|
lynelle
Aug 20, 2003, 2:38 PM
Post #1 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 29
|
I realize it is a matter of personal preference, but I'm a beginner climber and I see more and more climbers that do not wear any head protection. Many photos posted on this site show climbers without head protection. I've been taught that climbers have to be ultra paranoid when it comes to safety, so just wondering what the reasoning is behind the choice of wearing no head protection?
|
|
|
|
|
adeptus
Aug 20, 2003, 2:53 PM
Post #2 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 322
|
The main reason to wear a helmet isn't to protect your head in a fall, but to protect it from falling rocks. But if you're climbing a popular route, chances are that all loose rock will already have been removed. Actually the belayer should be the one wearing a helmet if the rock is loose, as he's the one in danger of being hit.
But anyway it doesn't hurt to wear one. Personally I never climb without a helmet!
Be safe :D
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 20, 2003, 2:59 PM
Post #3 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Most good climbers I know are rebellious SOBs. Tell us we _have_ to do something, and we'll do the opposite just to make you crazy.
Oh, and they're hot, sweaty, make you look dorky, (helmets, not climbers - damn dangling modifiers!) and, if you're not used to wearing one, you keep bonking it against things. Also, some folks would argue that once you start wearing one, you start making poorer choices - like climbing in areas with frequent rockfall - a practice which, with or without a helmet, can make you dead.
Personally, I sometimes wear one, sometimes not. Why? It Depends(TM).
GO
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Aug 20, 2003, 3:01 PM
Post #4 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
As you said, its personal preference. When you see a climber without a helmet, that person generally falls into one of 2 categories: 1) A climber that is aware of the risks but has judged that the risk of head injury is minimal, and 2) A boob that has no idea what he is exposing himself to, and is not wearing a helmet because it "doesn't look cool", is "uncomfortable", or "too expensive".
Of course, the reasons given by the No. 2 boob are nonsense, since new helmet designs are extremely light, low-profile and comfortable to the point that you forget you have them on. And the cost of a lid is negligable compared to all the other climbing gear you have to buy.
The reasons given by climber No. 1 are likely: The crag is high traffic, clean, and free of loose rocks. There are no other parties overhead that can accidentally drop rock or gear on me. For the type of climb I am doing, the chance of hitting my head on the rock is small.
Whether you see people wearing helmets or not depends somewhat on where you climb. At sport crags you will see almost everyone helmetless for the reasons stated above. At a big, multi-pitch cliff with loose rock you might see everyone wearing helmets.
Don't let the actions of others dictate what you do. Be aware of the dangers around you, and the risks involved, then make your own decision based on your judgement. That 50 dollar piece of plastic can save your life.
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Aug 20, 2003, 3:19 PM
Post #5 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
In reply to: Oh, and they're hot, sweaty, make you look dorky, (helmets, not climbers - damn dangling modifiers!) and, if you're not used to wearing one, you keep bonking it against things.
If you get a good helmet, it will be pretty well ventilated. It might seem a bit hot and sweaty on a warm day, but you get used to it. And you can always take it off and cool your head when you are in a safe spot and resting.
For everytime I have bonked my head because I was wearing a helmet, I can think of a time where I would have bonked it with or without a lid, and wearing one saved me some head pain.
Try climbing something like Cannon Mountain in New Hampshire: multi-pitch, loose rocks, and often parties overhead. You will look like a DORK and a FOOL if you are NOT wearing a helmet.
BTW, I have seem some rockfall at Devil's Lake, at one of the most popular spots on the East Bluff. Another time, some boob on the top of the cliff almost dropped a hex on my partners head and didn't even yell "rock"!
|
|
|
|
|
pehperboy
Aug 20, 2003, 3:24 PM
Post #6 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 871
|
This is one topic I'm glad to see come back from time to time. Helmets in climbing have their place, and has been pointed out it takes judgment on when to wear and when not to wear. I'll wear mine:
While leading on sport: I want it on in case I deck or do a pendulum.
While top roping a new and difficult route.
While belaying where there is possibility of loose rock.
Doing multi-pitch.
There are times I don't want to wear my helmet, and if I think I can get away with it I won't. But I definitely prefer to err on the side of caution. It's better to look like a bit of goof than a dead or injured goof.
A search in the Injuries and Accidents forum will reveal too many instances where people suffered serious head injuries while sport climbing and their helmet was safer than they were - buried securely in the bottom of their pack or at home.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 3:32 PM
Post #7 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
IF you look at the tech info on the petzl elios helmet, it claims to protect against falling and whacking your head on something for forces up to 10 kN.
They also point out that hte helmet will still absorb that much force in a greater fall and might save your head from more serious injury.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Aug 20, 2003, 3:38 PM
Post #8 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: As you said, its personal preference. When you see a climber without a helmet, that person generally falls into one of 2 categories: 1) A climber that is aware of the risks but has judged that the risk of head injury is minimal, and 2) A boob that has no idea what he is exposing himself to, and is not wearing a helmet because it "doesn't look cool", is "uncomfortable", or "too expensive".
I am one of the boobs. Helmets make you look like a tool, but that's no reason not to wear one. I actually just bought one for climbing multi-pitch trad climbs at Devils Tower, because crap comes off those routes all the time, even the popular ones... but when I climb the short, one-pitch sport routes in the Black Hills I still don't wear it... But you really should wear one all the time... I just choose not to...
|
|
|
|
|
drucasinoble
Aug 20, 2003, 4:01 PM
Post #9 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Advice from these posts is no replacement for using good judgement. Use your head (ha, ha). If there is any doubt in your mind, err on the side of caution. Better to look like a dork than be really cool dangling limp on the end if a rope. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2003, 4:02 PM
Post #10 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I've been taught that climbers have to be ultra paranoid when it comes to safety, so just wondering what the reasoning is behind the choice of wearing no head protection?
Lack of ultra-paranoia training.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 20, 2003, 4:55 PM
Post #11 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: IF you look at the tech info on the petzl elios helmet, it claims to protect against falling and whacking your head on something for forces up to 10 kN. They also point out that hte helmet will still absorb that much force in a greater fall and might save your head from more serious injury.
You neglected to mention that if you ever imparted 10kn to a helmet that you were actually wearing you would have a broken neck and most likely be dead.
The actual test your referring to involves dropping a 5kg weight 1/2 a meter onto the helmet, about the equivalent of tripping and hitting your head on the ground. None of the tests involve a side impact which is the most likely way to hit your head.
Black diamond more realistically says that a helmet may provide limited protection in the event of striking a fixed object.
|
|
|
|
|
scrappydoo
Aug 20, 2003, 5:25 PM
Post #12 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Posts: 139
|
Sometimes I don't (sporto), most times I do (trad, sketchy or run-out sport).
I also sometimes do if gumbies are around (i.e. throwing hexes down from above, as per earlier example).
One side benefit I have noticed from wearing a bucket on my head is that you can use it to hold yourself into a corner underneath a roof. Several times I have been able to rest my hands and re-chalk before doing a med. roof by stickin' my bucketed noggin into a corner on the underside. Can I coin a new term, "head-bar"?
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Aug 20, 2003, 5:26 PM
Post #13 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
In reply to: In reply to: redpoint73 wrote: As you said, its personal preference. When you see a climber without a helmet, that person generally falls into one of 2 categories: 1) A climber that is aware of the risks but has judged that the risk of head injury is minimal, and 2) A boob that has no idea what he is exposing himself to, and is not wearing a helmet because it "doesn't look cool", is "uncomfortable", or "too expensive". I am one of the boobs. Helmets make you look like a tool, but that's no reason not to wear one. I actually just bought one for climbing multi-pitch trad climbs at Devils Tower, because crap comes off those routes all the time, even the popular ones... but when I climb the short, one-pitch sport routes in the Black Hills I still don't wear it... But you really should wear one all the time... I just choose not to...
No you're not. You seem to more likely fit description No.1. You just stated how you bought a helmet to protect yourself at a place where there is loose rock, but you don't wear it when there is lower risk of head injury. Sounds like solid judgement to me. I'm the same way, I never wear a lid on 1-pitch sport climbs. There is no one above you to dislodge rocks or drop gear on your head; and the falls are usually controlled and short, where there is little chance of you flipping upside down and hitting your head. Plus, my partner knows not to stand below me while I am climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Aug 20, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #14 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
I don't agree with this thinking that a helmet is ONLY good if a falling object hits your head, and not ANY good in case of a leader fall. I think alpnclmbr1 says is best:
In reply to: Black diamond more realistically says that a helmet may provide limited protection in the event of striking a fixed object.
The functional words are limited protection. I agree that if you take a huge whipper, and your head slams against the rock at 100 mph while you are falling, then the helmet will not help you much. But what if the rope has already absorbed the force of the fall (taking your weight), but you end up sideways or upside-down and swing into the wall and hit your head. The helmet will give you some protection in that case. The force will not be super-huge, but might be enough to injure your head if you are without a lid.
Another example would be a fall on a slab. Again, the falling velocity and force would not be huge because you are just tumbling down a slab, as opposed to freefalling down a vertical wall. So the helmet might give you adequete protection against a pretty good whack to the head.
One last case: I was once watching some dudes work a tough sport route. There were some very powerful and awkward moves at the start of the route. Awkward enough that the moves cause your body to be sideways. The climber fell while still below the first bolt. He only fell a couple feet, but he was swinging around sideways and his head came within several inches of a jagged, pointy boulder that my partner subsequently nicknamed "the brain-poker". He was not wearing a helmet and was lucky, but a helmet would have protected him from the brain-poker.
|
|
|
|
|
emtclimber
Aug 20, 2003, 6:03 PM
Post #15 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2003
Posts: 263
|
I believe I would fall in to #1...I wear my skull cap if I'm on multi-pitch trad or sport, but if there's no rocks above me and I'm on a single pitch sport route without animals above me...I'd rather go without, it's just more comfortable...
Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
jetman_jake
Aug 20, 2003, 6:28 PM
Post #16 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2003
Posts: 99
|
I don't have one as of yet, though it has been debated. I don't climb multi-pitch (or haven't, rather) and won't climb anything too run-out, so I don't really need on unless I'm climbing somewhere that's particularly chossy. Since I do my damndest to stay out of choss, it doesn't seem like a worthy investment yet. Then again, that may also be because I'm poor. However, if I start doing multi-pitch or have people above me all the time, I'll be picking one up. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 6:42 PM
Post #17 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: IF you look at the tech info on the petzl elios helmet, it claims to protect against falling and whacking your head on something for forces up to 10 kN. They also point out that hte helmet will still absorb that much force in a greater fall and might save your head from more serious injury. You neglected to mention that if you ever imparted 10kn to a helmet that you were actually wearing you would have a broken neck and most likely be dead. The actual test your referring to involves dropping a 5kg weight 1/2 a meter onto the helmet, about the equivalent of tripping and hitting your head on the ground. None of the tests involve a side impact which is the most likely way to hit your head. Black diamond more realistically says that a helmet may provide limited protection in the event of striking a fixed object.
The point is, at least the elios is meant to protect from more than falling objects. I think the test you are talking about is from the older helmeet inserts, liek the one that came with my ecrin.
There are so many ways you could hit hour head in a fall, of course landing on your head from 100 feet will probably kill you no matter what, but a helmet is still going to help in many many falls-- many head injuries from climbing accidents have been judged by the attending reacue folks to be "walkaways" if the person had been wearing a helmet, but instead they went to the hospital. THere were several like that at Twall in tennessee this past year.
Everyone of so fond of poo-pooing that 5 kg drop from half a meter, well, I suggest that you take a knock of equivalent force on your bare head and then see if you think a hemet would be a good idea or not LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Aug 20, 2003, 11:29 PM
Post #18 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Never used to wear a helmet until I took a fall out of a wide crack, my foot was the last thing out and I stoped, upside down with my head about a foot off of a big ledge.
Don't lead without one now!
Don't care how dorky it looks!
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 21, 2003, 12:23 AM
Post #19 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: The point is, at least the elios is meant to protect from more than falling objects. I think the test you are talking about is from the older helmeet inserts, liek the one that came with my ecrin. |
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 21, 2003, 1:39 AM
Post #20 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
I notice you are not taking up the challenge of sustaining one of those impacts on your own bare head-- and I hope you don't.
YOu seemed to think that the up to 10 kN impact was not worth much in the head department, but you know dynamic ropes allow you to feel up to 9.6 kN in the single 11 mm variety.
I'm not worried about the sharp object test or anything but the claim that the helmet will absorb up to 10 kN in impact.
that new helmet would also have an impact absorbing capacity not umlike that of dynamic rope then. (I can't tell if the elios is crushable or not, but it sounds like it is)
I can't find my ecrin info sheet, but I don't think it had anything about falls, only rock fall. The elios sounds different. I did notice that the ecrin is now listed as a caver hat, are they phasing it out as a climbing helmet in favor of the more expensive elios?
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 21, 2003, 2:48 AM
Post #21 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: YOu seemed to think that the up to 10 kN impact was not worth much in the head department, but you know dynamic ropes allow you to feel up to 9.6 kN in the single 11 mm variety. I'm not worried about the sharp object test or anything but the claim that the helmet will absorb up to 10 kN in impact.
I am saying anything but that 10kn is insignificant. What I am saying is that there is no way a helmet can absorb a 10kn impact.
so are you saying that you can take a fifteen footer straight onto your head and you won't feel a thing because the helmet will absorb the impact?
I don't think so.
(edited: because my numbers were wrong, but my contention was not)
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 21, 2003, 4:10 AM
Post #22 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
NO, I'm not saying that at all. I have been referring to the info from petzl. I am saying that the petzl info with their helmets claims that they can absorb up to 10 kN in anything but a spine compressing hit. For the spine compressive hit they say 500 N. YOU CAN GO CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF ON THEIR PDFs for each new helmet. The Ecrin does not have this kind of info posted, and I'd like to know why since that is hte helmet I have, DOH!
Now, with these crushable helmets, it is not hard to believe they would absorb 10 kN on a non-spine-compressive hit. Deformation absorbs a lot of energy, this has to do with spreading out the impulse and the jerk over a longer time period, and having the material of the helmet take the brunt of the force instead of your head.
YOU don't have to believe Petzl, but unless you can prove they are wrong, it seems pretty clear that for most falling situations the crushable helmets are pretty darned good to have on your head. This does away with that old saw about helmets being only for falling rock and not for fallign into things, thus taking away one of the biggest excuses for not wearing one.
another example of deformable protection saving a climbers butt is, crash pads, which are fairly thin but have both closed cell adn open cell foam. I've seen people, myself iincluded, fall from 12 to 18 feet and hit these pads without being injured, partly from landing right, but also because of the deformation of the foam. You can calculate for yourself the kN of a 70 kg person falling 4 meters. YOu cna argue all day about the details of this calculation, but the fact remains that without the crash pads, not many people would be looking forward to the jarring impact of a 15 foot fall no matter how well they land.
|
|
|
|
|
azdesertgrl
Aug 21, 2003, 4:21 AM
Post #23 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 15, 2003
Posts: 20
|
Having taken a rock to the head while just watching a partner climb I am an avid fan of wearing a helmet at all times. After the trip out of the canyon and the hour ride to the ER for stitches and the fun of the headache, that $ spent on the helmet after, seems like such a small price to pay.
My partner also took a good sized rock to the head while belaying and if he had not been wearing that helmet (that actually was punctured by the rock) I fully believe I would be a widow or the wife of an invalid. We are now awaiting the new helmet, lol.
As the three of us NOW wear helmets all the time it has just become second nature, just part of the fun. One more thing to deal with.
Everybody's input on the topic is greatly appreciated, it is great to have this resource to learn a thing or two from.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 21, 2003, 5:30 AM
Post #24 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: NO, I'm not saying that at all. I have been referring to the info from petzl. I am saying that the petzl info with their helmets claims that they can absorb up to 10 kN in anything but a spine compressing hit. For the spine compressive hit they say 500 N. YOU CAN GO CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF ON THEIR PDFs for each new helmet. The Ecrin does not have this kind of info posted, and I'd like to know why since that is hte helmet I have, DOH!
Also the rounded object 5kg, 2meter drop also claims 10kn and it is a "spine compressive scenario." Don't take this personally but the only conclusion I can come to is that you are misinterpreting these drawings. I cant arrive at a correct interpretation either.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 21, 2003, 5:49 AM
Post #25 of 46
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
the only ecrin I saw on thier site when i searched on helmet is the explorer, and the little pictures for it don't show falling objects or falls, like the elios and meteor pdfs do. THey seem to think the stuff about the light is more important.
Yesterday I guess I spelled something wrong when I looked for the ecrin roc under it's own name, but just now I saw it's data sheet, yeah, it's the same sort of stuff, which seems kind of odd.
Just what do you think that picture of the compression means? It's well known that compression of the spine is the most dangerous kind of head injury, and it follows that the force that the helmt can protect you from in that instance is much less than for the other kinds of hits. I'm not sure what the 2.5 cm means, unless they are accounting for the full range of motion of "hunching your neck down" ( yeah it's a technical term). I would not think your spine coud survive a one inch compression either, but I could be wrong about that.
You are right, that first pic does look like a a straight down hit claiming up to 10kN, I don't get it, except that the other pics all show various not staright down the spine angles. Maybe that pic is to show the diff in the pointed vs non pointed object, that's all I can figure.
The other pictures seem clearly from the side or some other angle than dead on top of the head along the axis of the spine to me.
Maybe you can get petzl to explain what they mean, but I've never gotten an answer from em by email.
The english text clearly talks about falling objects as well as falling onto objects though.
I don't see how a shell type helmet can be as effective as a shell plus deformable foam crush type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
