|
USnavy
May 11, 2011, 11:58 AM
Post #26 of 77
(11370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
Rudmin wrote: Your analysis missed the fact that there was no reason to take him off belay in the first place. If he was going to be lowered, they should have left him on belay, or at least left the rope running through the belay device. I agree, I see so many climbers yell off belay when they reach the anchor. What they should be saying is "straight in" followed by "slack". There is no reason to go off belay only to go back on belay 30 seconds later. Whats worse is most of them dont truly want to go off belay, thats just the term they are using in place of straight in. I am glad to hear he is expected to recover fully, a fall like this could easily be fatal.
(This post was edited by USnavy on May 11, 2011, 12:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
shotwell
May 11, 2011, 12:10 PM
Post #27 of 77
(11364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2009
Posts: 366
|
USnavy wrote: Rudmin wrote: Your analysis missed the fact that there was no reason to take him off belay in the first place. If he was going to be lowered, they should have left him on belay, or at least left the rope running through the belay device. I agree, I see so many climbers yell off belay when they reach the anchor. What they should be saying is "straight in" followed by "slack". There is no reason to go off belay only to go back on belay 30 seconds later. Whats worse is most of them dont truly want to go off belay, thats just the term they are using in place of straight in. I am glad to hear he is expected to recover fully, a fall like this could easily be fatal. As maldaly and I both said up thread, there is no reason to even say 'straight in.' Why does your belayer need to know that? Worse still, what if you're being caught by one of the people that confuses 'straight in' and 'off belay?' You already use all the commands you need. Take, slack, take, lower me. Nothing else is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
May 11, 2011, 12:30 PM
Post #28 of 77
(11354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I agree. I've never even heard of this call 'straight in'.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstoned
May 11, 2011, 1:34 PM
Post #29 of 77
(11342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 127
|
WTF is 'straight in'? Who the fuck comes up with this shit? Like climbing rocks with all these ropes and biners and cams and other silly shit isn't complicated enough. I guess not, and the proof would be that other thread about "what's in a name." Good luck trying to teach people not to die, it hasn't worked in the past...
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
May 11, 2011, 2:22 PM
Post #30 of 77
(11322 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
patto wrote: I agree. I've never even heard of this call 'straight in'. Climber: Straight in! Belayer: Pardon me? I've never heard of that term either.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
May 11, 2011, 2:35 PM
Post #31 of 77
(11317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
wonderwoman wrote: patto wrote: I agree. I've never even heard of this call 'straight in'. Climber: Straight in! Belayer: Pardon me? I've never heard of that term either. No that was a made up phrase - considering the source I assume it was another case of "military intelligence". "In Direct", "On you" and "On me" are the norm. At least in the sport world. "Take has crossed over to be universal by now (although in this context the old trad "tension" would do just fine). Jay mentioned that it was retarded to use the prussic - maybe - but what was really retarded was saying to attach it to a gear loop. It has been stated up stream - communicate an expected plan (of how you are coming down) before you start but do not assume anything when the time comes. Also it has been stated there is really no reason to take them off belay - as opposed to feeding them a bunch of slack - until it is obvious that they are lowering an end to rap with. In out of line of sight situations (rare but could happen) this might take awhile).
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
May 11, 2011, 5:55 PM
Post #32 of 77
(11241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Agree the belayer perhaps shouldn't have taken them off belay, but, as we discussed this accident a week or so ago elsewhere, it's the climbers responsibility to make sure they're getting down in a safe manner, especially if there is possible communication problems from wind or not sure about tension in the rope. If in doubt, in this instance, rap. It's not like it's a sport crag, it's a trad crag... and everyone should have a device on them to rap off.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 11, 2011, 7:18 PM
Post #33 of 77
(11206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
olderic wrote: wonderwoman wrote: patto wrote: I agree. I've never even heard of this call 'straight in'. Climber: Straight in! Belayer: Pardon me? I've never heard of that term either. No that was a made up phrase - considering the source I assume it was another case of "military intelligence". "In Direct", "On you" and "On me" are the norm. At least in the sport world. "Take has crossed over to be universal by now (although in this context the old trad "tension" would do just fine). "Straight in" is a common synonym for "in direct," but neither is routinely used at the anchor. They are used to inform the belayer that the climber has clipped directly into a bolt, and therefore that the belayer should give the climber some slack so that he's not being sucked into the bolt by the rope.
In reply to: Jay mentioned that it was retarded to use the prussic - maybe - but what was really retarded was saying to attach it to a gear loop. I missed that he said to attach the prussic to a gear loop. We may never know whether he meant that literally, or whether he was confused about his terminology and meant "belay loop." After all, "language changes." "They're just words." Gear loop, belay loop; lower, rappel; off belay, straight in—what consequences could there possibly be to misusing these terms? Currently, about half the users on this site think that the person who is "on belay" is the belayer. I'm waiting for that one to cause an accident.
In reply to: Also it has been stated there is really no reason to take them off belay . . . Indeed there are good reasons not to take them off belay. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 12:30 PM
Post #34 of 77
(11124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
Why was he lowering and not rapping off? Isn't lowering off anchors a big no-no?
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
May 12, 2011, 1:34 PM
Post #35 of 77
(11113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
Nold wrote: Why was he lowering and not rapping off? Isn't lowering off anchors a big no-no? That's what I was taught, but apparently, there is no time for anymore for such laborious shenanigans as switching to rappel.
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 2:36 PM
Post #36 of 77
(11092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
I was always taught you always always clean, and rap down. It saves the anchors.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
May 12, 2011, 3:21 PM
Post #37 of 77
(11076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
Nold wrote: I was always taught you always always clean, and rap down. It saves the anchors. Yeah, try doing that on a severely overhung route and report back;) In this case though, I'm guessing that the route is not severely overhanging and rapping would be the better option. Personally I try to rap after cleaning a route whenever the route is vertical or less, but I always take several precautions regardless. I make sure that my belayer knows what I plan on doing before I leave the ground, I always make sure I am hanging on the rope not my anchor slings/draws before unclipping them, and I always keep a hand on the other side of the rope (if I'm lowering) until I am absolutely sure that everything is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 3:25 PM
Post #38 of 77
(11072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
In reply to: I always make sure I am hanging on the rope not my anchor slings/draws before unclipping them, and I always keep a hand on the other side of the rope (if I'm lowering) until I am absolutely sure that everything is fine ^^ Exactly what I do if I'm not rapping down.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
May 12, 2011, 3:28 PM
Post #39 of 77
(11069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
Nold wrote: I was always taught you always always clean, and rap down. It saves the anchors. This is not as common at areas with lots of sport climbing. There are many steep sport climbs that are impractical to clean on rappel. And many modern sport climbing areas have had top anchors installed that are easily replaceable for this very reason. How much wear lowering causes on the top rings is very location specific. Areas that are abrasive and sandy can cause wear faster. My observation, however, is that this is not the norm. At most areas I frequent, the wear through lowering is pretty negligible, especially if the rings are free to rotate.
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 4:18 PM
Post #40 of 77
(11054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
I simply do it as a courtesy to the guys/girls who set up the anchors. Anything to make them last longer and save people the trouble of replacing them sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 12, 2011, 5:03 PM
Post #42 of 77
(11032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Nold wrote: Why was he lowering and not rapping off? Isn't lowering off anchors a big no-no? No.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 12, 2011, 5:04 PM
Post #43 of 77
(11029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Nold wrote: I was always taught you always always clean, and rap down. It saves the anchors. Saves them for what? Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
May 12, 2011, 5:04 PM
Post #44 of 77
(11028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
its generally fine in most of the places ive been to in canada ... just dont TR off em if im not worried about the rope and have clear communication with the belayer ... id much rather be lowered that way you are always on belay (or should be) ... screw up a rappel and yr deader than a dodo ...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 12, 2011, 5:17 PM
Post #45 of 77
(11019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drector wrote: jt512 wrote: "Straight in" is a common synonym for "in direct," but neither is routinely used at the anchor. They are used to inform the belayer that the climber has clipped directly into a bolt, and therefore that the belayer should give the climber some slack so that he's not being sucked into the bolt by the rope. "Slack!" is not good enough? I don't think climbers can learn more phrases than the typical pet dog. I'm wary of having more than four different things to say while climbing unless I can have an actual conversation with the belayer. Dogs can learn hundreds to thousands of words, putting them well ahead of the average rc.com user. Too bad they can't type. But no, "slack" really doesn't communicate enough when the climber has gone straight in to a bolt. If the belayer could always see that the climber was straight in, just saying "slack" would suffice. But often the belayer can't be sure that the climber has clipped in, in which case it's nice to be able to communicate "I've clipped in to the bolt, and I'm going to rest here for a while; so give me enough slack so that all the tension is out of the rope. Keep me on belay, but you can relax; I'll let you know when I'm ready to climb again, at which point I'll need tension to unclip." "Straight in" or "in direct" says all that in two words. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 5:24 PM
Post #46 of 77
(11016 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
In reply to: Saves them for what? Jay From unnecessary wear. If everyone on a busy route just lowered, it would cause more wear on the anchors than rapping down. This is what I was told, otherwise why even bother to rap down?
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
May 12, 2011, 5:31 PM
Post #47 of 77
(11003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Nold wrote: In reply to: Saves them for what? Jay From unnecessary wear. If everyone on a busy route just lowered, it would cause more wear on the anchors than rapping down. This is what I was told, otherwise why even bother to rap down? *checks forum* ..Yup this is as good a place as any to rehash this tired debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Nold
May 12, 2011, 5:35 PM
Post #48 of 77
(10995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 10, 2011
Posts: 42
|
http://climbing.about.com/b/2010/10/17/worn-carabiner-cuts-climbing-rope-at-red-river-gorge.htm This is just one example of how a rope can wear a carabiner. I know its not on an anchor, but I would imagine the same thing could happen through continuous use.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
May 12, 2011, 5:36 PM
Post #49 of 77
(10995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
bearbreeder wrote: its generally fine in most of the places ive been to in canada ... just dont TR off em if im not worried about the rope and have clear communication with the belayer ... id much rather be lowered that way you are always on belay (or should be) ... screw up a rappel and yr deader than a dodo ... So you're saying you would prefer to put your life in the hands of someone else than yourself? If so, that's retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 12, 2011, 5:39 PM
Post #50 of 77
(10991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Nold wrote: In reply to: Saves them for what? Jay From unnecessary wear. If everyone on a busy route just lowered, it would cause more wear on the anchors than rapping down. This is what I was told, otherwise why even bother to rap down? Exactly. It's more dangerous (especially for the very climbers—i.e., beginners—who think they're supposed to rap), more time consuming, and, on steep routes, impractical to impossible to do. So why bother? It does save some wear on your rope and the anchors. But to most sport climbers, it's worth replacing their rope more often for the convenience; and no one, including the route equippers, expect anyone to rap (especially the very climbers—i.e., beginners—who think they're supposed to). They put the anchors there for you to lower from while cleaning. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|