|
darkgift06
Nov 12, 2010, 7:43 PM
Post #2 of 43
(8976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2009
Posts: 492
|
Love ur vids, good info & reminder to keep ur eyes open to options
|
|
|
|
|
crazy_fingers84
Nov 12, 2010, 11:00 PM
Post #3 of 43
(8910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
good content... lose the wussy intro though.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Nov 13, 2010, 3:26 AM
Post #4 of 43
(8822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
"I take great pleasure in setting people up for failure."
|
|
|
|
|
Werner
Nov 13, 2010, 5:45 AM
Post #5 of 43
(8772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2010
Posts: 9
|
Good video, It's true that people tend to rely on fancy gear instead of going back to basics. But a combination of both would be ideal IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Nov 13, 2010, 2:23 PM
Post #6 of 43
(8685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Well done talk ... about the right amount of emphasis.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 4:48 PM
Post #7 of 43
(8656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
"There are no short cuts to safety. The short cuts are sticking to the basics and going from there"
True, basics like keeping the angle of that sling you tied off on that boulder under 90 degrees, preferably 60 degrees.
Oh wait, you DIDN'T do that. 
Other than that a good video. 
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 5:10 PM
Post #8 of 43
(8637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
Better learn a little more about material strength before contributing. Your not doing anybody any favours by trying to look/sound smart.
(This post was edited by mikebarter387 on Nov 13, 2010, 5:19 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Nov 13, 2010, 5:42 PM
Post #9 of 43
(8616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
chadnsc wrote: "There are no short cuts to safety. The short cuts are sticking to the basics and going from there" True, basics like keeping the angle of that sling you tied off on that boulder under 90 degrees, preferably 60 degrees. Oh wait, you DIDN'T do that. Other than that a good video.
Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 5:47 PM
Post #10 of 43
(8611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
Better learn a bit more about material strength about other than nylon slings before contributing. You're not doing anybody any favors by trying to look / sounds smart.
You and I know that while a 90 degree angle in your sling will work it will distribute the forces to around 70% to each strand of that sling.
You and I both know that sling should be able to take that force (even with the 25% strength reduction due to the overhand knot being used) without coming close to failing.
What you and I disagree on is I think it's a bad practice to set your slings /cord at 90 degree angles when setting things at a 60 degree angle will more equally distribute the loads (50-55% per strand). I feel that when using different types of anchor material (modern thin slings, cord, ect) setting angle closer to 60 degree creates a much stronger anchor
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 6:20 PM
Post #11 of 43
(8590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
chadnsc wrote: Better learn a bit more about material strength about other than nylon slings before contributing. You're not doing anybody any favors by trying to look / sounds smart. You and I know that while a 90 degree angle in your sling will work it will distribute the forces to around 70% to each strand of that sling. You and I both know that sling should be able to take that force (even with the 25% strength reduction due to the overhand knot being used) without coming close to failing. What you and I disagree on is I think it's a bad practice to set your slings /cord at 90 degree angles when setting things at a 60 degree angle will more equally distribute the loads (50-55% per strand). I feel that when using different types of anchor material (modern thin slings, cord, ect) setting angle closer to 60 degree creates a much stronger anchor
That really isn't worth commenting on.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 6:21 PM
Post #12 of 43
(8589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.)
Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177:
"How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to."
Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree:
"By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication."
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 6:29 PM
Post #13 of 43
(8575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication."
However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......?
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #14 of 43
(8575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: Better learn a bit more about material strength about other than nylon slings before contributing. You're not doing anybody any favors by trying to look / sounds smart. You and I know that while a 90 degree angle in your sling will work it will distribute the forces to around 70% to each strand of that sling. You and I both know that sling should be able to take that force (even with the 25% strength reduction due to the overhand knot being used) without coming close to failing. What you and I disagree on is I think it's a bad practice to set your slings /cord at 90 degree angles when setting things at a 60 degree angle will more equally distribute the loads (50-55% per strand). I feel that when using different types of anchor material (modern thin slings, cord, ect) setting angle closer to 60 degree creates a much stronger anchor That really isn't worth commenting on.
Yeah I said the same thing about your initial uninformative and insubstantial reply to my comments but then I couldn't resist adding some constructive criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 6:34 PM
Post #15 of 43
(8571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication." However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......?
Maybe if Mike stoped refering to himself in the first person and if Mike had some credibility to his name other than being an internet blowhard that likes to troll RC.com?
EDITED TO ADD:
Maybe if Mike simply used a longer sling when Mike was trying to make a video about how to correctly set natural anchors maybe Mike would have shown that Mike knows about force multiplication on anchors.
Yeah that would make Mike a bit more . . . .?
(This post was edited by chadnsc on Nov 13, 2010, 6:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 6:35 PM
Post #16 of 43
(8569 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
chadnsc wrote: mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: Better learn a bit more about material strength about other than nylon slings before contributing. You're not doing anybody any favors by trying to look / sounds smart. You and I know that while a 90 degree angle in your sling will work it will distribute the forces to around 70% to each strand of that sling. You and I both know that sling should be able to take that force (even with the 25% strength reduction due to the overhand knot being used) without coming close to failing. What you and I disagree on is I think it's a bad practice to set your slings /cord at 90 degree angles when setting things at a 60 degree angle will more equally distribute the loads (50-55% per strand). I feel that when using different types of anchor material (modern thin slings, cord, ect) setting angle closer to 60 degree creates a much stronger anchor That really isn't worth commenting on. Yeah I said the same thing about your initial uninformative and insubstantial reply to my comments but then I couldn't resist adding some constructive criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 6:36 PM
Post #17 of 43
(8566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
chadnsc wrote: mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication." However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......? Maybe if Mike stoped refering to himself in the first person and if Mike had some credibility to his name other than being an internet blowhard that likes to troll RC.com? Yeah that would make Mike a bit more . . . .?
|
|
|
|
|
jbro_135
Nov 13, 2010, 6:39 PM
Post #18 of 43
(8561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2009
Posts: 662
|
Your video is boring and taught me nothing. You are pretty big, do you actually climb? If so, props to you big guy
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 6:39 PM
Post #19 of 43
(8561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
Yet Mike keeps on -a commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 6:44 PM
Post #20 of 43
(8555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
jbro_135 wrote: Your video is boring and taught me nothing. You are pretty big, do you actually climb? If so, props to you big guy
You can lead a horse to water!
Great to be back. Think I'm going to stick around awhile I missed you guys.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 13, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #21 of 43
(8536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
chadnsc wrote: mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication." However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......? Maybe if Mike stoped refering to himself in the first person . . .
Maybe if you knew how to spell "stopped" and "referring," and knew the difference between the first person and the third, you might have have a little more credibility.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mikebarter387
Nov 13, 2010, 7:16 PM
Post #22 of 43
(8533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 237
|
"Maybe if you knew how to spell "stopped" and "referring," and knew the difference between the first person and the third, you might have have a little more credibility.
Jay"
Maybe if I was teaching English
You I missed the most.
(This post was edited by mikebarter387 on Nov 13, 2010, 7:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Nov 13, 2010, 7:45 PM
Post #23 of 43
(8517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
No wonder the beer can wasn't properly anchored, it was empty.
|
|
|
|
|
j_amie_
Nov 13, 2010, 8:11 PM
Post #24 of 43
(8502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 41
|
jt512 wrote: chadnsc wrote: mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication." However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......? Maybe if Mike stoped refering to himself in the first person . . . Maybe if you knew how to spell "stopped" and "referring," and knew the difference between the first person and the third, you might have have a little more credibility. Jay
Haha Beat me to it
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Nov 13, 2010, 8:14 PM
Post #25 of 43
(8500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
jt512 wrote: chadnsc wrote: mikebarter387 wrote: chadnsc wrote: spikeddem wrote: Hummm. I hate to comment on this, as I might be wrong, but I don't think that force amplification will happen from an angle greater than 90 degrees when tying off a single object...at least not in the fashion that we normally worry about it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Actually in both 'Climbing Anchors, Second Addition' by John Long and Bob Gaines and 'Mountaineering, The Freedom of the Hill, Seventh Addition' say that force multiplication will take place when slinging and tying off a natural anchor (ie tree, block, ect.) Mountaineering The Freedom of Hills, 7th edition, page 177: "How well and equalization setup reduces the pull on each individual anchor (strand) depends on the angel formed by the runner or runners coming together (at the knot). The smaller the angle the less force each anchor strand will be subjected to." Climbing Anchors, 2nd edition, page 22, referring to an image of cord tied to a tree: "By tying this cordelett off with a figure eight, it essentially become(s) redundant, with two loops around the tree. The doubled, power point clip in helps prevent improver loading of the biner. In all such setups, try to keep the inside angle of the cord / sling less than 90 degrees to avoid load multiplication." However neither Long, the editor of "Freedom of the Hills" or you were there. So maybe, just maybe Mike decided that he wanted to tie that sling in that fashion so as to better seat it so as not to slip off the boulder. Now Mike may be well aware of all the afore mentioned information and went ahead anyhow. In the Book "Mike's Law's of Climbing" this would superceed both the afore mentioned publications. Making Mike right and you......? Maybe if Mike stoped refering to himself in the first person . . . Maybe if you knew how to spell "stopped" and "referring," and knew the difference between the first person and the third, you might have have a little more credibility. Jay
Pfft! We all know that I have no credibility in spelling and grammar. Then again I don't create videos trying to teach others how to spell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
