|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 21, 2003, 3:59 AM
Post #1 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
It is apparent that the "Dynamic Belay" is one of the most misunderstood techniques in climbing. I find this kind of unnerving. I have had the good fortune to climb with experienced belayers who understand the dynamics of belaying (play on words there, eh?) and explaining the concepts of proper belaying have never been necessary. Let me make this one point real quick. Gyms teach you only what they and their insurance companies think is best FOR THE GYM. This does not mean that how they instruct belaying, is the best way to belay. Hell, I'd be suprised if more than 50% of gym instructors could have a legit conversation about dynamic belaying beyond the standard "Gri-Gri's are more static than ATC's." My point is, belaying is not a simple, or easy task. Being a good belayer takes practice, experience, and a good attitude. As you progress in the sport, your belaying should progress as well. If you find you have been climbing for 4 years, and you still belay the same way the instructor in the gym explained 4 years ago, you may need to do a little research. For nearly a year, I was of the school that "the shorter the fall, the better" and me and my partner always crouched down when catching a fall. This was fine for less than vertical, easy trad and sport climbs, but as the rock got steeper, and the falls more frequent, we found a huge problem with belaying this way. Falls from less than about 4 feet above a bolt on steep rock resulted in slamming HARD into the rock 5 feet below the bolt. One day while working an easy .11 (far beyond my RP ability at the time), I heard my ankle crack, and knew we had better rethink how we were belaying. In the same situation, we found that if Jeff jumped as I was weighting the rope at the end of the fall, I would keep an even trajectory toward the ground, rather than swinging into the rock. We experimented a little by pitching off the route over and over (what can I say, we didn't believe in teachers) and with a little practice, we could catch feather soft falls, that we previously would have hurt ourselves on. The belayer would end up about 4 to 10 feet off the ground depending on the severity of the fall, and the strength of his jump. Conversely, the climber would end up 4 to 10 feet lower after his fall. If the route is steep however, and there is little to hit, there is no harm done due to the extra lengths of the falls. In fact, falling, and belaying falls became a bit of a challenge in it's self. My eyes were opened to a new kind of climbing, where falls are okay! We had no idea what the technique was called (or even that it was a technique for that matter), but used it all the time. We still do when the situation warrants it. Now, lets take a little road trip. We're headed east to North Carolina. There is a crag there known as Stone Mountain. It's a pretty lame and generic name, that's for sure, but the mountain is home to a belay technique of the same name. The Stone Mountain Running Belay This technique is the polar opposite of the Dynamic Belay. It is done by placing an omnidiretional placement (such as a slung tree) at ground level, and running the rope through it after the belay, then to the climber. When the climber falls on lead, the belayer takes off running through the woods at break neck speed (Gri-Gri's Helpful) with the intention of shortening the climbers fall as much as possible. You may wonder why this technique is any good, since I just explained a good reason for having a dynamic belay. Well here's a little info. Stone Mountain is a 600' Granite dome, the majority of which is completely devoid of all features and holds, and FAR less than vertical. Having been equipt by North Carolina climbers of the era of bold climbs, big balls, and puckering assholes, the routes are less than ideally bolted. It is not uncommon for a 150' route to have 3 bolts. Now it doesn't take much math to figure that if you blow the second clip, the ground will catch you before the first bolt if your belayer simply locks off, and watches the show. Hence the running belay. Since the climbing is very slabby, your terminal velocity in a fall will be far less than through the air. (Picture a guy in a motorcycle crash) By running through the woods, your belayer is taking in slack at (hopefully) the same speed as you are falling. If your belayer is really fast, he will catch you at the first bolt, having run 50' as you fell 50'. Good stuff huh? Now, to make my final point. There is a reason I have covered these two completely different belay techniques in a post about "Dynamic Belays". One reason is that I wanted to expose everyone to aspects of belaying they may have had no idea existed. If you have never heard of the "Running Belay" or the "Dynamic Belay" then you really should consider learning a bit more about belaying in general. There is much more to it, than "Keep your break hand on the rope at all times". It is easy to become complacent and grizzled as you become a competent climber. It is even easier to assume you know all there is to know about something as seemingly simple as belaying a leader. Remember that there is always more to learn, and stay open to the advice of others. At a bare minimum at least know why YOU disagree with what someone says about a new technique. Don't simply disagree because you've never heard of it before. And Second, there are many, MANY, contributing factors to a belay. Many (most) of them have been covered here. Anchoring in, or not. GriGri's or ATC's. Jumping or Running. Locking off, or letting the rope slide. These are all techniques that are to be used when the situation warrants it. It is your duty to be educated enough in the plethora of belay techniques to make sound decisions about which of them you use. You should never do something just because that's the way you learned, or it's the only way you know how. Branch out, and be open to the knowledge of others. Learn all you can, and make the right decision not out of luck, but because of forethought and knowledge. Climbing is all about making decisions when the life of yourself or your partner lies on the outcome of your actions. Do all you can to make the right decisions. Travis
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 21, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #2 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
a man displaced hes hips about 4 months ago on an overhanging climb because hes belayre belayed staticly. he slammed hes knees into the face and pop... had the belayer payed slack or just jumped he would only get a few bruises.
|
|
|
|
|
nnichols
Aug 21, 2003, 1:10 PM
Post #3 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 800
|
Travis, Thanks so much for the important information! Having gained 85% of my very limited knowledge in the gym, dynamic belays was one of those obscure terms that was overheard in other conversations. These are the most useful types of posts that us "newbies" need - it gives me a good base to start asking informed questions from those more experienced. Nancy
|
|
|
|
|
howdidshedothat
Aug 21, 2003, 2:10 PM
Post #4 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 171
|
Awesome info Travis!! :D
|
|
|
|
|
drucasinoble
Aug 21, 2003, 2:35 PM
Post #5 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Thanks for the info Trav. :D
|
|
|
|
|
pehperboy
Aug 21, 2003, 2:47 PM
Post #6 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 871
|
A fine reason, if you don't have the time and resources (and resourcefulness) of Travis, to take a course in lead climbing before doing it. I took a risk at the crag last night I probably shouldn't have, leading a climb with a partner who has no experience in belaying a leader. Did my best to explain to him about dynamic belaying and hoped for the best... It was a 5.7 which I've led a number of times so I wasn't worried. Still sh*t happens, and was glad to run into someone with more experience when I led my next climb. But good times.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Aug 21, 2003, 3:02 PM
Post #7 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
You truly are a resource for this site Travis. While I understand these concepts, it tooks 3 years for me to even hear of them since I LEARNED IN A GYM WITH A GRIGRI. I've slowly learned that the Gri Gri isn't the best starter belay device for this and other reasons. Keep up the good posts and prevent people from carrying around ignorace for 3 years like me. Thanks! Josh
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Aug 21, 2003, 3:04 PM
Post #8 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: For nearly a year, I was of the school that "the shorter the fall, the better" and me and my partner always crouched down when catching a fall. This was fine for less than vertical, easy trad and sport climbs, but as the rock got steeper, and the falls more frequent, we found a huge problem with belaying this way. Falls from less than about 4 feet above a bolt on steep rock resulted in slamming HARD into the rock 5 feet below the bolt. oh yeah - my main partner has this habit he picked up of dropping down when the leader pops, which just ends up slamming me into the rock at or above the nearest bolt. i'll have to show him yer post - thanks for the info ! -t
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Aug 21, 2003, 3:37 PM
Post #9 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
Good info! One thing, though--I had heard of the running belays at Stone Mountain, but I thought that was at SM in Georgia, not NC...(??)
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Aug 21, 2003, 3:53 PM
Post #10 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
You've got some great info here about dynamic belays. However, for the newer climbers out there, the Running/Stone Mountain belay is a useful tool that you will probably never ever use. Everyone should be aware of the dynamic belay but the Running/Stone Mountain belay is used by almost noone. I'd hate to see newbies out there practicing it.
|
|
|
|
|
pirate
Aug 21, 2003, 3:55 PM
Post #11 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 106
|
Hey Travis good work. you've touched on an important concept necessary for anyone that wants to be a good climber. We all know climbers that never excel or only climb harder gardes the same way (that does not make a good climber) yet others seem to go from sport to trad to alpine ice aid etc. Whats the difference between these types of climbers? What makes a good climber? Well its the innate ability to think outside of the box and to not merely learn a technique but to fully comprehend it. Hell its not just technique either, good climbers want to comprehend everything thier doing, combine that with ever expanding info and accumulated experiences ....well now your dealing with a recipe to make a good climber. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of both comprehending and thinking outside of the box. Once you become a good climber you'll know what it takes to be a great climber.:wink: cheers
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Aug 21, 2003, 4:39 PM
Post #12 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
It's fantastic to see someone actually posting something constructive, with the good intention that someone else may actually learn something... this site is filled with far too many members spewing egotistical bullsh-t and others who pick fights for no good reason... Way to go, Travis... you've really gotten back to what this site's supposed to be about...
|
|
|
|
|
djnibs
Aug 21, 2003, 4:42 PM
Post #13 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 464
|
Hey. Thanks so much for the info. It has help me come to understand a little more about belaying. And yes, i am in that 50% of gym instructors who could carry a conservation!!!!! lol thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 21, 2003, 4:58 PM
Post #14 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: Hey. Thanks so much for the info. It has help me come to understand a little more about belaying. And yes, i am in that 50% of gym instructors who could carry a conservation!!!!! lol thanks again. Heh, not intended as a low blow to the Gym Instructors out there. I've seen some goobers though. As recently as 2 months ago, I took out 2 climbing wall instructors from a summer camp and taught them how to top rope. They were tragically inexperienced climbers, and we really had to start at square one. Really it's important to realize that Gym instrutors are just that, instructors. They are not nessessarily experienced, well rounded climbers. It's their job to teach you to belay and climb exactly as the Gym's insurance company sees fit. Anything more is just bonus. There are certainly some great instrutors out there, with lots of practical experience. In a Gym environment however, you have to learn to distinguish between the substance and the spray, if you know what I mean. TRavis
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Aug 23, 2003, 11:54 PM
Post #15 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
According to this study done in 1999, for a 154 lb climber experiencing a 0.375 fall-factor fall (e.g. falling from 7.5 feet above pro when 40 feet out), the average impact at the belayer's harness when using a gri-gri is 873 lbf when the belayer drops backwards, 734 lbf when the belayer attempts no movement, 468 lbf when the belayer jumps up. Because the friction over the carabiner at the top bolt reduces the force by about 1/3, it can be inferred that the forces felt at the leaders harness would have been 1310 lbf, 1100 lbf, and 702 lbf respectively. The figure for the belayer dropping backwards was nearly the same as just tying the rope to an anchor and thereby effecting a totally static belay. (These figures depend on the characteristics of the rope used. The abstract referenced above does not mention the impact force of the rope, nor does it mention whether a new rope was used for each trial or, if not, how long the rope was allowed to "recover.")
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 24, 2003, 12:11 AM
Post #16 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
This is a really cool post, so I'd like to add this really cool story that I read somewhere on this site months ago. :) "The most extreme version of this I have seen myself was at a mountain crag near by. The crag is on the side of a steep mountain and there is a wide rock ledge at the bottom that you stand on to belay from. This particular climb only had one good gear placement about a third of the way up. We did the maths... And found the only way the leader could be saved if he fell above above half height was by the belayer and and jumping off the rock ledge, towards a 200m, sheer drop! The leader climbed up and was nearing the top when he slipped.... the brave belayer(who really deserves a medal) took a deep breath and jumped. And both lived happily ever after. Which proves it works! "
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 24, 2003, 12:26 AM
Post #17 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
Coldclimb, JUH-HEESUSSSss! No need to jug back up after the jump if I was belaying. I'm sure my heart would explode. It reminds me of 4 alpine climbers traveling together roped on an icy ridge. The lead climber falls, dragging the second soon after, the third looks at the puny ice ax in his hand, then grabs the fourth and throws him off the other side of the ridge, jumping behind him. 7mm rope baby. My hands are sweating... Travis
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 24, 2003, 6:20 AM
Post #18 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
hehe, gotta love stories like that. Just one more reason why I climb, though I have no clue why nearly dying seems awesome to me. :shock: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
coclimber26
Aug 24, 2003, 1:21 PM
Post #19 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 928
|
After reading the 2002 accidents in North American climbing publication I was baffled. There was an Aid-Climbing accident in El-Cap using a Gri-Gri. I can understand using a gri-gri on a long climb (days) when you might become inattentive but look at the numbers. On a factor 1 fall the Gri-Gri put almost twice the force on the top piece of pro than an atc. On a thin climb where the pro looks dicey you deffinately need a more dynamic belay to put less stress on the pro. The gri-gri puts around 3.5-4 Kn at the belay point in a normal fall. My suggestion is a belay system that you can vary the resistance. It's nice to be able to jump to relieve some force but not always possible at some belay points. I recommend the munter hitch. If the pro is good and everything looks fine you can belay with full force 2.5Kn with the ropes close together. If the pro looks sketchy and you need a softer catch (more rope slippage) You can open the ropes up (like an atc brake) for 1.5-2.0Kn. The atc gives around 2.0kn and a figure 8 is around 1.2 (not reccomended to catch a leader fall.) On a very large fall it's possible to put over 9kn of force on your top piece of pro, dangerous on a thin aid climb. with a different belay you can bring the force down to a manageable 6-7kn and possible avoid a disaster....
|
|
|
|
|
leapfrog
Aug 24, 2003, 1:47 PM
Post #20 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Nice post Travis. To continue the discussion, it seems to me that the belayer jumping as the leader weighs the rope serves two purposes. One is to reduce the impact forces on the equipments, another is to change the trajectory of the leader from swinging into the rock to a more vertical fall. To be able to reduce the impact forces the belayer must be able to time his jumping precisely, which takes practices and requires the belayer to be at high alert at all times (not to argue that he shouldn't). When the protections are bomber and reducing impact forces are less important, can the belayer just blindly pay out slacks when the leader passes a protection, giving there's no danger of decking? For example after the leader passes a protection, the belayer pays out 4 feet of slacks and keeps the slack as the leader climbs on. If the leader falls at 4 feet above the protection, he'll fall 12 feet which would produce a more vertical trajectory compared to the 8 feet fall would produce without the 4 feet extra slack. I have too little experience to speak from so this is all in my head. Does this sound reasonable to you guys?
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 24, 2003, 3:55 PM
Post #21 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: Nice post Travis. To continue the discussion, it seems to me that the belayer jumping as the leader weighs the rope serves two purposes. One is to reduce the impact forces on the equipments, another is to change the trajectory of the leader from swinging into the rock to a more vertical fall. To be able to reduce the impact forces the belayer must be able to time his jumping precisely, which takes practices and requires the belayer to be at high alert at all times (not to argue that he shouldn't). When the protections are bomber and reducing impact forces are less important, can the belayer just blindly pay out slacks when the leader passes a protection, giving there's no danger of decking? For example after the leader passes a protection, the belayer pays out 4 feet of slacks and keeps the slack as the leader climbs on. If the leader falls at 4 feet above the protection, he'll fall 12 feet which would produce a more vertical trajectory compared to the 8 feet fall would produce without the 4 feet extra slack. I have too little experience to speak from so this is all in my head. Does this sound reasonable to you guys? I'm with you. Okay, here's my take. When I am belaying someone on a steep sport route, and they have just clipped a bolt, the first thing I do is see what they are going to do. Often times, in sport climbing, they will want to hang right after clipping. If not, then I pay out an arm full of slack. For the first few moves off the bolt, it is important to have a little slack in the system, because a 150lb weight with a 3' fulcrum will hit the wall at bone breaking velocity. This is even more critical down low on a route where the dynamic properties of the rope are less pronounced. However, as they get higher above the bolt, I keep less slack in the system, and rely mostly on jumping. The reason being, I really like soft catches when I'm sport climbing. Keeping extra slack in the system once they are a good distance above the bolt serves only to lengthen the fall, without the added benefit of reducing fall forces. (The only added benefit I can think of, is the extra rope out will result in a slightly more dynamic belay due to properties of dynamic ropes.) For the first 3 or so moves off a bolt though, I think it's necessary to either have a really "on the ball" belayer, or a few feet of slack in the system. Another benefit of keeping some slack in the system, is it allows the climber more freedom for sudden or dynamic climbing. Case in point: Yesterday I was working a route that has a mandatory dyno. It is probably a 5 foot dyno, and is all points off, and really fun. The bolt that protects the move is about 1 1/2 feet above the hold you throw from. The finishing hold is ~ 3 feet above the bolt. This is a perfect example of a time when there should be slack in the system. If the rope was held tight, 2 major things could happen, both bad. First, you could be short roped during the dyno. The throw, and resulting swing of the body probably consumes 5 feet of rope in a second. I doubt a belayer could pay out slack that fast. Second, if you fall off the move (which I did, repeatedly :) )your waist will be only about 2 feet above the bolt, with a tight rope that would really slam you into the wall hard. As it was, I took about a 10 foot cushy fall straight down into space, and the only hassle was pulling back up the rope. My belayer used a combination of slack in the system, and jumping when I weighted the rope. As strange as it may seem, a 10 foot fall from 2 feet above a bolt is WAY better than a 4 foot fall in the same situation. This is a climb that I would not have attempted without faith in my belayer's abilities. But it sure was a fun climb! Travis
|
|
|
|
|
puma
Aug 24, 2003, 7:34 PM
Post #22 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 59
|
In reply to: When the protections are bomber and reducing impact forces are less important, can the belayer just blindly pay out slacks when the leader passes a protection, giving there's no danger of decking? For sure, if fact I would prefer you do, unless I'm gripped in which I'll let you know. I usually have my belayer maintain a nice "half-moon" shape of slack in the rope. Not too much that it's touching the ground and if the rope is going almost straight from the device up to me, that's way too tight.
In reply to: For example after the leader passes a protection, the belayer pays out 4 feet of slacks and keeps the slack as the leader climbs on. If the leader falls at 4 feet above the protection, he'll fall 12 feet which would produce a more vertical trajectory compared to the 8 feet fall would produce without the 4 feet extra slack. Right. Which is what I was describing above, which saves the belayer from having to jump, which you won't always be able to do. It might be good to learn other ways to give dynamic belays in case you're not able to jump, ie. multi-pitch. But I guess that is more of a sport climbing method. Doesn't anybody give dynamic belays through the device anymore? Or am I just old school? I'm only 35 geez. Anyway I'm not putting down jumping. Just that, IMO, a proper belay (I guess what I consider proper) can alleviate the need to have to jump. If the pro is a concern then dynamics can be introduced by letting rope slip through the device. But I'm sure you all will think I'm crazy for saying that. peace~ Lg
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 24, 2003, 8:02 PM
Post #23 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: If the pro is a concern then dynamics can be introduced by letting rope slip through the device. But I'm sure you all will think I'm crazy for saying that. peace~ When I'm climbing trad, I will use an ATC and let the rope slip for a dynamic belay if the situation warrents it. This is especially useful if you are at a hanging belay, or even if it just isin't possible to jump. Oh, and yes, some people will think you are crazy for mentioning that. I brought it up in a thread titled "trad, a big no no" a month or so ago, and it was very apparent that few people knew what I was talking about. I'll describe it for anyone who dosen't know what we are talking about. For simplicities sake, lets say that we are on a single pitch trad climb. I'm standing on the ground, and the leader is up pretty high on the climb. It is nessessary to have a belay device like an ATC, or similar. When the leader falls, you hold your belay hand with the rope in it, out in front of you, and allow the rope to slide through the ATC and your hand as the falling climber comes onto the rope. Then quickly, you bring your handback to the lock off position, arresting the climber. The action is very similar to stopping yourself while rappeling quickly. The ATC will absorb a significant ammount of the energy of the falling climber, slowing him some before you lock off. When you lock off, the climber is brought quickly, but dynamically to a gentle stop. Gloves are important. This technique is a bit more advanced than simply jumping, but comes into it's own on hard multipitch trad climbs. Rope management is very important as well, as a kink could possibly knock your belay hand off the rope before locking off. I'll confess, I rarely use this technique. I prefer to jump if I am standing on the ground, and I really don't climb that much HARD multipitch trad stuff. Still, it's in my bag of tricks, and that's what really matters. Anyone that has more practical experience with this, feel free to call my BS, if there is any...haha! Travis
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Aug 24, 2003, 8:03 PM
Post #24 of 105
(33949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay... this is where the jumping comes in. with an atc on the other hand, you can allow rope to slide through the device. imho, it is much better to use an atc on multi-pitch for the reason you described above. - ike
|
|
|
|
|
puma
Aug 25, 2003, 1:44 AM
Post #25 of 105
(25522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 59
|
In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay... Hmm, you mean you can't keep it open with the handle and let some slip before you pulled the rope back (braking) over the curled metal. That's two 180 degree bends and should stop the rope without the cam. Seems like it should work but I don't know, I've never tried that with a grr-grr before, but I will check it out for fun.
In reply to: Gloves are important. Well, more likely someone would probably only have taped hands, which would help. But if possible, putting two hands on the rope would be key. Also in my experience, having the rope at an angle (about 2 o'clock) as opposed to directly out in front of you would be more ideal an initial position. Seems to me that if it were straight out in front, on steep terrain, a fall may become harder to control, hence braking sooner than you'd (and your partner) would like. It really is one of those techniques that should be practiced (preferably not with your kid sister falling on the rope) to understand what to do and how to react. It kind of goes against the grain of everything we've been taught, like falling in the gym to get your lead climbing card. Climber asking for a dynamic belay: "YES!, I want you to let me fall for a little bit BEFORE you brake, okay?" Lg
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 25, 2003, 1:56 AM
Post #26 of 105
(15022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay.. wrong, all you have to do is hold the cam down with your non break hand. Not very many people use this technique. I have only seen this used for sport and it allows for an even softer catch than jumping can provide.
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Aug 25, 2003, 8:44 AM
Post #27 of 105
(15022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
This thread sounds like a BS to me. Jumping, running... circus. I understand there exeptions: x rated climbs, etc but for the rest of us modern belay devices and ropes have enough dynamic properties already. Keep it simple, give an extra slack if needed and leave your gri-gri for the gym or top rope. G
|
|
|
|
|
hellclimber
Aug 25, 2003, 10:12 AM
Post #28 of 105
(15022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 205
|
In reply to: In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay.. wrong, all you have to do is hold the cam down with your non break hand. Not very many people use this technique. I have only seen this used for sport and it allows for an even softer catch than jumping can provide. Would love to see that one tried out in a reality. Doesn't sound too bright. As far as I know, the most common (and very dangerous) error using a grigri is pilot error that somehow prevents the cam on the grigri from engaging. By using the technique you suggest here you set yourself up for such an error. Sounds bloody dangerous. If you're going to let rope slide through a belay device it seems wise not to use a grigri. When using the grigri I do it because of the auto-locking functionality, and I don't try counteracting this function. When trad climbing multipitch my trusted reverso is always with me :wink: hellclimber
|
|
|
|
|
solo
Aug 25, 2003, 10:19 AM
Post #29 of 105
(15022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 100
|
A perfect execution of dynamic belay saved my ankles this spring. I fell off 7 meters over my last protection. Had my belayer relied on "dynamic properties of the rope and belay device" I would slam into a less than vertical slab and spend the rest of the summer in a hospital. Instead, my belayer let 3 meters of the rope slip through his figure eight (yes you can catch big falls with it) and jumped up 2 meters. That resulted in a 20 meter whipper with a soft catch in the air below an overhang. Lucky me!
|
|
|
|
|
hellclimber
Aug 25, 2003, 10:21 AM
Post #30 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 205
|
In reply to: This thread sounds like a BS to me. Jumping, running... circus. I understand there exeptions: x rated climbs, etc but for the rest of us modern belay devices and ropes have enough dynamic properties already. Keep it simple, give an extra slack if needed and leave your gri-gri for the gym or top rope. G Yes, of course. Keep it simple. Who needs a grigri. Use a body-belay instead... :roll: And jumping :shock: Who ever heard of anyone trying to lift both their feet simultaneously from the ground outside of a circus. Sounds quite mad :lol: Why make falling as comfortable and safe as possible when we can shock the hell out of equipment and climber alike. hellclimber
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 25, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #31 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: oh yeah - my main partner has this habit he picked up of dropping down when the leader pops, which just ends up slamming me into the rock at or above the nearest bolt. i'll have to show him yer post - thanks for the info ! -t You need to break your partner of this habit before he breaks you. This is a statement I can back up with a $20,000 hospital bill. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 25, 2003, 5:30 PM
Post #32 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: This thread sounds like a BS to me. Jumping, running... circus. I understand there exeptions: x rated climbs, etc but for the rest of us modern belay devices and ropes have enough dynamic properties already. Wrong. Modern ropes aren't dynamic enough to keep the leader from slamming into the wall. The typical steep sport route is one example where the dynamic belay is mandatory. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 25, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #33 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: I can understand using a gri-gri on a long climb (days) when you might become inattentive but look at the numbers. This is precisely why everyone uses a gri-gri on a wall. You ever climbed a wall? I know people who've been dropped in lead falls on walls because their partner was asleep / bored to tears / comatose and belaying with an ATC.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 25, 2003, 5:43 PM
Post #34 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay... this is where the jumping comes in. with an atc on the other hand, you can allow rope to slide through the device. imho, it is much better to use an atc on multi-pitch for the reason you described above. - ike I think it's much better to use an ATC or Figure 8 for any and all free climbing, for this reason. To quote the belayer of a leader who was taking 40-footers over and over in Indian Creek on some 5.13 tips horrorshow: "Sh!t man with an 8 I can drop him 50 feet without even spilling my beer."
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 25, 2003, 6:30 PM
Post #35 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
The dynamic properties of your rope will not help you on a pendulum swing at all. The greatest force in a pendulum swing is delivered at the bottom of the swing, with a completely horizontal component. The rope is straight down at this point, and has only a vertical component or negative acceleration to contribute. The force in a pendulum swing has a horizontal component at nearly every point, and this component becomes greater as you swing closer to vertical. In fact, you reach your greatest speed (and zero acceleration) and the bottom of the swing. As you start to swing back up the other side of the pendulum, you are actually under deceleration, and you slow down. What these dynamic catch guys are saying is that if you are on an overhang, and you have enough slack so that you can fall straight down as much as possible, then the rope will do it's job and you won't get much of a pendulum into the wall. Also, if the overhang is like most of em, often the farther down you can fall (within reason) the farther away from the wall you get, and so when you do pendulum you may not even reach the wall, and certainly will reach it without much force to absorb. If it is a choice between the ground or a ledge and the wall, I 'll take the wall, otherwise, give me slack and air time. I'm not a big fan of paying out line in a fall, but I am a fan of slack in the lead line and jumping if needed, and there are times when paying out line is the best thing to do. A good belayer can place the faller in the safest spot along the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 25, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #36 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay.. wrong, all you have to do is hold the cam down with your non break hand. Not very many people use this technique. I have only seen this used for sport and it allows for an even softer catch than jumping can provide. Would love to see that one tried out in a reality. Doesn't sound too bright. As far as I know, the most common (and very dangerous) error using a grigri is pilot error that somehow prevents the cam on the grigri from engaging. By using the technique you suggest here you set yourself up for such an error. Sounds bloody dangerous. If you're going to let rope slide through a belay device it seems wise not to use a grigri. When using the grigri I do it because of the auto-locking functionality, and I don't try counteracting this function. When trad climbing multipitch my trusted reverso is always with me :wink: hellclimber The people that use this technique are not the people who would drop you with a grigri. They are the kind of people who skip the last couple bolts and then jump when they get to the anchors for fun and to save time. Merely jumping would not provide a safe catch in this situation. I am not advocating this practice, I merely pointed it out in response to the statement that it is impossible to do. This technique scares me less than someone letting an atc purposely slip more than a couple of inches. At least with this technique if you let go of the device the falling climber stops whereas if a kink knocks your hand off the rope with an atc, the climber decks.
|
|
|
|
|
hellclimber
Aug 25, 2003, 7:45 PM
Post #37 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 205
|
In reply to: .... The people that use this technique are not the people who would drop you with a grigri. They are the kind of people who skip the last couple bolts and then jump when they get to the anchors for fun and to save time. Merely jumping would not provide a safe catch in this situation. I am not advocating this practice, I merely pointed it out in response to the statement that it is impossible to do. This technique scares me less than someone letting an atc purposely slip more than a couple of inches. At least with this technique if you let go of the device the falling climber stops whereas if a kink knocks your hand off the rope with an atc, the climber decks. Hmm. Skipping the last bolt and jumping doesn't prove you are a good climber does it? I have done it and consider myself a little worse off than mediocre at best. And yes, when doing this it is plenty of dynamics in the system if the belayer jumps. I still get your point but even with a good belayer using the grigri seems more dangerous than using an atc in the same fashion. It is in my opinion a lot harder to control a grigri this way as the distance the cam has to travel from full opening til complete lock off and vice versa is very short. Kinks in the rope isn't a big deal as they won't stop me from controlling it. Just don't let go. All of this nonsense is just my humble opinion though... hellclimber
|
|
|
|
|
norushnomore
Aug 26, 2003, 3:05 AM
Post #38 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
How shall I put it, may be not. Dynamic belay notion is mostly targeted towards reducing forces on a top pro piece. What we got here is wall slamming problem on the highly overhanging routes. There are just two parameters that define how hard you will hit the wall: length of the rope (R) and horizontal distance (D) traveled from the last protection point. Call it slam factor: D/R D is defined by the route and out of your control but you can easily adjust R to reduce your slam factor. More overhang: feed more rope. Now, how high can you jump? Stand straight (don't bend your legs) on a floor and try raising your waist line at least 1' by jumping up. Good luck. Now if you are anchored (that is a good idea) or not on a ground (multi-pitch, etc) then jumping is not an option altogether. But you can easily feed a slack of as many feet as necessary to gain the same result as you would from jumping. One last point: rope stretch under dynamic load is ~30%. Even with the 15 feet out (any less and you will land on your belayer) that would be about 5'. Your jumping would add another 1' at most, not that much diff. G
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Aug 26, 2003, 3:12 AM
Post #39 of 105
(15020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: In reply to: Puma, when using a gri-gri, it is impossible to allow rope to slide through the device to give a dynamic belay.. wrong, all you have to do is hold the cam down with your non break hand. Not very many people use this technique. I have only seen this used for sport and it allows for an even softer catch than jumping can provide. by impossible, i meant dangerous... more than once i've seen folks loose control of a gri-gri... you'd think that letting go of the cam, it should lock, but it won't necessarily if the rope is already moving. peace.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Aug 26, 2003, 4:13 AM
Post #40 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: Your jumping would add another 1' at most, not that much diff. I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The vertical height of your jump, is not an issue. Picture this example. You have a rope around your waist, the other end of which is tied to the front bumper of a go-kart. (I know, bear with me) Now, there is about 10' of slack in the system. You start at the front bumper of the go-kart, and start running as fast as you can away from it. When you come to the end of the rope, it pulls tight, and you come slamming to a halt, your feet fly out from under you, and everyone laughs. Now, picture the same situation, but this time, just as the rope is about to come tight, 5 big guys give the go-kart a push in your direction. The rope will pull you to a much slower stop because the kart was moving when it came tight. The distance the kart was pushed, is not an issue. What matters, is that the energy required to set the Kart in motion came not from YOU, but from another source. Thus, it was the natural friction of the kart on the ground that pulled you to a stop, not the resistance of the kart to start moving. I've tried really hard to explain this concept. If you simply don't believe me that it works, I just ask you to spend a little time pitching off a steep route, and prove me wrong. Go and experiment with jumping, and not jumping, THEN come back and tell me that it dosen't work. This is a complex subject, and I feel that a large percentage of climbers are not educated in it. It seems quite counter-intuitive, and is exceedingly hard to explain. Take it for what it's worth. Travis
|
|
|
|
|
cchildre
Jul 16, 2004, 7:55 PM
Post #41 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 671
|
Think of it this way. Belayer is a 170 pound male. Consider the energy that it takes to lift this body 1 foot into the air. Pulling the energy from the leaders fall. If the rope is just starting to load you will be elevated more than a foot off the ground, more energy dissapated. Also this increases the velocity of the rope through the protection and across the rock. Increased velocity = increased heat from drag, heat = energy, further dissipation from the leaders fall. Gri-gri: I personally avoid them. My experience with them tells me they only belong on top rope. Belaying a lead, not me. Maybe if I ever get on a big wall I will change my tune but for now they will stay on the other side of the cash register. While I am on belay I am always thinking about the worst case senario if my leader falls. Watching for nasty ledges to avoid or possible rope/climber interaction. I always try to judge where I want to put my leader if he should fall. Letting some extra line feed can come up at any moment. The worst feeling I have is when my leader falls and it suprises me. Even if I gave them the perfect pillow catch, the fact that I did not anticipate the fall I still feel guilty about my inattention.
|
|
|
|
|
highminded
Jul 21, 2004, 1:11 AM
Post #42 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2004
Posts: 93
|
I like all of what you wrote, but I like this especially:
In reply to: Being a good belayer takes practice, experience, and a good attitude. A good attitude is something a lot of people don't think about. As a belayer, you've got to let go of your arrogance and keep your mind open to learning. Excellent thoughts, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
slickjib
Jul 21, 2004, 10:10 PM
Post #43 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2004
Posts: 47
|
first of all, this is a great topic! thanks for all the information. i've learned a lot about belaying from climbing with more experienced people, but in retrospect i wish i had known a lot of this stuff when i first started climbing. now i have to admit, i have never jumped as a belayer, and i've belayed my share of leaders falling. this is mostly because i'm light (105 pounds) and always get pulled way up in the air when belaying lead falls. should i change my attitude? i don't think i've climbed with anyone lighter than me before, but maybe i should jump in certain circumstances?? your advice would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 22, 2004, 4:39 PM
Post #44 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: first of all, this is a great topic! thanks for all the information. i've learned a lot about belaying from climbing with more experienced people, but in retrospect i wish i had known a lot of this stuff when i first started climbing. now i have to admit, i have never jumped as a belayer, and i've belayed my share of leaders falling. this is mostly because i'm light (105 pounds) and always get pulled way up in the air when belaying lead falls. should i change my attitude? i don't think i've climbed with anyone lighter than me before, but maybe i should jump in certain circumstances?? your advice would be appreciated. Getting pulled up a little sometimes is not enough of a dynamic belay. I weigh 135 and find that I have to actively dynamic belay (ie, jump or whatever) with climbers that outweigh me by 30 or 40 lb. If they outweigh me by more, then usually I can just let myself get pulled up. Likewise, one of my partners weighs about 105 lb, and unless she jumps a little, I find that she catches me too hard. Paradoxically, it is the light climbers that tend to take the hardest falls. Light belayers get pulled up and give their heavier partners soft catches automatically. Heavier partners, who always get a soft catch, don't realize that it's important to dynamically belay their lighter partners. Since heavier climbers don't get pulled up, their lighter partners get hard catches. As a lighter climber, you'll find that, as a matter of self-preservation, you'll have to train your heavier partners to dynamically belay you. Expect resistance, especially from old-timers. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
send513
Jul 22, 2004, 4:50 PM
Post #45 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Posts: 103
|
This is a great topic, but I want to know how come people think that a Gri-gri leads to a more static belay than an ATC? Both can lock up quickly if used properly, and both can allow slack to slide if not used quickly... I don't get it. (real question, not an attempt at flaming :-) )
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 22, 2004, 5:05 PM
Post #46 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: This is a great topic, but I want to know how come people think that a Gri-gri leads to a more static belay than an ATC? An ATC has a maximum braking force in the neighborhood of 500 lb. If your partner takes a severe fall, rope will slip through the ATC and provide a dynamic belay. A grigri, on the other hand, doesn't allow rope to slip through; it's thus a static belay device. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
corpse
Jul 22, 2004, 6:21 PM
Post #47 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 822
|
To say it again - this has been a great thread. I had an "idea", which may be dumb - but I'm just creatively thinking here (better to do it in this forum, then in the real world :) ).. But is it possible to use a screamer, or something similiar, between your harness and belay device? So if it's soo hard of a fall, regardless of what piece they are falling on and how far, you have a belay screamer - something to absorb that impact?
|
|
|
|
|
buzzard
Jul 22, 2004, 7:30 PM
Post #48 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 62
|
I know what you guys are saying. I work at at climbing wall in SC. And our boss only wants us to teach the static belay. But here is a story for you that if I did a dynamic belay the climber would have been seriously hurt. \ I was climbing on Summersville Lake on the 4th of july. My partner was climbing Sold Out. When she got to the last bolt for her draw, the bolt was not there. She is about 50 feet in the air, her last draw is 15 feet below her. And 20 feet off the ground in a huge ledge. So do the math. Anyways she fell. I started running backwards and just dropped to the ground when the rope started to get tight. Yeah she did bang into the mountain and messed up her ankle a little bit. But she stopped three feet from smacking that ledge. Now if just did a dynamic belay it would have been 100 times worse.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Jul 22, 2004, 8:09 PM
Post #49 of 105
(15021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: To say it again - this has been a great thread. I had an "idea", which may be dumb - but I'm just creatively thinking here (better to do it in this forum, then in the real world :) ).. But is it possible to use a screamer, or something similiar, between your harness and belay device? So if it's soo hard of a fall, regardless of what piece they are falling on and how far, you have a belay screamer - something to absorb that impact? The force that it takes to activate a screamer is usually higher than the force it would take to pull a belayer off of the ground. Also, I really wouldn't want to put an intentionally weak link into my belay system at my harness when jumping would be a more effective solution. I'm glad that this thread has resurfaced. Thanks for keeping it flame free everone!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 22, 2004, 9:24 PM
Post #50 of 105
(15373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I know what you guys are saying. I work at at climbing wall in SC. And our boss only wants us to teach the static belay. But here is a story for you that if I did a dynamic belay the climber would have been seriously hurt. \ I was climbing on Summersville Lake on the 4th of july. My partner was climbing Sold Out. When she got to the last bolt for her draw, the bolt was not there. She is about 50 feet in the air, her last draw is 15 feet below her. And 20 feet off the ground in a huge ledge. So do the math. Anyways she fell. I started running backwards and just dropped to the ground when the rope started to get tight. Yeah she did bang into the mountain and messed up her ankle a little bit. But she stopped three feet from smacking that ledge. Now if just did a dynamic belay it would have been 100 times worse. You obviously did the right thing, but I fail to understand why you contrast what you did with a dynamic belay, as if anyone would dynamically belay in that situation. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Jul 26, 2004, 2:50 AM
Post #51 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
I think rushnomore has some valid points here (but cheers to Travis for raising the subject).... We are really talking about several different issues that should'nt be confused: #1 dynamic belay for reducing forces on the climber and protection #2 handling rope in a dynamic fashion in order to create a better fall In the case of #1, in my opinion a Screamer (or the reusable equivalent) is almost always a better solution. In the case of #2, jumping, running, or playing out rope may have some usefulness in somewhat limited situations. I have been climbing for a long time now, but you all must have much better reaction times than me. The timing of a jump is critical to its effectiveness. Maybe if you are hangdogging the same moves, you could get the sequence just right. Incidentally, a Screamer will actually give you more time to react as well. Most of the slabs I climb end in big talus fields, so I don't forsee running too often. What happens if you run too far or too fast? That would'nt be pretty. People often misjudge the length on slabs. Sometimes slab falls can be almost slow motion. Suppose the leader catches hold on the way down ( I have), only to have a belayer yard him or her off by running like Jesse Owens... That sounds like a nice dislocation/ upsidedown-headfirst (maybe tumbling) fall. I just think that falling correctly on a slab is going to be a much better saving-grace. I have seen several people take 30+foot slab falls and were not much worse for wear. You might just as easily break your ankle running along the base of a climb as injure it in a slab fall. These seem like mostly cragging techniques. I would say that more than half the time I climb, I am either at a hanging belay or I can't see the leader. Aid falls usually occur without any warning whatsoever. So gri gri`s and Screamers are the way to go IMHO. Anyhow, just my thoughts. Not trying to be combative. Off to Thailand in just a few short hours... rock on, john
|
|
|
|
|
nirvana
Jul 26, 2004, 3:05 AM
Post #52 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 138
|
In reply to: The force that it takes to activate a screamer is usually higher than the force it would take to pull a belayer off of the ground. When I'm belaying, I anchor in and leave some slack between my harness and the anchor. Since I am pretty light, on falls I generally fly up a bit. Sometimes a good bit. I wonder if this isn't somewhat akin to a dynamic belay--as I'm not offering solid resistance when the lead hits the end of the fall. Or am I not thinking about this correctly? I am reluctant to jump, 'cause my ability to counterbalance my BF's weight is rather sketchy to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
dontjinxme
Jul 26, 2004, 3:44 AM
Post #53 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 109
|
I hate to beat a dead horse. But it was an awesome horse. Excellent "Post" very well written and very informative. I think your kitten needs to run a little faster.
|
|
|
|
|
tech_dog
Jul 26, 2004, 4:50 AM
Post #54 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2004
Posts: 224
|
If I fall, I only want my belayer thinking about one thing, and that one thing is to hold the brake hand side of the rope as tight as friggen hell. If I fall hard enough to warrant a jump, the belayer is gonna jump whether he likes it or not. If I can't pull him off the ground, it's not a hard fall. The last thing I want is my belayer dancing around with other things on his mind. Just hold the friggin rope no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2004, 4:53 AM
Post #55 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If I fall, I only want my belayer thinking about one thing, and that one thing is to hold the brake hand side of the rope as tight as friggen hell. If I fall hard enough to warrant a jump, the belayer is gonna jump whether he likes it or not. If I can't pull him off the ground, it's not a hard fall. The last thing I want is my belayer dancing around with other things on his mind. Just hold the friggin rope no matter what. You might want to reconsider your beliefs. I have $20,000 worth of doctor bills that says you're wrong. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
lv2climb7
Jul 26, 2004, 5:21 AM
Post #56 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 164
|
Good info~ Thanks! you're totally right about the way that gyms teach you and the way that you should really be doing it. I remember learning to belay in a gym with a gri gri and they tought me to just pul the rope let go of it and move my hand back closer to the device :shock: I ended up learning from a guy at our local crag how to belay correctly. :D
|
|
|
|
|
verticalturtle
Nov 1, 2005, 1:53 AM
Post #57 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 53
|
Thanks for the info as this has cleared up some strange things for me. I'm neither old nor ignorant, but in the 11 years I've climbed I have rarely been in the situation where I wanted a dynamic belay. When the thought did cross my mind, the second idea would be, "gee, would the person screw it up?" If you've read much of this thread it should be clear that there is technique involved. Also the thing that precititated my concern was manky pro. RPs and ice screws can benefit from softer catches. Ergo, I own screamers. Then I move out here to the midwest, and the closest climbing is a gym and then the Red. The locals all have the idea that a dynamic belay is the way to go. I'm thinkin WTF!? Why? There's bolt in an I beam holding me not a manky RP. "Well", they say, "You could swing into the rock and break something!" Gee, I thought, that's why I pay attention to where I'm gonna fall so I can plan for it if it happens. I never really did much sport climbing till the past year. When I began it was thin and technical rather than steep and overhung. I never really had to worry about slamming back into the wall and breaking an ankle because I wasn't doing steep routes. When I did the belayer had sufficient slack (not a lot, just sufficient) that I never swung. I was more worried about breaking something from hitting 1) the ground, or 2) a ledge. If I did worrk about a swing it was from a pendulum that would result from a traverse fall. Thankfully I have not had to deal with many. I guess the point is that, I never considered dynamic belays because I was rarely in a position to need them. I still think I'd be afraid to get a dynamic belay from a noob though. Perhaps that's my faith in the ability of others slipping instead of the rope. VT
|
|
|
|
|
tinnchris
Jan 18, 2006, 7:59 PM
Post #58 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2004
Posts: 13
|
My climbing partner is 60-65lbs lighter than I am. I have JUST begun leading and have yet to fall. I am a bit nervous to find out what will happen when I do. I have lifted her off the ground slightly while falling on top rope, so I am sure falling on lead will drag her upwards in a hurry! Would a dynamic belay on her part be the right thing to do in our case? I understand the physics behind jumping and how it softens my impact, but I also don't want to be able to kiss her as she whips pass me either! Any thoughts??
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
Jan 18, 2006, 8:36 PM
Post #59 of 105
(17901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
If you push off when you fall and you hit the wall, blame yourself - not your belayer.
|
|
|
|
|
4togo
Jan 18, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #60 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 134
|
In reply to: My climbing partner is 60-65lbs lighter than I am. I have JUST begun leading and have yet to fall. I am a bit nervous to find out what will happen when I do. I have lifted her off the ground slightly while falling on top rope, so I am sure falling on lead will drag her upwards in a hurry! Would a dynamic belay on her part be the right thing to do in our case? I understand the physics behind jumping and how it softens my impact, but I also don't want to be able to kiss her as she whips pass me either! Any thoughts?? Tinnchris, I used to climb with a man that outweighed me by about the same amount. If she's on top of things and knows what she's doing, she can certainly give you a safe lead belay. However it's important that she does a number of things right, including where she stands, so on. I'd suggest getting someone who knows what they're doing to give you both some guidance in person. Set up a safe situation (overhanging wall in a gym?) so that you can learn how to fall (please tell me that you know not to let the rope behind your leg, so forth) and she can learn how to give you a soft catch without getting slammed around. Key is practice in a controlled environment, with proper guidance, so that you both know what's going on. Lisa
|
|
|
|
|
4togo
Jan 18, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #61 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2005
Posts: 134
|
In reply to: I guess the point is that, I never considered dynamic belays because I was rarely in a position to need them. I still think I'd be afraid to get a dynamic belay from a noob though. Perhaps that's my faith in the ability of others slipping instead of the rope. Sometimes a dynamic belay is appropriate, sometimes they're not. Takes judgement/experience which as a rule noobs don't have. However they are really nice in the appropriate situation.
|
|
|
|
|
catbird_seat
Jan 19, 2006, 12:18 AM
Post #62 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Posts: 425
|
In reply to: My climbing partner is 60-65lbs lighter than I am. I have JUST begun leading and have yet to fall. I am a bit nervous to find out what will happen when I do. I have lifted her off the ground slightly while falling on top rope, so I am sure falling on lead will drag her upwards in a hurry! Would a dynamic belay on her part be the right thing to do in our case? I understand the physics behind jumping and how it softens my impact, but I also don't want to be able to kiss her as she whips pass me either! Any thoughts?? Since the time this thread started, the Italian study came out which showed that it is the belayer's hand strength which has the greatest influence on peak loads at the top piece of protection. That study showed that loads had already peaked by the time the belayer is lifted. It showed that smaller belayers tended to give softer catches. I would anchor your partner with a loose tie-in where possible and have fun. If you climb overhangs, have her give a little slack when you pull roof moves.
|
|
|
|
|
nola_angie
Jan 22, 2006, 8:13 AM
Post #63 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2005
Posts: 265
|
my climber outweighs me by 50 lbs. I already took a 10 ft. fall and jammed my ankle up. (a big part of it was me popping off the wall a bit to avoid slamming a knee into the jug below me!). The instructor said 2 things-dynamic belay would have leasend the ankle torque, and don't hop off the wall like that. I'm pretty frightened of Jim peeling off hard. We don't tie down in our gym, and I'm kinda horrified as to getting whipped into the wall and cracking a rib, or worse-smacking my head and loosing control of my break hand. We've agreed to a long webbing tie down when we head outside to lead. But what worries me is his delivery of a static belay that ends in a nice cracking sound from my ankles as I smack into the wall! We've been going back and forth on this all night, and he agrees to belay me however I want to be belayed- I dunno. And good citations from these studies to help me sway him and get him a little more....excited about it? he's pretty damn old school about it.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinglow
Jan 22, 2006, 2:59 PM
Post #64 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
nola_angie, try standing near or directly under your climbers first pro when belaying. that way, if your climber falls you're pulled straight up instead of towards the wall. also, if you need to stand out a little, put your feet up in front of you when they fall so you hit feet first, just like rappelling. If you anchor down, and it's loose enough to allow a dynamic belay, it won't stop you from hitting the wall if you're in the right place to belay from anyway. relax and try some practice falls, just think about not only the climber, but what will happen to you when they fall. It's pretty predictable, and easy to deal with if you get in the habit of thinking about it beforehand.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Jan 22, 2006, 4:11 PM
Post #65 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: Since the time this thread started, the Italian study came out which showed that it is the belayer's hand strength which has the greatest influence on peak loads at the top piece of protection. That study showed that loads had already peaked by the time the belayer is lifted. It showed that smaller belayers tended to give softer catches. Although you may not be able to reduce the force on the top piece (according to the Italians) by jumping, you still alter the trajectory of the falling climber by giving them more vertical distance to fall. It definitely alters the impact force they feel at the wall.
|
|
|
|
|
cjsimpso
Sep 16, 2006, 4:01 PM
Post #66 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 253
|
*bump* for super useful information
|
|
|
|
|
bri1682
Sep 16, 2006, 6:39 PM
Post #67 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2006
Posts: 107
|
This has been a really helpful post for those of us who are fairly new to climbing. Everyones comments and discussions of belay techniques has really made me reevaluate my belay technique. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
graniteplanet
Sep 16, 2006, 7:12 PM
Post #68 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2004
Posts: 54
|
This is a great post, dynamic belays are key and appropriatly using them is a skill that has many benifets. My local area has a number of roof routes, most routes skirt the roof but frequenty proceed to climb features above the roof. Recently I was belaying while my partner warmed up on one such route. He fell and as he did i realzed that a static belay would result in him kissing the lip of the roof and consuming vast quantities of teeth seasond with sandstone conglomerate. I gave him a dynamic belay so that he would clear the roof and stop short of the ground by about four feet. Had I just concentrated on keeping him away from the ground he would have had serious injuries.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Sep 24, 2006, 12:02 AM
Post #69 of 105
(17902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
Bump
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Dec 4, 2007, 11:59 PM
Post #70 of 105
(8448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
hate to bump this, but I read through the entire thread and I'm curious--does leaving extra slack out have the same effect as jumping as the rope becomes weighted? Or does it just lengthen the fall? I was taught to give little slack near the ground (first or second bolt outside, third in the gym cos they're closer together) because the risk of decking is pretty high. But higher up I was taught to leave more slack out. Recently when leading in the gym I caught a fall and my friend smacked his foot into the wall. I felt pretty bad and I think it's because I didn't give a dynamic enough belay. However last winter when we led in the gym frequently, this never happened--I'd always get sucked up about three feet and he never tapped the wall. Maybe I got fatter?
|
|
|
|
|
silascl
Dec 5, 2007, 12:58 AM
Post #71 of 105
(8414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: hate to bump this, but I read through the entire thread and I'm curious--does leaving extra slack out have the same effect as jumping as the rope becomes weighted? Or does it just lengthen the fall? I was taught to give little slack near the ground (first or second bolt outside, third in the gym cos they're closer together) because the risk of decking is pretty high. But higher up I was taught to leave more slack out. Recently when leading in the gym I caught a fall and my friend smacked his foot into the wall. I felt pretty bad and I think it's because I didn't give a dynamic enough belay. However last winter when we led in the gym frequently, this never happened--I'd always get sucked up about three feet and he never tapped the wall. Maybe I got fatter? The advice you heard is generally good, but it should always be applied to the specific situation. For instance, if they are right over a roof, you want to have enough slack out so that they don't hit the lip. If they're high on an extremely steep route, but are working the route, you may want to give them a slightly tighter belay than usual so that they don't fall out of reach of the rock/wall. But that is pretty generally good practice (close to the ground = less slack, higher up=more slack). In the situation where your partner hit the wall hard, were you using the same belay device as in the past? Was this route more circuitous, because the more the rope bends between you and the climber, the more friction, and the less you'll be pulled up during a fall.
|
|
|
|
|
chilli
Dec 5, 2007, 1:19 AM
Post #72 of 105
(8398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
nice advice tenn dawg. i'm all too familiar with the stone mountain running belay, and it does actually work pretty well there. as far as the dynamic belay is concerned, i prefer to avoid that whole jumping technique, and remain anchored while belaying (i make sure my girlfriend does because she's lighter than me). instead we pay slack when a fall is taken from an overhang. it basically serves the same purpose as your 'jump technique' but keeps the belayer safely on the ground (or station), while still allowing for the trajectory shift to avoid nasty swing into rock. paying quick slack also works in many more versatile applications, so i like it. i would also assume that it may be possible, post-jump, for your belayer to wind up a little damaged upon a possible jerk or landing when trying to jump. the thing about the technique we use is that you MUST have an experienced belayer to do it, who has practiced. you don't want some daisy-fresh belayer trying to do that and having their grip slip. edit: spelling error
(This post was edited by chilli on Dec 5, 2007, 1:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Dec 5, 2007, 1:49 AM
Post #73 of 105
(8371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
silascl wrote: The advice you heard is generally good, but it should always be applied to the specific situation. For instance, if they are right over a roof, you want to have enough slack out so that they don't hit the lip. If they're high on an extremely steep route, but are working the route, you may want to give them a slightly tighter belay than usual so that they don't fall out of reach of the rock/wall. But that is pretty generally good practice (close to the ground = less slack, higher up=more slack). In the situation where your partner hit the wall hard, were you using the same belay device as in the past? Was this route more circuitous, because the more the rope bends between you and the climber, the more friction, and the less you'll be pulled up during a fall. Yeah, I see what you mean. I was using the same belay device. Maybe I had it loaded for high friction or something (it's a Trango Jaws). The route was actually kinda funky, it was in the gym and we don't set our routes with leading in mind (frustrating, I know--but only certain bolt holes are strong enough to hold falls). So all the draws were lined up to the left of where he was climbing, and he swung left into an aręte. I guess what I really want to hear are some examples of when it is appropriate to: A) hop a little right when the leader weights the rope B) leave more slack than 'normal' C) do both The roof-lip example makes total sense. I'm trying to figure out what would have prevented him from hitting the aręte on his pendulum, or if it was just the nature of the route. Actually the same day was the first time I'd ever slammed into the wall when he belayed me too, and he said it might be because he'd gotten out of the habit of hopping--it'd been a long time (okay, well, two months) since either of us had been leading consistently. I think it was partially because the clip I fell on was at the start of a steeper section (a 'gentle roof' so to speak)--so I was throwing away from the wall to make the move, increasing the distance I would swing back into the wall. It also didn't help that the draw was not located in the middle of the steep section but at the start. But I also think he may be right on the hopping bit--we just don't know if it's only the hopping that would matter, or if he should've had more slack out too.
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Dec 5, 2007, 1:54 AM
Post #74 of 105
(8458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: hate to bump this, but I read through the entire thread and I'm curious--does leaving extra slack out have the same effect as jumping as the rope becomes weighted? Or does it just lengthen the fall? Interestingly, I just scrapped some numbers on a piece of paper and I got to the (possibly wrong) conclusion that leaving some slack will actually increase the impact factor of the fall. The only exception is when trying to avoid a factor 2 on multipitch routes. Please, let me know if I'm wrong: Being y the distance from the belayer to the last piece of protection and x the distance of the climber above the last protection: FF1 = 2x / (x+y) Now if we add some slack (s): FF2 = (2x + s) / (x+y+s) FF2 > FF1 except when 2x > x+y (which would be decking on a single pitch climb).
(This post was edited by yokese on Dec 5, 2007, 1:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Dec 5, 2007, 1:59 AM
Post #75 of 105
(8340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
Given that I am talking about sport climbing, I don't really care about the impact force so much as the potentially for smacking the wall. For a discussion of belaying a trad leader it would probably be important to consider, though. I should've thought my question through better and just ask what I asked in my second post, which is basically how do you stop your leader from smacking into the wall? Obviously it varies on a case by case basis--falling on a steep route will be different than falling on a traversing route--but what are some good examples of typical scenarios encountered, and how do you mitigate the wall-smacking?
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Dec 5, 2007, 2:11 AM
Post #76 of 105
(10024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: Given that I am talking about sport climbing, I don't really care about the impact force so much as the potentially for smacking the wall. For a discussion of belaying a trad leader it would probably be important to consider, though. Totally agree. Giving some slack to reduce the angle of impact with the wall and, more importantly, avoiding a roof-lip is a common and logical practice, I wasn't trying to argue against it. Also, I'm aware that the model is very simplistic and doesn't take into account the reduction of dynamism due to the friction with the biners, especially the top one. But, funny enough, I never tried to calculate the impact factor with vs without slack, wrongly assuming that the increase in the fall length would be compensated by the increase in the active rope length.
|
|
|
|
|
davidparks21
Dec 5, 2007, 2:14 AM
Post #77 of 105
(10020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2006
Posts: 8
|
Great stuff here, I have a couple of questions/thoughts on this. First, I'd love to know if there are any solid numbers on the difference between a dynamic belay (e.g. a jump) with a gri-gri vs. a similar dynamic belay with an ATC. I saw someone post numbers for the difference between jumping and hunkering down, that was great. However, it's not quite natural for me to think that the impact force is significantly reduced if you jump using an ATC vs. using a gri-gri, so I'd like to see, or hear of, some solid tests that back up this hypothesis. Secondly, on a multipitch route, I commonly tie in using the rope and will give myself a few feet of slack so I can move around comfortably at the anchor. This provides flexibility for me to provide a dynamic belay most of the time (all dependent upon having the right anchor configuration, and as was stated before, you have to do what is right for the situation). This necessitates that you think very carefully about placing those first pieces of pro because a fall on anchor would yank the belayer down a few feet (I often clip the anchor or a piece of the anchor right away and place a piece very shortly after this as well). Any thoughts on that practice? This brings me back to the gri-gri question, if you are doing this and providing a dynamic body belay I wonder whether a gri-gri is a valid option on trad? If the body belay provides a good dampening the gri-gri is a safer option (among other things it gives a safer option for bailing off the side if taking slack over a ledge is critical). Note that I currently use an ATC for this, but worry about an anchor fall or need to bail off the side, so I constantly wonder if I'm better off with the gri-gri. I saw a reference to the Italian study (which I'm not familiar with) that suggested that the ATC is always softer than the gri-gri, but it didn't address my question directly. I'd love some hard facts on it, and I'd love to hear peoples opinions. Dave
|
|
|
|
|
jules
Dec 5, 2007, 2:32 AM
Post #78 of 105
(10003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 3099
|
I've found that weighing 100 lbs is a surefire way to give a dynamic catch every time.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Dec 5, 2007, 2:33 AM
Post #79 of 105
(10002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Travis, I enjoyed that. Belaying is a pet peeve of mine and I have started a couple threads over the years on this subject, though none were as eloquent as yours. One thing that I feel a few people still are not getting is that "dynamic belaying" depends on the angle of the climb. Vertical to overhanging. The more overhanging the more dynamic you should be. There is one thing that trumps the dynamic belay, however, and that is a ground or ledge fall. If my climber is in danger of hitting the ground or a ledge then they will be receiving a hard catch. For slightly older discussion on belaying (and to toot my own horn a little bit), check out: http://www.rockclimbing.com/...0to%20belay;#1408752 Josh
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Dec 5, 2007, 2:56 AM
Post #80 of 105
(9986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
jules wrote: I've found that weighing 100 lbs is a surefire way to give a dynamic catch every time. Then I'll begin the 'half a grape and a bottle of laxatives' diet plan immediately...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 5, 2007, 3:42 AM
Post #81 of 105
(9971 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
yokese wrote: Interestingly, I just scrapped some numbers on a piece of paper and I got to the (possibly wrong) conclusion that leaving some slack will actually increase the impact factor of the fall. The only exception is when trying to avoid a factor 2 on multipitch routes. Please, let me know if I'm wrong: You're close.
In reply to: Being y the distance from the belayer to the last piece of protection and x the distance of the climber above the last protection: FF1 = 2x / (x+y) Now if we add some slack (s): FF2 = (2x + s) / (x+y+s) FF2 > FF1 except when 2x > x+y (which would be decking on a single pitch climb). To simplify the algebra, let's reparameterize the problem, using the definition of fall factor, d/r, where d = (your) x = the distance the climber falls with no extra slack in the rope, and r = (your) x+y = the amount of rope out with no extra slack, and we'll keep your s = extra slack added by the belayer. Now, FF1 = d / r, and FF2 = (d + s) / (r + s) We want to know when FF2 > FF1. FF2 > FF1 => (d + s) / (r + s) > d / r => dr + sr > dr + sd => r > d => d / r < 1. But d / r is the fall factor with no extra slack in the rope. Call this the "initial fall factor." So FF2 > FF1 => initial fall factor < 1. And it is clear that FF2 < FF1 when the initial fall factor > 1, and FF2 = FF1 when the initial fall factor = 1. We can see this directly by taking the limit of FF2 (which is monotonic), as s goes to infinity. If you know how to work with limits, you can show that s -> infinity => FF2 = (d + s) / (r + s) -> 1, for any values of d and r. That is to say, no matter what the initial fall factor, adding slack makes the actual fall factor closer to 1. So, adding slack to "usual" falls (those < fall factor 1) increases the fall factor, whereas adding slack to severe falls (fall factor > 1) decreases the fall factor. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
chilli
Dec 5, 2007, 6:04 AM
Post #82 of 105
(9945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
davidparks21 wrote: ...Secondly, on a multipitch route, I commonly tie in using the rope and will give myself a few feet of slack so I can move around comfortably at the anchor. This provides flexibility for me to provide a dynamic belay most of the time (all dependent upon having the right anchor configuration, and as was stated before, you have to do what is right for the situation). This necessitates that you think very carefully about placing those first pieces of pro because a fall on anchor would yank the belayer down a few feet... this (multipitch), in my opinion, is the perfect case in which i try to avoid the whole jumping bit, because i find the quick pay of some slack as the leader falls to be just as (and actually more) effective, and much safer. i've used it a few times and it's done a stellar job. why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? or have i misinterpreted your statement?
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Dec 5, 2007, 4:01 PM
Post #83 of 105
(9906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
andrewbanandrew wrote: --I'd always get sucked up about three feet and he never tapped the wall. Maybe I got fatter? There is a lot of factors, and couple lb shouldn't be one.... I see a lot of guys do a same thing because they tense up and lean back to catch a fall ( it's a great way to make a static catch), so next time try to relax and it could help your partner with a softer stop
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 5, 2007, 4:18 PM
Post #84 of 105
(9900 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
chilli wrote: why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? Grigri lockup fears mostly. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Dec 5, 2007, 5:48 PM
Post #86 of 105
(9860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
It's rare that you see such a simple and logical explanation related to the physical principles of climbing. Thanks a lot Jay! .
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 5, 2007, 5:57 PM
Post #87 of 105
(9853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
He's had 15 years practice, witnessed SO MANY physics wannabes decking on the cold hard floor of internet forums - this is a distillation of wisdom. Jay has a lot of this sort of experience and relatabilty in him. He's damn well earned his right to be crabby with people though. The place where he grew up in the interwebs was so much more unforgiving and you couldn't go back and edit your idiocy into something more palatable (once it was pointed out to you that is). Jay is one internet authority, in my experience, that backs up his advice with real experience, thought and science. He rubs some the wrong way because he speaks that authority and when pressed, can defend it quite well. Always right? I doubt it. Always informed? Mostly. Able to explain when he wishes? YOU BET! Cheers DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Dec 5, 2007, 6:06 PM
Post #88 of 105
(9838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
dingus wrote: chilli wrote: why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? Grigri lockup fears mostly. DMT Dingus, you have a lot of good points, but I don't agree with you on GriGri( I know you don't like them) If you feel better with ATC, then that's what you should use.....anyways, I don't think it's a grigri lockup. The idea is that you jump( not like a dyno jump, just a hop) when your partner is starting to put tension on the rope. If done correctly you act as almost a counter balance softening the catch. Correct me if I'm wrong......
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 5, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #89 of 105
(9833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Basta916 wrote: dingus wrote: chilli wrote: why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? Grigri lockup fears mostly. DMT Dingus, you have a lot of good points, but I don't agree with you on GriGri( I know you don't like them) If you feel better with ATC, then that's what you should use.....anyways, I don't think it's a grigri lockup. The idea is that you jump( not like a dyno jump, just a hop) when your partner is starting to put tension on the rope. If done correctly you act as almost a counter balance softening the catch. Correct me if I'm wrong...... Sounds right to me, cept for my alleged grigri-hate. Don't hate em at all and use one quite frequently. I don't dispute the effect you describe. I still think the jumping thing became accepted because of grigris and feeding issues. Cheers dude!
|
|
|
|
|
Basta916
Dec 5, 2007, 6:22 PM
Post #90 of 105
(9825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2007
Posts: 311
|
dingus wrote: Basta916 wrote: dingus wrote: chilli wrote: why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? Grigri lockup fears mostly. DMT Dingus, you have a lot of good points, but I don't agree with you on GriGri( I know you don't like them) If you feel better with ATC, then that's what you should use.....anyways, I don't think it's a grigri lockup. The idea is that you jump( not like a dyno jump, just a hop) when your partner is starting to put tension on the rope. If done correctly you act as almost a counter balance softening the catch. Correct me if I'm wrong...... Sounds right to me, cept for my alleged grigri-hate. Don't hate em at all and use one quite frequently. I don't dispute the effect you describe. I still think the jumping thing became accepted because of grigris and feeding issues. Cheers dude! ohhh sorry, didnt mean hate for grigri...more like dislike, but I must have mixed you up with someone else...my bad
|
|
|
|
|
davidparks21
Dec 5, 2007, 7:17 PM
Post #91 of 105
(9802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2006
Posts: 8
|
chilli wrote: this (multipitch), in my opinion, is the perfect case in which i try to avoid the whole jumping bit, because i find the quick pay of some slack as the leader falls to be just as (and actually more) effective, and much safer. i've used it a few times and it's done a stellar job. why the preference for hopping around to provide dynamic belay? or have i misinterpreted your statement? I'm 150 lbs, so unless the fall is near the protection piece I'm always pulled up. I've never tried paying out slack during a fall, that seems like a complex task, especially since you don't always know a fall is coming (if the climber is out of view). I'm not confident that I could rely on such a technique. Even if a don't jump (for example if I don't see the climber and don't anticipate the fall), the fact that I'm pulled up say 5 feet as a counter weight seems like it's a load limiting factor. What I wonder is how different a gri-gri is vs. an ATC in such a case (where the belayer acts as a counter weight). Hmm, does anyone know a cheap way to calculate loads? I have a rope I'm about ready to retire and I'd be intrigued enough to try this out myself if I could find a way to calculate the impact forces.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Dec 5, 2007, 7:44 PM
Post #92 of 105
(9792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
davidparks21 wrote: I'm 150 lbs, so unless the fall is near the protection piece I'm always pulled up. I've never tried paying out slack during a fall, that seems like a complex task, especially since you don't always know a fall is coming (if the climber is out of view). I'm not confident that I could rely on such a technique. Then you probably shouldn't. My feeling, and i believe the purpose of this thread is to continue to refine your belaying technique as you do with your climbing. As you climb harder, steeper stuff and as you get into more complex climbing situations, your belaying should have improve at an equal rate.
In reply to: What I wonder is how different a gri-gri is vs. an ATC in such a case (where the belayer acts as a counter weight). An ATC will allow rope to slip through whereas a grigri won't, therefore with a grigri, you need to worry more about being active as a belayer to soften the catch.
In reply to: Hmm, does anyone know a cheap way to calculate loads? I have a rope I'm about ready to retire and I'd be intrigued enough to try this out myself if I could find a way to calculate the impact forces. If it's a rope that's ready to retire, then it probably doesn't have much stretch left to it and it won't tell you much as far as a real world fall on a more dynamic rope. Josh
|
|
|
|
|
chilli
Dec 6, 2007, 12:58 AM
Post #93 of 105
(9745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 401
|
davidparks21 wrote: ...I've never tried paying out slack during a fall, that seems like a complex task, especially since you don't always know a fall is coming (if the climber is out of view). I'm not confident that I could rely on such a technique. it's actually a lot simpler than you think. with practice, it's very fluid and natural. judging a fall for a jump or slipping some slack through an ATC are really very similar whether you see the climber or not, and so is the reaction time and effect (i haven't had any problems with a quick slack slip when climber isn't visible - though it was only a couple times that i encountered the case). i like it (paying some quick slack) for all potentially swinging overhanging cases, but it's an especially important tool when you don't find yourself in a jumping situation. if you're comfortable with jumping, and it sounds like in many cases you don't have the option, then that's ok. i would suggest that you look into integrating this technique into your 'toolbox' as well. i missed it earlier, but tenn dawg gives a good explanation for using an ATC for this purpose. like i said, i'm NOT a fan of grigri's for this technique (or many uses for that matter, as a personal preference). i definitely like to stay away from them for trad work (in reference to your earlier question). however, one can use a grigri for slack-pay (squeeze, release, brake). i have, and i didn't like it (compared to ATC), but it did the job. i would think that using a grigri would also defintely make it tougher when you can't see the climber (i have not used one in such a case). at any rate, for a good description of both dynamic techniques, see tenn dawg's earlier posts.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Dec 6, 2007, 4:45 PM
Post #94 of 105
(9707 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
First of all, thanks for a GREAT math explanation for the effect of slack on FF. And also bringing up stuff from a long time ago... [quote "jt512"]Paradoxically, it is the light climbers that tend to take the hardest falls. Light belayers get pulled up and give their heavier partners soft catches automatically. Heavier partners, who always get a soft catch, don't realize that it's important to dynamically belay their lighter partners. Since heavier climbers don't get pulled up, their lighter partners get hard catches. As a lighter climber, you'll find that, as a matter of self-preservation, you'll have to train your heavier partners to dynamically belay you. Expect resistance, especially from old-timers. -Jay[/quote] I wanted to say that YES, it pretty much summs my experience. When I started climbing, my belayers were either just as new as I was, or climbers who have climbed for a long time but never really had this issue b/c they did not have interest in pushing the limits to the point where they would be experiencing hard falls themselves. So my partners were getting pretty soft catches due to the fact that the outweigh me by 40-50 pounds, so jumping up happened pretty naturally with me, and I never realized than my poor 100lb self was getting super-hard catches from people who, with every good intention, kept as little slack as possible in the system. Until, that is, I started climbing with people who were used to working routes and taking lots of falls-- as well as belaying for partners who did the same. WOW, it was a revelation, the first time I had a soft catch. I have learned so much from these people. Now, the hard part: getting ALL my belayers to use the same technique.
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughtbubbles
Jan 25, 2012, 4:34 PM
Post #95 of 105
(8789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2012
Posts: 1
|
I've hear rumors of your version of a running belay and I'll credit the occasional application as being a much better solution than taking a 100' whipper. However (and perhaps I'm incorrect), where I'm from the term running belay is used interchangeably with the term simul-climbing. The technique in which both partners climb simultaniously on a shortened length of rope, in order to decrease the amount of time spent building anchors on long routes.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Jan 25, 2012, 4:58 PM
Post #96 of 105
(8779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Thoughtbubbles wrote: I've hear rumors of your version of a running belay and I'll credit the occasional application as being a much better solution than taking a 100' whipper. However (and perhaps I'm incorrect), where I'm from the term running belay is used interchangeably with the term simul-climbing. The technique in which both partners climb simultaniously on a shortened length of rope, in order to decrease the amount of time spent building anchors on long routes. I always enjoy reading this thread whenever it comes up every few years. As to your question, Freedom of the Hills defines the "running belay" as you do; simul-climbing. The Stone Mountain Running Belay is a specific belay technique that involved actually running, and has nothing to do with the more generic term. Whatever happened to tenn_dawg, anyways? Josh
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 25, 2012, 6:41 PM
Post #97 of 105
(8745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
And then someone should bring up the origin of the word "runner' and the thread could deviate into "trad draw" vs. "sport sling".
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 25, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #98 of 105
(8723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Not to mention the definition of "running belay" meaning "a piece of protection that is part of the protection between a leader and the belay." GO
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jan 25, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #99 of 105
(8709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
Original definition of 5th class climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 25, 2012, 8:30 PM
Post #100 of 105
(8541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
A fall on static rope with little elongation and a fixed anchor point will generate much higher impact forces than a fall on dynamic rope using a running belay. http://www.sterlingrope.com/...ument/techmanual.pdf sterling rope uses running belay as to mean dynamic belay .... as does the UIAA good enuff for me .... though maybe not for RCers
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 26, 2012, 12:18 AM
Post #102 of 105
(3060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
i always took running belays to mean one where the bottom climber wa unanchored ... whether simuling or not ... in this UIAA document ... i doubt that that running belay simply means top piece as we have ... stance vs. running belay edit ... i should clarify my running=dynamic belay ... what i should have said is an unachored belay and thus possibly dynamic ... bleh not that it really matters except to RC folks ... its not like were dealing with stuff like "lower", "on/off belay", "climb on" ... which can have real consequences if your screw up the terminology if i need what some people may call a "running belay" ... i tell my belayer in no uncertain terms to "run the fcuk back" should i fall
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Jan 26, 2012, 12:25 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 26, 2012, 5:22 PM
Post #103 of 105
(3006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
bearbreeder wrote: i always took running belays to mean one where the bottom climber wa unanchored ... whether simuling or not ... in this UIAA document ... i doubt that that running belay simply means top piece as we have ... stance vs. running belay edit ... i should clarify my running=dynamic belay ... what i should have said is an unachored belay and thus possibly dynamic ... bleh not that it really matters except to RC folks ... its not like were dealing with stuff like "lower", "on/off belay", "climb on" ... which can have real consequences if your screw up the terminology if i need what some people may call a "running belay" ... i tell my belayer in no uncertain terms to "run the fcuk back" should i fall No, you seem to just misunderstand the phrase. Without seeing the context from which you drew that figure I can't be sure, but it seems pretty clear that the column on the left is what you might consider an "anchor", and the column on the right is a piece placed by a leader as part of the protection system while on lead. AKA, a "running belay". And yes of course it matters in real life. IRL I read things and learn from them, and I communicate with others, sometimes using complex terms. If I misunderstand what I read, does that not impact my understanding? Or if I myself understand, but I communicate poorly, does that not lead others to misunderstand? "Running belay" is a term that means different things in different contexts. The OP did a great job at using it appropriately. No need to mess things up. GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 26, 2012, 6:16 PM
Post #104 of 105
(2996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: bearbreeder wrote: i always took running belays to mean one where the bottom climber wa unanchored ... whether simuling or not ... in this UIAA document ... i doubt that that running belay simply means top piece as we have ... stance vs. running belay [image]http://i39.tinypic.com/9lk2e1.png[/image] edit ... i should clarify my running=dynamic belay ... what i should have said is an unachored belay and thus possibly dynamic ... bleh not that it really matters except to RC folks ... its not like were dealing with stuff like "lower", "on/off belay", "climb on" ... which can have real consequences if your screw up the terminology if i need what some people may call a "running belay" ... i tell my belayer in no uncertain terms to "run the fcuk back" should i fall No, you seem to just misunderstand the phrase. Without seeing the context from which you drew that figure I can't be sure, but it seems pretty clear that the column on the left is what you might consider an "anchor", and the column on the right is a piece placed by a leader as part of the protection system while on lead. AKA, a "running belay". And yes of course it matters in real life. IRL I read things and learn from them, and I communicate with others, sometimes using complex terms. If I misunderstand what I read, does that not impact my understanding? Or if I myself understand, but I communicate poorly, does that not lead others to misunderstand? "Running belay" is a term that means different things in different contexts. The OP did a great job at using it appropriately. No need to mess things up. GO I've seen this document, and you're right that the UIAA is using "running belay" in the traditional sense of a piece of pro between belays. I have no idea what Sterling is talking about in the previous document. They don't define the term, and the context doesn't do much to clarify the meaning. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jan 26, 2012, 6:24 PM
Post #105 of 105
(2993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
A running belay has always been a point of protection the rope runs through as opposed to a fixed belay. It was when I started climbing, is defined as such in the Dictionary of Mountaineering which I got in 1967 and is the definition we all use in industry, including the UIAA. Itīs also the definition given in the Collins English dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary gives it as `a device attached to a rock face through which a climbing rope runs freely, acting as a pulley if the climber falls.ī
|
|
|
|
|
|