count them. Blind placements and flaring cracks tend to be the biggest culprits. So yes I do agree that cams tend to be the most resistant to multi-directional jerks.


Partner cracklover


Oct 31, 2007, 10:29 AM
Post #73 of 96 (1224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
We aren't running hard numbers, so let's make the assumption that you are correct. A given placement will not hold a tug, but it will hold a fall.

That just doesn't happen. You display a fundamental lack of understanding here that may be at the root of your larger misunderstanding. As the force in the direction of the stem increases, the cam becomes more, not less likely to pull out. That's what makes a weak pull so useless in determining if the cam will hold a fall.

In reply to:
cracklover,
Perhaps you are right. Maybe you have a better eye for placements than ALL the guides, and ALL the other trad climbers that have pulled out good looking placements.

Now what is the point in discussing my experience if you're going to invalidate it with a ridiculous presumption like that? My eye is no better than your average traddie - I know some rock types well, and others not so well. I never claimed to be able to say if any given placement is 100% bomber or not. I just said that a weak tug on a cam in the direction of pull adds nothing to my knowledge base, if I can see the placement. Doing something of no value is inefficient, and inefficiency on a climb means lower chance of success. Further, there is a very real downside if the piece rips. If there's no benefit, it's just not worth it.

In reply to:
If I am currently well protected and the crux is coming up, I will probably continue to tug on that piece. I will probably tug on blindly placed pieces. I may tug on others too. I will probably continue to avoid tugging on the first piece after a run out or mid crux. I will probably tug more often on the polished Seneca climbs and on limestone. I won't assume the piece is bomber just because it held a tug, but I will be able to quiet my mind just a little bit. It will make the unknowns with respect to that placement slightly smaller.

Okay, sorry I couldn't add to your peace of mind as a gear tugger. That's obviously all you were interested in/capable of getting out of this thread. Your understanding of the degrees of force put on your gear by various different stressors, and the behavior of cams under different stressors, is so far divorced from reality that trying to discuss the single element of gear tugging within the context of the larger realm is a completely worthless endeavor.

Good day.

In reply to:
(I still am interested in the rgold link if you have it.)

Yup, just waiting to hear back from him. If anyone else has a link, that would expedite matters.

GO


microbarn


Oct 31, 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #74 of 96 (1214 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
microbarn wrote:
We aren't running hard numbers, so let's make the assumption that you are correct. A given placement will not hold a tug, but it will hold a fall.

That just doesn't happen. You display a fundamental lack of understanding here that may be at the root of your larger misunderstanding. As the force in the direction of the stem increases, the cam becomes more, not less likely to pull out. That's what makes a weak pull so useless in determining if the cam will hold a fall.

You and I agree here. Try reading the paragraph before your quote.

In reply to:
Further, there is a very real downside if the piece rips. If there's no benefit, it's just not worth it.

I already addressed this point, and notapplicable addresses this point just above your post.

In reply to:
Okay, sorry I couldn't add to your peace of mind as a gear tugger. That's obviously all you were interested in/capable of getting out of this thread. Your understanding of the degrees of force put on your gear by various different stressors, and the behavior of cams under different stressors, is so far divorced from reality that trying to discuss the single element of gear tugging within the context of the larger realm is a completely worthless endeavor.

The only reason you provide against tugging is your ability to judge placements perfectly every time. Congrats on your naivety.


Partner cracklover


Oct 31, 2007, 10:54 AM
Post #75 of 96 (1212 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [j_ung] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Apologies if this has already been covered, but gear tuggers know if their cams will hold in a horizontal flare or if the angle is just too wide.

Really? If I place a cam in a flaring crack, I will definitely not expect a hand-tugging to pull it out, but will make a judgement call as to whether a fall would extract it.

Of course, I mostly aim for the least flaring part of it, or even for an area with a little bulge if I can find one to set even a single lobe behind.

In my experience, as a crack flares more, it becomes unreliable to hold a cam in a fall long before the angle of the flare is high enough for a hand-tug to pull it out. What have you found, Jay?

Oh - except if the crack is parallel on one side, and flaring on the other. In that case, a tug out tells me nothing - it'll still hold even on one cam. Instead, I tug/rotate it in the direction away from the flaring side and see what happens with the flaring lobes. This puts enough torque on the piece to definitely tell me whether the placement is good or not.

GO


healyje


Oct 31, 2007, 10:56 AM
Post #76 of 96 (1668 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

For cams, 'tugging' is occasionally useful if there is loose material on the sides of the crack or to 'set' it in a geometry which may incline the cam to walk. But something is sorely deficient if you can't tell whether it will stay and which way it will resist rope pull (you are carrying something more than sport draws so you can sling your cams appropriately, right?).

For passive, if you need to tug on a nut to know whether it's good or not then you're likely either not looking close enough or don't know what you're looking at. Rapping on suspect rock and listening is more useful than tugging if it's a matter of rock quality. If it's about 'setting' pro relative to using friction versus geometry to get it to stay, then tugging still isn't usually necessary - some steady pressure until you feel some "grit" biting is almost always adequate. If it is a matter of suspect geometry or a part of the placement shifting a bit and you are worried about a piece 'pulling through' the placement then a small tug might possibly be warranted.

The bottom line on passive pro is, if your second has to use a nut tool on every piece of your pro then, while you may think you're good, you actually completely suck. While this condition my be ok for a beginning or early intermediate leader, it is simply inconsiderate and lousy craft for anyone who claims to be an experienced trad leader.


Partner cracklover


Oct 31, 2007, 10:59 AM
Post #77 of 96 (1666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I was done with you, but I refuse to let you mischaracterize my statements, simply because you cannot or will not address my true argument.

microbarn wrote:
The only reason you provide against tugging is your ability to judge placements perfectly every time. Congrats on your naivety.

I never stated anything even approaching that.

My arguments above stand on their own, and I won't try to restate them all here.

GO


highangle


Oct 31, 2007, 11:38 AM
Post #78 of 96 (1651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
That just doesn't happen. You display a fundamental lack of understanding here that may be at the root of your larger misunderstanding. As the force in the direction of the stem increases, the cam becomes more, not less likely to pull out. That's what makes a weak pull so useless in determining if the cam will hold a fall.

Yep, it does happen - the geometry of a cam is such that the greater the force on the stem, the greater the outward force of the cams (when place correctly). While I have not seen it personally, there are several instances where a cam placed in sandstone has held a fall, but then failed when an individual continued to hang from the cam.

The forces the instant the climber hit the piece were sufficient to create outward force on the lobes, creating a greater coefficient of friction between the lobes and the rock than the pull force on the stem. However, once the force on the piece decreased, the cams no longer had sufficient outward force on the crack and the cams ripped.

So, it depends - in good solid rock, with a good placement, a cam should -by design - be harder to pull out the greater the force exerted on the stem.

Edited to add: I am a tugger, sometimes. Tug on passive, wiggle active. Tugging does not really tell me what will hold a fall, but what won't. Early on, it was amazing what I placed but did not hold with a tug. Now, tugging is used only to set a piece slightly so it doesn't walk, or if I can't fully see the placement to make sure there isn't anything grossly wrong with the placement.


(This post was edited by highangle on Oct 31, 2007, 11:43 AM)


Partner j_ung


Oct 31, 2007, 11:54 AM
Post #79 of 96 (1640 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Apologies if this has already been covered, but gear tuggers know if their cams will hold in a horizontal flare or if the angle is just too wide.

Really? If I place a cam in a flaring crack, I will definitely not expect a hand-tugging to pull it out, but will make a judgement call as to whether a fall would extract it.

Of course, I mostly aim for the least flaring part of it, or even for an area with a little bulge if I can find one to set even a single lobe behind.

In my experience, as a crack flares more, it becomes unreliable to hold a cam in a fall long before the angle of the flare is high enough for a hand-tug to pull it out. What have you found, Jay?

Oh - except if the crack is parallel on one side, and flaring on the other. In that case, a tug out tells me nothing - it'll still hold even on one cam. Instead, I tug/rotate it in the direction away from the flaring side and see what happens with the flaring lobes. This puts enough torque on the piece to definitely tell me whether the placement is good or not.

GO

I've found this (scroll down to Flared Cracks and Friends), which I think illustrates fairly well the only time I think tugging on gear (in this context) has any real value.

For the lazy:
In reply to:
The angle at which the block [cam] will start to slip is independent of the load applied. What this means in practice is that if you place a cam in a flare and pull on it, and it does not come out, (and so long as you do not disturb the placement), the cam will hold up to the limit of the unit or the rock.

Also, I think I've misunderstood your last paragraph on two points. First, I'm lost on how a crack with two sides can have one of them parallel (parallel to what?) and the other not. My understanding is that a flare is a flare is a flare, e.g., if the two sides of the crack create an angle, it's flared regardless of how that angle is positioned in space. The only questions remaining are, one, does it flare outward (in which case, I tug), and will my cam survive the flare (which the tug tells me).

I'm also confused as to what you mean by "it'll hold on one cam." A camming device needs contact on both sides of the crack every single time, otherwise you won't need a tug. It'll fall right out as soon as you let it go. Down here in the south, we call one-sided cracks "faces." Tongue


microbarn


Oct 31, 2007, 12:02 PM
Post #80 of 96 (1633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [j_ung] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
I've found this (scroll down to Flared Cracks and Friends), which I think illustrates fairly well the only time I think tugging on gear (in this context) has any real value.

For the lazy:
In reply to:
The angle at which the block [cam] will start to slip is independent of the load applied. What this means in practice is that if you place a cam in a flare and pull on it, and it does not come out, (and so long as you do not disturb the placement), the cam will hold up to the limit of the unit or the rock.

This relates back to testing cams in limestone too. People were talking about slime impeding friction, but if there is enough friction to hold a tug...then it will also hold a fall by the same logic.


Partner j_ung


Oct 31, 2007, 12:05 PM
Post #81 of 96 (1631 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

^ That seems to make sense, but I don't really know. Thank Gawd for Nuttall sandstone, eh?


climb_eng


Oct 31, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #82 of 96 (1619 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm not clear what the mode of failure of the cams you were bouncing was. As I see it there are 3 modes of failure for a cam:

- Cam slippage: Cam slides out, causing no noticeable physical damage to the rock.
- Rock failure: includes rock breaking, cams tracking out, rock flex/deformation (eg. expando flake).
- Mechanical failure: Lobe deformation, cam breakage.

Certainly tugging probably won't help you in the case of rock breakage or mechanical failure, but I'm curious why you think it doesn't make a difference in terms of slippage.

In a smooth crack or a flare, I was under the impression that the outwards force (and therefore the friction force) is directly proportional to how hard the cam is pulled. Therefore, it will slip under any load if the effective friction coefficient is not high enough, whether it be a hard fall or a gentle tug. Conversely, if it doesn't slip with a gentle tug, it's shouldn't slip in a hard fall either.

Please explain to me where my logic is wrong.

* Edited to clarify modes of failure.


(This post was edited by climb_eng on Oct 31, 2007, 1:54 PM)


climb_eng


Oct 31, 2007, 12:51 PM
Post #83 of 96 (1615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
There's a chance, yes. But in my experience in placing cams, if it's such a poor placement that a tug in the direction of the stem of the cam would rip it out, it is a very very obviously poor placement to the naked eye.

This leads me to guess that you don't have much experience climbing smooth, slippery rock such as polished limestone, smooth quartzite or smooth basalt.

My experience climbing unpolished limestone is that pieces primarily fail due to rock breakage, but rockies limestone is a curriosity, rather than the norm.

I know for a fact that a cam placed in a parallel crack (it what would be considered a bomber placement in granite) of polished limestone will not hold under any load, be a gentle tug or a hard fall.


microbarn


Oct 31, 2007, 12:55 PM
Post #84 of 96 (1610 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [climb_eng] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climb_eng wrote:
I'm not clear what the mode of failure of the cams you were bouncing was. As I see it there are 3 modes of failure for a cam:

- Cam slippage.
- Rock breakage.
- Mechanical failure.

Certainly tugging probably won't help you in the case of rock breakage or mechanical failure, but I'm curious why you think it doesn't make a difference in terms of slippage.

In a smooth crack or a flare, I was under the impression that the outwards force (and therefore the friction force) is directly proportional to how hard the cam is pulled. Therefore, it will slip under any load if the effective friction coefficient is not high enough, whether it be a hard fall or a gentle tug. Conversely, if it doesn't slip with a gentle tug, it's shouldn't slip in a hard fall either.

Please explain to me where my logic is wrong.

I like your 3 modes of failure. Where would a flexing flake figure into this list?


climb_eng


Oct 31, 2007, 1:35 PM
Post #85 of 96 (1601 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Good point, I'd group in in with Rock breakage, which should perhaps be called surface failiure or something like that.


Partner cracklover


Oct 31, 2007, 2:39 PM
Post #86 of 96 (1588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9974

Re: [j_ung] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
I've found this (scroll down to Flared Cracks and Friends), which I think illustrates fairly well the only time I think tugging on gear (in this context) has any real value.

For the lazy:
In reply to:
The angle at which the block [cam] will start to slip is independent of the load applied. What this means in practice is that if you place a cam in a flare and pull on it, and it does not come out, (and so long as you do not disturb the placement), the cam will hold up to the limit of the unit or the rock.

The key phrase here is "the limit of the ... rock." In my experience, cams in undulating cracks do fine even when sufficient force is put on them for the rock to start to fail. That is not the case with cams in flares. Enough force to start to break a bunch of crystals, and whoop, out it comes. Not something that happens from a tug with your hand, though.

In reply to:
Also, I think I've misunderstood your last paragraph on two points. First, I'm lost on how a crack with two sides can have one of them parallel (parallel to what?) and the other not. My understanding is that a flare is a flare is a flare, e.g., if the two sides of the crack create an angle, it's flared regardless of how that angle is positioned in space. The only questions remaining are, one, does it flare outward (in which case, I tug), and will my cam survive the flare (which the tug tells me).

Sorry - I wasn't clear. Imagine an fcu in a horizontal crack. I meant that the lobes on the right side of the cam are in a parallel crack, but the lobes on the left are in a flare. In such a case, tug straight out, and the two "good" lobes on the right (or one lobe, in the case of a tcu) will hold all the force you can apply with a tug. But tugging the cam away from the flared side (towards your right) puts enough torque on it to see if the lobes on the flared side will hold - and by extension, whether the whole placement will hold.

In reply to:
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "it'll hold on one cam." A camming device needs contact on both sides of the crack every single time, otherwise you won't need a tug. It'll fall right out as soon as you let it go. Down here in the south, we call one-sided cracks "faces." Tongue

Ha! I hope my explanation above makes a little more sense now.

Cheers, and Happy Halloween to all! GO, signing off for the night.

GO


climb_eng


Oct 31, 2007, 3:20 PM
Post #87 of 96 (1580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:

The key phrase here is "the limit of the ... rock." In my experience, cams in undulating cracks do fine even when sufficient force is put on them for the rock to start to fail. That is not the case with cams in flares. Enough force to start to break a bunch of crystals, and whoop, out it comes. Not something that happens from a tug with your hand, though.

Ha.... alright, looks like we're all talking about the same thing.

MY conclusion: Tugging is useful to determine if the cams slip rather then engage, although even the most gentle pull should tell you this. It is useless in determining the actual integrity of the piece/rock if the cam does engage.

Plan of action: I will continue to give cams a gentle tug to ensure they engage. I won't reef the shit out of them since it generally serves no purpose.

-JP


antiqued


Oct 31, 2007, 6:10 PM
Post #88 of 96 (1555 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243

Re: [cracklover] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I donít have rgoldís analysis handy, but it follows simply from the ideal spring assumptions. An ideal spring has a force (F) proportional to the displacement of the spring from the neutral position.

F=k*x

It takes energy to stretch a spring. A spring held extended by a distance x has a stored energy

E= Ĺ *k*x^2

Energy is conserved. A weight which is lowered provides energy which must go into either velocity or spring extension in this simple case.

Potential energy lost = m*g*h (m mass, g - acceleration of gravity, h - height lost).

Suppose we take a spring and dangle it, put a trapdoor just under it, and then attach a weight to the spring. Now the weight is entirely born by the trapdoor. When the trapdoor opens, the initial force of the spring is zero, so the weight starts accelerating at g. As the spring takes up more and more of the weight, the acceleration slows, but when the spring takes the entire force of gravity, the weight is still moving, and will slow to zero velocity at a greater extension, then rebound back up. A simple way to calculate this is to balance the energy in the spring with the energy available from falling. Since the height lost (h) and the spring extension are the same in this case,

m*g*h = 0.5*k*h^2
Multiply by 2, divide by h
k*h^2 = 2m*g*h
k*h =2m*g

Or F=k*h = 2*m*g, while the gravitational force on the weight is only m*g.

Thus the force on the strand of rope going to a climber on a fall factor 0 is twice the climberís weight, if the rope acts as an ideal spring. The force on the protection would be (2-friction)*2mg, or ~~3.4 mg.

Iím sure rgold explains it more elegantly, but this is the conclusion cracklover is referring to. There are lots of little assumptions here, but the most important one is the ideal spring behavior of the rope.


antiqued


Oct 31, 2007, 6:24 PM
Post #89 of 96 (1552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243

Re: [microbarn] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

microbarn wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I've found this
In reply to:
The angle at which the block [cam] will start to slip is independent of the load applied. What this means in practice is that if you place a cam in a flare and pull on it, and it does not come out, (and so long as you do not disturb the placement), the cam will hold up to the limit of the unit or the rock.


Continuing today's dose of physics, the above statement from Wild Country is unaccompanied by data, and is probably derived from the underlying physics with some simplifying assumptions. The slipping angle of a block on a plane is independent of the load applied (exceptions are designated rock failure by definition, perhaps?)
However the actual angle of contact stays the same only if the unit and the rock do not deform under load. Anybody looking at used small aliens recognizes that the cam lobes can deform under load, and severe loads will deform the axles of units as well. Either of these deformations will change the actual contact angle slightly from the designed cam angle, and may cause slipping under high load in a marginal placement. Similarly, even minor flexing of a flake could do the same thing.


antiqued


Oct 31, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #90 of 96 (1549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No physics in this post!!

I don't usually tug or yank gear. The exceptions are usually nuts in flares, where I am relying on the 'stickiness' of the nut to resist any sidewards pull from a fall or from the rope path. Tugging at various angles gives me a sense of the margin. Since I have only once fallen on such a nut, I don't know if it does me much good.

However, new routing once on a lightly traveled cliff, I placed a small TCU in a perfect letterbox on the side of a dihedral. I had a good stem, so I gave it a hard tug, and the upper 1/4 inch of the letterbox flew right off! The rock overall wasn't the best, as the talus field testified, but there was no warning sign that I saw, and the area that failed was too small to do tapping (as healyje mentioned) without a small hammer and a stethoscope.

It hasn't changed my behaviour on well traveled cliffs, (could never happen at the Gunks!) but it is one bonafide incident of successful tugging.


notapplicable


Oct 31, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #91 of 96 (1544 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [antiqued] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

antiqued wrote:
No physics in this post!!

I don't usually tug or yank gear. The exceptions are usually nuts in flares, where I am relying on the 'stickiness' of the nut to resist any sidewards pull from a fall or from the rope path. Tugging at various angles gives me a sense of the margin. Since I have only once fallen on such a nut, I don't know if it does me much good.

However, new routing once on a lightly traveled cliff, I placed a small TCU in a perfect letterbox on the side of a dihedral. I had a good stem, so I gave it a hard tug, and the upper 1/4 inch of the letterbox flew right off! The rock overall wasn't the best, as the talus field testified, but there was no warning sign that I saw, and the area that failed was too small to do tapping (as healyje mentioned) without a small hammer and a stethoscope.

It hasn't changed my behaviour on well traveled cliffs, (could never happen at the Gunks!) but it is one bonafide incident of successful tugging.

Yep, yep and that is all Micro and I have been saying. Not everyone needs to yank on all gear all of the time. There are some circumstances under which testing gear can and has yielded surprising results. My basic contention is that tugging is one of many ways a climber can analyze the overall viability of their placement.

Now, some how all the anti-tuggers (you scoundrels you) have neglected to address the faulty logic created by citing the possibility of having a piece fail when subjected to a swift yank as reason not to test gear. Then in the same breath saying that tugging on gear cannot and will not generate any useful data for the climber.

How can this be I say? If you yank on a piece of gear and it fails (regardless of why it fail, user error or not) to hold, how is this not valuable information and a justification for employing this method (under some circumstances) to test gear?


microbarn


Nov 1, 2007, 3:44 AM
Post #92 of 96 (1527 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [antiqued] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable pointed out my questions.

antiqued, thanks for the explanation. I am reassured by this.

slowly easing your weight onto the rope while in a top rope situation means ~1.7 times the climber's weight.
falling while in a top rope situation means ~3.4 times the climber's weight.


notapplicable


Jun 11, 2008, 8:46 PM
Post #93 of 96 (1429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

michaellane wrote:
One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load

Link here - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iew&post=1908493 -



Hmmmmmm, sounds like gear tuggers might know a little something after all.Tongue

I all seriousness though, I do think that is something everyone should see and its not gonna get many eyes on it in I&A, so I brought it out here.


dr_monkey


Jun 11, 2008, 10:38 PM
Post #94 of 96 (1398 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 81

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's been some time since I have done anything but lurk, but after reading all of this thread I thought that for once I might have something to add.

Whether I tug or not doesn't depend on what kind of rock, or the type of placement, but what I want the piece to do. For instance...

Heading into the crux, feeling confident, and I want to send? Place it, maybe give her a little tug and go.
I just want the piece to hold just in case.

Sketched out, thirsty, bad rock, got too MOOOVE, and thinking, "I should have bailed four pitches ago, but it's too late now."? Place it, shake and swear, take a deep breath or two and go. Maybe tug and asses, maybe not. Hard to tell, the piece just needs to give me the confidence to go, and it does.

Completely stupid with fear, but still thinking "I should be able to climb this it is only 5?"
Place it, don't breathe on it, then rationalize to myself, "At least it will slow me down" then make one move and discover bomber nut placement. Yup, that piece is stupid, didn't need it, shouldn't even be climbing. Ought to be drinking beer instead....
Speaking of which...


stymingersfink


Jun 11, 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #95 of 96 (1394 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250

Re: [notapplicable] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
michaellane wrote:
One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load

Link here - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iew&post=1908493 -



Hmmmmmm, sounds like gear tuggers might know a little something after all.Tongue

I all seriousness though, I do think that is something everyone should see and its not gonna get many eyes on it in I&A, so I brought it out here.
^^i'm NOT reading that^^


notapplicable


Jun 12, 2008, 5:19 AM
Post #96 of 96 (1355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [stymingersfink] Gear Tuggers know nothing??? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

stymingersfink wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
michaellane wrote:
One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load

Link here - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iew&post=1908493 -



Hmmmmmm, sounds like gear tuggers might know a little something after all.Tongue

I all seriousness though, I do think that is something everyone should see and its not gonna get many eyes on it in I&A, so I brought it out here.
^^i'm NOT reading that^^


Oh I wouldnt read that whole thread If I were you either, half the post could be mini novels.


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Trad Climbing

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$17.95 (10% off)
$197.06 (10% off)
$40.46 (10% off)
$134.99 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook