|
seafood
Oct 8, 2004, 10:38 PM
Post #1 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 13
|
how big is a UIAA fall.
when a rope says it is rated to 6 UIAA falls. how big of a fall does it need to be to count... because you have small falls all the time.
i have heard that it is any fall over 20 feet, is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 9, 2004, 12:40 AM
Post #2 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18059
|
In reply to: how big is a UIAA fall. when a rope says it is rated to 6 UIAA falls. how big of a fall does it need to be to count... because you have small falls all the time. i have heard that it is any fall over 20 feet, is this true?
UIAA falls are somewhat smaller than Niagara Falls. I hope this answers your question.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jammin
Oct 9, 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #3 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 84
|
The number on the paper when you buy your rope is a unit of measurement.
For single ropes, an 80kg weight is attached to the rope which is then dropped to what amounts to a factor 2 fall (about a 5 meter distance). The rope must survive 12 falls with 5 minute rest periods between each fall. For double ropes the test is with a 55kg weight, per strand. There are other tests which the rope is subject to (sheath slippage, etc) This link should answer your question.
http://www.uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Safety/UIAA101Pictorial.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 9, 2004, 12:47 AM
Post #4 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18059
|
In reply to: The number on the paper when you buy your rope is a unit of measurement. For single ropes, an 80kg weight is attached to the rope which is then dropped to what amounts to a factor 2 fall (about a 5 meter distance). The rope must survive 12 falls with 5 minute rest periods between each fall. For double ropes the test is with a 55kg weight, per strand. There are other tests which the rope is subject to (sheath slippage, etc) This link should answer your question. http://www.uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Safety/UIAA101Pictorial.pdf
Standard UIAA falls are not fall factor 2 falls.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jammin
Oct 9, 2004, 1:06 AM
Post #5 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 84
|
Yup, your right curt. Misread the image on the link.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 9, 2004, 1:08 AM
Post #6 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Just a suggestions, jammin, dude, if you don't know the answer, don't go searching the web for the answer and posting like you know what you're talking about.
Is it just me, or is this site REALLY going downhill fast?
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 9, 2004, 1:26 AM
Post #7 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
the uiaa fall is 1.8 (or 1.81) factor fall of an 80kg weight on 5m for single and 10m for double ropes over a 2mm (not sure if thats the exact number, but i think it is) rounded edge.
the fall is repeated with no rests until the rope breaks.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Oct 9, 2004, 5:00 AM
Post #8 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
It's a 5mm radius edge (relates to the edge of a biner).
A rope must hold at least 5 drops without breaking. A rope that holds 10 or more standard falls, is allowed to be called a multi-drop rope. The 12 drops with 5 minutes rest mentioned above by jammin are bullshit.
By the way, the UIAA standard about drops on a sharp edge (0.75mm) has been suspended as of july 2004 till further notice.
|
|
|
|
|
kindasleepy
Oct 9, 2004, 8:30 AM
Post #9 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 51
|
In practicle terms...a UIAA fall is a HARD fall. If you take a 20 foot fall and have 80 feet of rope out, it is well below one UIAA fall. You will feel the dynamics of the rope soften your fall.
Yet if you take a 10 foot fall directly onto your belay anchor (ie 5 feet of rope), not only will you have taken 1 UIAA fall but you will also be trying to pop your vertebrae back into place. It will jar the h@ll out of you.
Use common sence, if you are worried about the number of big falls you have taken on your rope, you should retire it. A 100 bucks ain't worth your life.
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Oct 9, 2004, 9:16 PM
Post #10 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
A UIAA fall is a fall with a factor 1.7 fall. That mean's falling past your anchor. It's a hard-ass fall that'll hurt a lot.
It's basically like placing a piece low, right above your anchor, climbing up 7 to 10 feet past it and falling. You'll fall a distance greater than the amount of rope you have out.
Any UIAA single rope holds atleast 6 of these falls. If you start taking falls like that though, I doubt you'll be taking 6 of them in a row, unless your REALLY stubborn and feel like getting a kidney transplant.
If you take a big whipper, let your rope sit for a while before you keep climbing on it. After your done climbing feel your way through the rope, if it still feels good, it's probably just fine.
Hope that helps,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Oct 9, 2004, 9:17 PM
Post #11 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
It's also done with a steel weight rather than a climber, so the test is a lot harsher than it would be with a live climber.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 9, 2004, 9:39 PM
Post #12 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Standard UIAA falls are not fall factor 2 falls.
For all intents and purposes, the UIAA 1.78 FF test drop is a FF2 fall.
In reply to: The rope must survive 12 falls with 5 minute rest periods between each fall.
That figure is for a twin rope.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Oct 9, 2004, 9:41 PM
Post #13 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1191
|
The key factor (NPI) in a UIAA fall is that the fall is almost twice the distance of the amount of rope out. If you fall 10 feet on 5 feet of rope that would be a factor2 fall. A UIAA fall is slightly less because the rope passes through an orfice in a steel plate (to simulate a carabiner) resulting in a factor of 1.8 something. It's a brutal fall that tends to break gear and bones.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 9, 2004, 10:32 PM
Post #14 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18059
|
In reply to: In reply to: Standard UIAA falls are not fall factor 2 falls. For all intents and purposes, the UIAA 1.78 FF test drop is a FF2 fall.
I guess if you think 1.78 = 2.00, you're right.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Oct 9, 2004, 11:10 PM
Post #15 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
In reply to: In reply to: The number on the paper when you buy your rope is a unit of measurement. For single ropes, an 80kg weight is attached to the rope which is then dropped to what amounts to a factor 2 fall (about a 5 meter distance). The rope must survive 12 falls with 5 minute rest periods between each fall. For double ropes the test is with a 55kg weight, per strand. There are other tests which the rope is subject to (sheath slippage, etc) This link should answer your question. http://www.uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Safety/UIAA101Pictorial.pdf Standard UIAA falls are not fall factor 2 falls. Curt
So what is it, Curt?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 10, 2004, 12:54 AM
Post #16 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18059
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The number on the paper when you buy your rope is a unit of measurement. For single ropes, an 80kg weight is attached to the rope which is then dropped to what amounts to a factor 2 fall (about a 5 meter distance). The rope must survive 12 falls with 5 minute rest periods between each fall. For double ropes the test is with a 55kg weight, per strand. There are other tests which the rope is subject to (sheath slippage, etc) This link should answer your question. http://www.uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Safety/UIAA101Pictorial.pdf Standard UIAA falls are not fall factor 2 falls. Curt So what is it, Curt?
Had you actually read this thread, you would have seen that the correct answer was already given.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
chriss
Oct 10, 2004, 10:05 AM
Post #17 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
Please take the time to do some research on this question. And consider the source of the answers you get. After a quick glance at the responces to this question. The FF is ~1.78, but there is more to it than that. The test has different limits for each class of rope.
chris
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 10, 2004, 11:02 AM
Post #18 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
At one time, I tried to make a distinction between a FF1.78 fall and a true FF2 fall.
Rgold informed me that for all intents and purposes, (math wise included) there is not a significant difference between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Oct 10, 2004, 1:07 PM
Post #19 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: Is it just me, or is this site REALLY going downhill fast?
The view's obscured by the handbasket we're all in. I have the same problem.
Seriously, though, it's about the same from my perspective. Since I've been here (not terribly long, I suppose) there's always been good and bad answers to both good and bad questions.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
chriss
Oct 11, 2004, 3:22 PM
Post #20 of 43
(23950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 92
|
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/safety/tech/articles/issue20_ropes.pdf
This site has the best description I have seen. Be sure to look at the other requirements for UIAA approval.
chris
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 21, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #21 of 43
(9776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
Honestly. I would not worry about UIAA Falls too much. In sport climbing, bolts are set up much to close to hit the big fall factors. And in Trad, if you are hitting those factors, you really shouldn't be climbing.
The more important number is the Impact Force, especially if you climb Trad. You want the lowest impact force you can find. Bomber placements aren't always bomber as you think if your rope doesn't help out.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Jul 21, 2012, 6:52 PM
Post #22 of 43
(9742 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2571
|
overlord wrote: the fall is repeated with no rests until the rope breaks.
They do get rests. I believe they let the rope chill for five minutes in between drops.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Jul 21, 2012, 6:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
herites
Jul 22, 2012, 1:55 AM
Post #23 of 43
(9677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210
|
1,87 ff, 80kg static weight in a drop tower, tested until failure, must be 5+ to get UIAA approval for singles
|
|
|
|
|
jae8908
Jul 22, 2012, 10:58 AM
Post #24 of 43
(9631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2011
Posts: 268
|
are UIAA tests for ropes still performed exactly the same as they were 8 years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 22, 2012, 2:36 PM
Post #25 of 43
(9603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2824
|
jae8908 wrote: are UIAA tests for ropes still performed exactly the same as they were 8 years ago?
Nice!
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 1:27 AM
Post #26 of 43
(1512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
herites wrote: 1,87 ff, 80kg static weight in a drop tower, tested until failure, must be 5+ to get UIAA approval for singles
For single ropes, this is the correct answer. You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone.
For the correct answer, from the very beginning, all that needs be done is visit the UIAA Website and email them. They explain it very thoroughly in the email.
UIAA International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation
http://www.theuiaa.org/
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 1:57 AM
Post #27 of 43
(1508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
On you tube I search UIAA Tests.
I came up with many videos doing tests on all kinds of equipment, but this specific video has the fall test in it. The rope is fastened to the device with a rope wrap, and then fed through an opening on the machine that looks to match a carabiner.
As for the actual distance it is being dropped, I can not tell, but it is not a force 2 fall, as there is some rope between the tie off point and the eyelet.
http://www.youtube.com/...U&feature=relmfu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 28, 2012, 8:41 AM
Post #29 of 43
(1474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2439
|
splish wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone.
What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004?
Edit to fix cheesetitted quote
(This post was edited by marc801 on Jul 28, 2012, 12:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 9:16 AM
Post #30 of 43
(1466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
marc801 wrote: splish wrote: herites wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone. What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004? It's still information for climbers. People still read them. But thanks for bickering with me.
(This post was edited by splish on Jul 28, 2012, 9:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 28, 2012, 12:08 PM
Post #31 of 43
(1448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2439
|
splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone. What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004? It's still information for climbers. People still read them.
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #32 of 43
(1429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
marc801 wrote: splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone. What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004? It's still information for climbers. People still read them. Only when someone drives an old, dusty, unused thread to the front page by posting to it without acknowledging that they know they are resurrecting the dead.
Aww, I see... or, maybe the admins leave the post so that others may read it and learn. If it were old and useless, then maybe it's time for a clean up...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 28, 2012, 8:39 PM
Post #33 of 43
(1404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21812
|
splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone. What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004? It's still information for climbers. People still read them. Only when someone drives an old, dusty, unused thread to the front page by posting to it without acknowledging that they know they are resurrecting the dead. Aww, I see... or, maybe the admins leave the post so that others may read it and learn. If it were old and useless, then maybe it's time for a clean up...
As a general rule, when you are new to an online community, it is a good idea to hang around for a while and learn the local culture, as opposed to, say, ignorantly speculate about local customs of which you know nothing, like administrator policies about thread retention. The fact is that threads here are never removed. They are retained and are accessible indefinitely, as you have proved, regardless of their relevancy or usefulness.
This would be a good time for you to sit back, take a deep breath, and remind yourself that you are a n00b here.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 8:44 PM
Post #34 of 43
(1402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
jt512 wrote: splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: marc801 wrote: splish wrote: You guys are crazy on this forum, you spend so much time bickering and arguing, and posting 500 different answers, you just confuse new climbers rather than help anyone. What's even more confusing for new climbers is someone answering an 8 year old question. What was so compelling about this thread from 2004? It's still information for climbers. People still read them. Only when someone drives an old, dusty, unused thread to the front page by posting to it without acknowledging that they know they are resurrecting the dead. Aww, I see... or, maybe the admins leave the post so that others may read it and learn. If it were old and useless, then maybe it's time for a clean up... As a general rule, when you are new to an online community, it is a good idea to hang around for a while and learn the local culture, as opposed to, say, ignorantly speculate about local customs of which you know nothing, like administrator policies about thread retention. The fact is that threads here are never removed. They are retained and are accessible indefinitely, as you have proved, regardless of their relevancy or usefulness. This would be a good time for you to sit back, take a deep breath, and remind yourself that you are a n00b here. Jay
Sorry, if I know the correct answer, I am going to give it.
This whole, you are a noob and we are elite is a little bit high school if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 9:18 PM
Post #35 of 43
(1394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
Also, if you check my profile, I registered on this site in 2005. I have read through forums in the past many times, just never posted. So, then throw me a guideline, how many years until I am allowed to post.
(This post was edited by splish on Jul 28, 2012, 9:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 28, 2012, 9:25 PM
Post #36 of 43
(1389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21812
|
splish wrote: Also, if you check my profile, I registered on this site in 2005. I have read through forums in the past many times, just never posted. So, then throw me a guideline, how many years until I am allowed to post.
Apparently, it's not how long you've been registered, but how long you've been paying attention.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 9:32 PM
Post #37 of 43
(1386 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
jt512 wrote: splish wrote: Also, if you check my profile, I registered on this site in 2005. I have read through forums in the past many times, just never posted. So, then throw me a guideline, how many years until I am allowed to post. Apparently, it's not how long you've been registered, but how long you've been paying attention. Jay
Sorry Jay, it's not you in particular, but I have been paying attention for a while and that's why I decided to post in a couple forums.
I find on this site, most questions go unanswered, or get so many different answers that the person who asked is left dumbfounded.
I knew roughly what the UIAA test was, but not exactly, so I decided to read this post, and all I found was 15 or so different answers and a bunch of people insulting each other.
I went, did the research as best I can, and tried to post the right answer.
If that offends people, well then so be it. I am not here to join a social club.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 28, 2012, 11:09 PM
Post #38 of 43
(1373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 878
|
The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004?
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 11:12 PM
Post #39 of 43
(1371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
JimTitt wrote: The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004?
1. The link is no longer active...
2. Not the OP, as I mentioned, future readers.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jul 28, 2012, 11:29 PM
Post #40 of 43
(1363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8222
|
splish wrote: JimTitt wrote: The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004? 1. The link is no longer active... 2. Not the OP, as I mentioned, future readers.
Did your lady left you ?
you been screwing a lot on forums and people are wondering what you are up to
and, do not go in to LAB
some serious predators are out there
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 28, 2012, 11:33 PM
Post #41 of 43
(1359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
majid_sabet wrote: splish wrote: JimTitt wrote: The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004? 1. The link is no longer active... 2. Not the OP, as I mentioned, future readers. Did your lady left you ? you been screwing a lot on forums and people are wondering what you are up to and, do not go in to LAB some serious predators are out there
Sure, I'll answer your personal questions...
The lady is working, I am on vacation.
I don't know what LAB is.
Predators don't scare me. This is the internet, the worst they can do is go all CAPS LOCK ON MY ASS!
|
|
|
|
|
theextremist04
Jul 30, 2012, 9:23 PM
Post #42 of 43
(1300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2010
Posts: 184
|
splish wrote: majid_sabet wrote: splish wrote: JimTitt wrote: The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004? 1. The link is no longer active... 2. Not the OP, as I mentioned, future readers. Did your lady left you ? you been screwing a lot on forums and people are wondering what you are up to and, do not go in to LAB some serious predators are out there Sure, I'll answer your personal questions... The lady is working, I am on vacation. I don't know what LAB is. Predators don't scare me. This is the internet, the worst they can do is go all CAPS LOCK ON MY ASS!
|
|
|
|
|
splish
Jul 30, 2012, 11:36 PM
Post #43 of 43
(1285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 140
|
theextremist04 wrote: splish wrote: majid_sabet wrote: splish wrote: JimTitt wrote: The second reply to the question gave a link to the correct answer, do you seriously think the OP has been dumfounded since 2004? 1. The link is no longer active... 2. Not the OP, as I mentioned, future readers. Did your lady left you ? you been screwing a lot on forums and people are wondering what you are up to and, do not go in to LAB some serious predators are out there Sure, I'll answer your personal questions... The lady is working, I am on vacation. I don't know what LAB is. Predators don't scare me. This is the internet, the worst they can do is go all CAPS LOCK ON MY ASS! Obviously you've never heard of 4chan.
uh huh... sounds scary...
|
|
|
|
|
|
