|
shockabuku
Jun 3, 2011, 2:28 AM
Post #151 of 182
(13354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
858jason wrote: miklaw wrote: In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon". When we are actually safe (going to rap or have set and anchor and will bring up the second) we still use the British "SAFE", which can sound like "TAKE", many hilarious incident have ensured, I have switched to "OFF BELAY" which people understand) Once again, why say "IN HARD"? Why make a statement? It's unnecessary communication and doesn't add value. What happens if you don't say it? Nothing. Your belayer keeps you on belay. Then you call 'lower'. The first time a leader called 'safe' to me I thought, "I'm very happy for you", and I kept him on belay. He started to pull up slack and I fed it through the belay device. Then he told me what he wanted and called 'off belay'.
"IN HARD" is definitely a statement!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 3, 2011, 4:19 AM
Post #152 of 182
(13332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
miklaw wrote: In Australia if we have reached an anchor and are setting up to lower we call "IN HARD". It means "keep me on belay, I'll be lowering soon".
That might well be what it means in Australia. I'd be very careful about yelling something like "In HARD, Mate!" someplace like Kentucky. You're liable to get what you're asking for.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 5:01 AM
Post #153 of 182
(13325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel?
What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning?
If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning???
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 5:04 AM
Post #154 of 182
(13324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. No, You should not be unclipped from the belay device if you are going to lower. If you are going to lower you need to stay on belay. Rapping from a sport climb is unnecessary 99.9% of the time and we've already gone over the reasons why. you cannot use the same command to mean "i'm going to rethread then rappel" and "i'm going to rethread then lower" to be "considerate" Slack Take Lower Edit: oh yea.. the belayer can eat, piss, whatever when i'm back on the ground. it takes 5 minutes to clean a route. i'm not hanging out at an anchor waiting on them.
At no point did I define a term that could be misconstrued as either "i'm going to rethread then rappel" OR "i'm going to rethread then lower"
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 5:05 AM
Post #155 of 182
(13324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? you don't need to tell them anything when you anchor in. You're correct you don't NEED to, but it's considerate. I recently redpointed a long standing project of mine and wanted to savor the moment, so instead of my partner paying attention to me for no reason (and possibly delaying him from "calling nature") by saying "anchor" he could be free until I needed him. This is exactly what leads to many of the accidents being referred to in this thread. If you are going to lower, the belayer should not be taking you off belay I don't see how using understandable language, appropriately would lead to an accident. ASSUMPTIONS lead to accidents. Don't assume you're going to be lowered until your command was followed through. So then what is your simple command for "stop hitting on the chick and put me back on belay"
"Hey Mike, did your genital warts go away yet?" :)
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Jun 3, 2011, 5:16 AM
Post #156 of 182
(13319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning???
Then you said "anchor" means either
In reply to: a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 5:43 AM
Post #157 of 182
(13311 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? You first said "anchor" means the belayer can take the climber off of belay and walk away. So now "take" means put me back on belay and pull me tight? What does it mean while you are climbing then?
"Take" would still mean pull me tight. "Take" should always mean pull me tight. If you're a belayer and you're unclipped, clip back in and pull me tight. You think a belayer is going to just pull the rope taught with their hands?
In reply to: Then you said "anchor" means either In reply to: a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. isn't that by definition multiple meanings?
Ah, true, I did offer multiple choices, however the result is the same. By saying "Anchor" the belayer is allowing the climber to have as much rope as the climber wants, to do with as the climber pleases, without either person risking injury or fault.
Again, I'm not trying to push my terms, just something more understandable than all the "ons" and "offs"...and "HARDS"
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 3, 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #158 of 182
(13262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning???
Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen.
you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered.
you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again.
Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean.
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
Jun 3, 2011, 12:15 PM
Post #159 of 182
(13259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
exactly... and as such there is never a question of whether you are on or off belay. Slack, Take, Lower covers the needs and eliminates the obvious area of confusion. C'mon, this is single pitch sport. Why do people want to complicate it?
(This post was edited by viciado on Jun 3, 2011, 12:16 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
funnelator
Jun 3, 2011, 1:21 PM
Post #160 of 182
(13243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2005
Posts: 83
|
Makes great sense for single pitch sport.
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 1:38 PM
Post #161 of 182
(13240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean.
Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF).
However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 3, 2011, 1:49 PM
Post #162 of 182
(13233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.
If they call Off belay. ie your "anchor" then i have no reason to stick around. If you call "off belay" you should expect to be alone. When i'm sport climbing i tend to be in a small group so we have multiple routes going on at once. That said 99.9% of the time we're not rappelling either.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Jun 3, 2011, 2:04 PM
Post #163 of 182
(13226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.
All this seems quite ignorant about basic and standardized belay commands. There's a reason that things are the way they are and that you can pretty much go anywhere in the world and climb while using them. Let alone the simple thing of discussing the plan before leaving the ground; let me state that again: Discuss the plan before the climber leaves the ground so that everyone is on the same page before anyone is in a dangerous situation. Because.... all good climbing groups/partners have a plan in place before the leader takes off.
Furthermore, who the fuck calls "anchor" when complete with a climb? I don't think I'd know right what to do. C'mon it's not rocket science. On belay. Off Belay. Climbing. Slack. Up rope/Take. Lower me. That's it, that's all that should be used. Having your plan before you leave the ground will let everyone involved know what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 2:13 PM
Post #164 of 182
(13217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
epoch wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. All this seems quite ignorant about basic and standardized belay commands. There's a reason that things are the way they are and that you can pretty much go anywhere in the world and climb while using them. Let alone the simple thing of discussing the plan before leaving the ground; let me state that again: Discuss the plan before the climber leaves the ground so that everyone is on the same page before anyone is in a dangerous situation. Because.... all good climbing groups/partners have a plan in place before the leader takes off. Furthermore, who the fuck calls "anchor" when complete with a climb? I don't think I'd know right what to do. C'mon it's not rocket science. On belay. Off Belay. Climbing. Slack. Up rope/Take. Lower me. That's it, that's all that should be used. Having your plan before you leave the ground will let everyone involved know what is going on.
I agree with having a plan before climbing, but apparently not everybody does. So as a backup, all I was suggesting was a clear, intelligible way to communicate. I only suggested "Anchor"; I never said I have, nor anybody else has, used it before. Based on some of the posts in this discussion, the "on belays" and "off belays" aren't understood. Other discussions have shown belayers confuse the term "slack", too.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 3, 2011, 3:31 PM
Post #165 of 182
(13197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sticky_fingers wrote: However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.
What planet do you climb on? Those terms have been standard practice at every sport crag I've climbed at in the United States, for as long as I can remember. The problem happens when some n00b comes along and tries to invent his own system or doesn't understand the existing one.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 3, 2011, 3:35 PM
Post #166 of 182
(13193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility.
Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too.
What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time.
I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc.
If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game.
That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jun 3, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #167 of 182
(13187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO
The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb. It's still one more thing that can be miscommunicated and I would never let my belayer relax at any point.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 3, 2011, 3:46 PM
Post #168 of 182
(13184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
drector wrote: cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb. It's still one more thing that can be miscommunicated and I would never let my belayer relax at any point. Dave
Dave that is a special case while projecting a route where you clip into a bolt direct with a draw or a sling. It is a courtesy to your belayer so they can rest their neck and not have to hold you hanging there while you rest. There is usually a lot of communication and even eye contact when this is going on and both people know wtf is going on.
I haven't climbed with Gabe in months but we'd still both be on the same page. This is standard stuff.
(This post was edited by jakedatc on Jun 3, 2011, 3:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 3:52 PM
Post #169 of 182
(13177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO
Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts...
I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur.
I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 3, 2011, 4:02 PM
Post #170 of 182
(13172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
sticky_fingers wrote: epoch wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. All this seems quite ignorant about basic and standardized belay commands. There's a reason that things are the way they are and that you can pretty much go anywhere in the world and climb while using them. Let alone the simple thing of discussing the plan before leaving the ground; let me state that again: Discuss the plan before the climber leaves the ground so that everyone is on the same page before anyone is in a dangerous situation. Because.... all good climbing groups/partners have a plan in place before the leader takes off. Furthermore, who the fuck calls "anchor" when complete with a climb? I don't think I'd know right what to do. C'mon it's not rocket science. On belay. Off Belay. Climbing. Slack. Up rope/Take. Lower me. That's it, that's all that should be used. Having your plan before you leave the ground will let everyone involved know what is going on. I agree with having a plan before climbing, but apparently not everybody does. So as a backup, all I was suggesting was a clear, intelligible way to communicate. I only suggested "Anchor"; I never said I have, nor anybody else has, used it before. Based on some of the posts in this discussion, the "on belays" and "off belays" aren't understood. Other discussions have shown belayers confuse the term "slack", too.
I don't know any climber who doesn't know what "slack" and "on belay" mean, but those terms aren't the issue, anyway.
"Off belay" is unambiguous, but that doesn't stop the occasional n00b from misusing it. What everyone keeps telling you, and you keep not hearing, is that you are proposing to introduce a term "anchor" that is intentionally ambiguous and unnecessary, and to eliminate a term "off belay" that is unambiguous. It should be obvious that your proposal would make communication at the anchor less clear than under the present system. Rather than continue to reiterate the same failed arguments for the same bad idea, why don't you give some thought to why your idea has met with unanimous disapproval.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 3, 2011, 5:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Jun 3, 2011, 4:08 PM
Post #171 of 182
(13169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
sticky_fingers wrote: cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts... I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur. I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?
wow you're really slow.
The miscommunications have been BECAUSE they are not using a standard protocol.
IF everyone lowers off. taking the climber off belay is never done. Therefore they won't get dropped.
You say you want standardization? yet are trying to introduce new words that are not the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 3, 2011, 4:24 PM
Post #172 of 182
(13161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drector wrote: cracklover wrote: If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO The "in direct" thing seems excessive by your own "rules." It's not ambiguous like "anchor" but is still superfluous. There is no reason for the belayer to ever take a nap while a climber is tied in and on a climb.
The "in direct" statement is not superfluous, and there is a very valid reason for it, which cracklover clearly explained. If you are going to be resting for several minutes while clipped in direct to a bolt, there is no reason for your belayer to spend that time alert and constantly looking up at you. Working burns routinely last 45 minutes to an hour, but for much of that time the climber is recovering by resting on a bolt. What would be superfluous (if not cruel) would be to have your belayer paying close attention to you while you're just clipped in direct to a bolt.
In reply to: I would never let my belayer relax at any point.
Anyone who actually understands how to belay a working burn is going to relax while you're in direct whether you "let" them or not. If you don't like it, then the only people who will be willing to belay you are gumbies, and you'll be getting the quality of belay you deserve.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 3, 2011, 4:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Jun 3, 2011, 4:25 PM
Post #173 of 182
(13159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
sticky_fingers wrote: cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts... I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur. I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality?
The ironing!!! Ohh the ironing!!!!!!
Especially when followed up by the next sentence.
Sticky, you've completely missed the point. There IS standardization. You are the one resting it. Stop trying to make shit up and use the long established STANDARDS (as experienced in the US).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 3, 2011, 4:27 PM
Post #174 of 182
(13158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: cracklover wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: jakedatc wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: redlude97 wrote: sticky_fingers wrote: To avoid all the miscommincations, why not come up with new terms right now? Something simple, something easily understood (both interms of sound and definition), something like: "Anchor" - what the climbers yells to the belayer when the climber clips into the anchors. At this point the belayer can do whatever he/she feels like; untie, walk away, etc. (2-syllable) "Take" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants the belayer to take in all the slack. The climber does not issue another command to the belayer UNTIL the climber is pulled up into the anchor. (1-syllable) "Lower" - what the climber yells to the belayer when the climber wants to be lowered to the ground. (2-syllable) Thoughts? What does a climber yell when they clip in direct to the anchor but are expecting to be lowered? The climber still yells what they want. In this case just "lower". If the climber sees there's a lot of slack in the rope after clipping, the climber can say "Take", then "Lower". What if they are going to rethread before lowering? When the climber yells "Anchor" that's the cue for the belayer to a) give a ton of slack or b) unclip belay device, eat, etc. So by saying "Anchor" the climber should have plenty of slack with which to rethread. Hell, at that point, the climber can rappel. You said you wanted them to have simple meanings, but now you want it to have 2? It could mean that the climber is intending to lower or rappel? What part of what I wrote sounded like it has double meaning? If a climber wants to be lowered, then after yelling "Anchor" they'll yell "Take" and "Lower". If a climber wants to rappel, they don't have to say anything after "Anchor". How is any of that a double-meaning??? Your thinking is exactly why these accidents happen. you DO NOT take someone off if they intend to be lowered. you have said if you say Anchor then they can take you off and walk away. I could be climbing another route by the time you say "take" again. Slack, take, lower... that is it.. there is no question what those terms mean. Are you that selfish and impatient that you can't wait until your partner is back on the ground before you start climbing another route? The belayers I've climbed with are not Me Centered Me Fixed (MCMF). However, I have no problem with the series "Slack", "Take", "Lower" when/if it becomes commonplace. I was just offering another possibility. Yes, you were offering a possibility that is a really crappy solution to a nonexistent problem. It was explained to you why it was a terrible solution, and you got all uppity about how the climber should respect the belayer, and let the belayer off the hook. I mean, it's not like they should have to actually belay, right? I mean, what the fuck, what if they're getting kinda hungry? They shouldn't be a slave to the climber and have to belay all the time, right? They deserve a snack break. Oh, and a nap. And recess, too. What is this, kindergarten? It's ridiculous. If I'm climbing a single pitch route, and expect to be lowered, I expect to be on belay from the moment I leave the ground until I get back to the ground. No recess. No nap time. I get to the top of a route I'm going to clean, I usually clip into one or both of the draws, and if there's a good stance, I don't even bother with "Take". I just clip in direct, call "Slack", and proceed to work on threading etc. If, for some reason, you're held up either mid climb or at the anchors, and want to let your belayer take his nap time, call "In Direct". That means I'm clipped directly to a piece, and he can put a knot behind the belay device and stop focusing on me until I tell him I want to start climbing again, by saying "On You" or "Take". At that point I expect him to take hard so I can feel he's back in the game. That's the only reason he should ever take a break, and it's definitely an exceptional circumstance, not a usual one. GO Non-existant problem? Really? Have you even read ANY of the discussions on this site related to miscommunicaitons between belayer and climber? I guess those are all just troll posts... I never said the belayer HAS to unclip. The people who belay me don't. But I (we) can't assume every belayer will act the same way when we're clipped to the anchors. That's when accidents---er I mean, "non-existant problems" occur. I don't understand the resistance to standardization. I don't care WHAT terminology is used. Some people do it one way, others do it another way...why oppose an attempt at commonality? wow you're really slow. The miscommunications have been BECAUSE they are not using a standard protocol. IF everyone lowers off. taking the climber off belay is never done. Therefore they won't get dropped. You say you want standardization? yet are trying to introduce new words that are not the standard.
Exactly. There are problems in miscommunication when climber and belayer miscommunicate, but you are adding to them, not solving them.
What I mean when I say you are solving a non-existent problem is this:
If you intend to clean the route on lower, there is a simple way to convey this.
1 - You get to the top, yell "Take" if you don't have a stance.
2 - Clip in direct, call "Slack" to get the rope you need.
3 - Thread the anchors, get everything set, pull yourself in tight so there's slack in your direct line to the anchor, yell "Take".
4 - Once the belayer has taken hard, you can let go of the anchors and your direct line remains slack. Now you can unclip it, and yell "Lower".
There is no problem here that needs a solution.
If, for some reason, you intend to rappel. You call down "Off Belay" when you are secure.
There is no problem here that needs a solution.
You are giving a solution to a non-existent problem. The problem you are solving is how to communicate that you are safe at the anchor and the belayer can go eat a sammich and put his shoes on.
That is causing a problem, not solving one.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jun 3, 2011, 6:55 PM
Post #175 of 182
(13091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
Wow, suggest a solution to a problem and people get pissy...welcome to the internet
|
|
|
|
|
|
