|
|
|
|
puerto
Jan 7, 2006, 6:48 PM
Post #1 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 229
|
1) Once you've experienced being 6 feet above your last microcam, being 6 feet above your last bolt just isn't as scary..
2) This is really embarrassing to admit, but I've been climbing for 4years and never thought of this until I read it in another post..Interestingly, none of the myriad of climbing books I've read mentions this either..If your feet are 3 feet above the last bolt, you will fall 12 feet not 6 feet because the knot is now actually 6 feet above the last bolt..(plus rope stretch, etc)
I guess on the flip side of that is that you will hardly ever clip with the next bolt at your waist..I used to look at sport climbs and think "oh my god those bolts are 8 feet apart.." when in reality most of the times I'd be clipping the next bolt 4 feet out from the previous bolt..
3) Depending on your personality, taking your first big lead fall may actually make you more scared of leading i.e. instead of becoming habituated you become sensitized
4) It's a really nice feeling when instead of being able to top-rope 11a and only lead 9+, you can now still only top rope 11a but can lead 10+..
Comments appreciated but not necessary, like Oscar Wilde said "It's the confession, not the priest, that gives the absolution.."
Puerto
|
|
|
|
|
cully_larson
Jan 7, 2006, 8:19 PM
Post #2 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Posts: 28
|
I'm usually more afraid of falling on 5.9- climbs. There are often more jugs, slabs, etc. on easier climbs--more stuff to hit/sandpaper on the way down. 5.10+ on a flat face is pretty much cake as far as fear goes. All you have to do is fall, you probably won't hit anything on the way down.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jan 7, 2006, 8:40 PM
Post #3 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
i tend to have a much greater fear of falling when i'm 6' above a normal sized cam on bad rock, leading at my limit, with no pro in sight than i do leading about a microcam in good rock on semi-difficult terrain.
also, first ascents are a thrilling combination of fear and excitement- especially when you can look back and think how insane you were to have done what you just did....
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Jan 7, 2006, 8:43 PM
Post #4 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
Yeah, I have a real problem when it comes to .9's. I onsite up to 10+, and have never fallen off a 10! But I have fallen off just about every 9 I have ever led. On one such 9, I fell on the same move 3 times on to a micro nut, putting a perment bend in the cable.
|
|
|
|
|
arnoilgner
Jan 10, 2006, 3:48 PM
Post #5 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 366
|
Hello puerto
Some comments on your observations:
"If your feet are 3 feet above the last bolt, you will fall 12 feet not 6 feet because the knot is now actually 6 feet above the last bolt..(plus rope stretch, etc)"
Yes, it is important to know that you are tied into the rope at the harness not your feet, when assessing fall consequences. This is important in two main reasons.
One, as you mention, assess the fall based on how high your waist is, not feet or hands.
Two, most climbers do not climb to the bolt to clip but rather pull up a bunch of slack to make the clip. Doing this creates a much bigger fall than if one would climb to the bolt. Falling while going for one of these clips bring shivers to my spine. Better to be a little more uncomfortable and climb to the bolt.
"Depending on your personality, taking your first big lead fall may actually make you more scared of leading i.e. instead of becoming habituated you become sensitized."
Better practice falling to support your leading than avoiding it until the big one scares you from leading again. Learning works best in small increments.
arno
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 10, 2006, 3:59 PM
Post #6 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: 1) Once you've experienced being 6 feet above your last microcam, being 6 feet above your last bolt just isn't as scary..
Its all relative. That bolt might be a 30 year old 1/4 inch rawl split shaft with rust leaking out of the hole.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Jan 10, 2006, 4:24 PM
Post #7 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
<"If your feet are 3 feet above the last bolt, you will fall 12 feet not 6 feet because the knot is now actually 6 feet above the last bolt..(plus rope stretch, etc)"
Yes, it is important to know that you are tied into the rope at the harness not your feet, >
exactlly , it is more a function of how much rope is out so if you have that "6 feet (3+3)" out you will have to add stretch to that 12' number so you fall ah bit more then 12' but if traversing you can fall the 6' or so plus swing the arc adding more opportunity for trouble. a climber at seneca didn't protect an easy traverse and slipped with about 20' of rope out - swung on all that rope then the rope got behaind a flake and was severed. climber then fell 20 or so feet to a ledge. breaking ankles (i don't recall all the details). protect the easy stuff as well.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jan 10, 2006, 4:47 PM
Post #8 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: 3) Depending on your personality, taking your first big lead fall may actually make you more scared of leading i.e. instead of becoming habituated you become sensitized
JL
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 10, 2006, 5:02 PM
Post #9 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Two, most climbers do not climb to the bolt to clip but rather pull up a bunch of slack to make the clip. Doing this creates a much bigger fall than if one would climb to the bolt.
Actually the distance you fall is the same whether you clip the bolt over your head or at your waist. Either way, if you fall while clipping, the length of the fall will be 2 times the distance between the bolts. However, if you fall while clipping the bolt overhead, you will land lower than if you fell while clipping at your waist. For example, if the bolts are 10 feet apart, and you fall while clipping, you will fall a total distance of 20 feet regardless of whether you clip the bolt over your head or at your waist. If you clip at your waist, it is obvious that you will fall 20 feet and land 10 feet below the lower bolt. But say you fall while clipping the bolt 6 feet above your waist. First note that you have 16 feet of rope out: the 4 feet of rope between your lower bolt and your waist, plus 6 feet of rope from your waist up to the bolt, plus another 6 feet of rope running from the bolt back down to your knot. Since you have 16 feet of rope out you will land 16 feet below your lower bolt (as opposed to 10 feet if clipping at your waist), but your fall started with you (ie, your knot) only 4 feet above the lower bolt, so your total fall length is again 20 feet (16 + 4), just like it was when clipping over your head.
So, to recap, fall length is the same regardless of where you clip. However, when you clip overhead, since you are starting your fall from a lower position (compared with clipping at your waist), you will also end it a lower position. Therefore, the additional risk, if any, from clipping overhead is that you may hit obstacles (or the ground) further down the route. If the route is overhanging, and you are well above the ground, it should be no riskier to clip overhead than to clip at your waist.
Actually, when assessing fall consequences, you have to add to the fall length the amount of slack your belayer has in the rope, plus rope stretch. These factors make the fall considerably longer than one might think. It's common to keep about 3 feet of slack in the rope; add to that, say 4 feet of rope stretch, and what the climber might have thought was going to be a 15-foot fall actually turns out to be 22 feet, nearly 50% longer.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #10 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
duplicate post
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #11 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: I'm usually more afraid of falling on 5.9- climbs. There are often more jugs, slabs, etc. on easier climbs--more stuff to hit/sandpaper on the way down. 5.10+ on a flat face is pretty much cake as far as fear goes. All you have to do is fall, you probably won't hit anything on the way down.
you've obviously assimilated to the gym on campus and their plus, minus rating system. When you hit the outdoors, you'll find 9 and below typically don't get a modifier, and 5.10 plus or minus becomes a,b,c,or d.
eventually you'll pull a 5.6 roof and ooze off of a 5.10 slabfest. route steepness and grades don't necessarily correlate.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 5:37 PM
Post #12 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: I'm usually more afraid of falling on 5.9- climbs. There are often more jugs, slabs, etc. on easier climbs--more stuff to hit/sandpaper on the way down. 5.10+ on a flat face is pretty much cake as far as fear goes. All you have to do is fall, you probably won't hit anything on the way down. you've obviously assimilated to the gym on campus and their plus, minus rating system. When you hit the outdoors, you'll find 9 and below typically don't get a modifier, and 5.10 plus or minus becomes a,b,c,or d. eventually you'll pull a 5.6 roof and ooze off of a 5.10 slabfest. route steepness and grades don't necessarily correlate.
Hey there smart guy, he said usually.
And there are actually places besides your gym that use +/- grades instead of abcd. You were talking about the limits of experience? :P
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 5:49 PM
Post #13 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
First off, sorry for the redundant posting, browser error.
Secondly, caughtinmysphincter, don't take it out of context.
he said he's usually more affraid of falling on 5.9- climbs.
even to say that 5.9s are more typically full of features and 5.10+ are usually are more steep and with less features would be a crass generalization
Also, YDS grading does not assign plus or minus ratings on climbs. 5.10 and up are split into a,b,c, or d. The plusses and minusses that ocasionally accompany gradings in a guidebook depends on whether the author thinks the climb is stiff or soft for the grade.
If you've climbed at the gym on campus in Corvallis where the poster is from, or learned there as I did, you wouldn't know the above info about grading as they grade everything as 5.10+, 5.10, or 5.10-, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 10, 2006, 5:58 PM
Post #14 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Also, YDS grading does not assign plus or minus ratings on climbs. 5.10 and up are split into a,b,c, or d. The plusses and minusses that ocasionally accompany gradings in a guidebook depends on whether the author thinks the climb is stiff or soft for the grade.
And you've determined this to be 100% accurate based on your whole one year of climbing? Well, caughtinside is correct: some areas use +/- grades. For instance, at Red Rocks all trad routes are rated with three subdivisions using plusses and minuses (eg, 5.11-, 5.11, 5.11+) instead of the usual four letter-grade subdivisions.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 6:01 PM
Post #15 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
bobreuf, keep on bein' wrong. You're doing a great job!
Would this be a good time to mention that I've climbed 5.7+, 5.8-, 5.8+, 5.9-, 5.9+(gulp!), 5.10-, and 5.10+... all outdoors?
It's pretty common to see +/- grades at a climbing area that also uses the more traditional abcd ratings. Which you'd probably know, if you climbed at more than a few outdoor climbing areas. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 6:06 PM
Post #16 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: In reply to: Also, YDS grading does not assign plus or minus ratings on climbs. 5.10 and up are split into a,b,c, or d. The plusses and minusses that ocasionally accompany gradings in a guidebook depends on whether the author thinks the climb is stiff or soft for the grade. And you've determined this to be 100% accurate based on your whole one year of climbing? Well, caughtinside is correct: some areas use +/- grades. For instance, at Red Rocks all trad routes are rated with three subdivisions using plusses and minuses (eg, 5.11-, 5.11, 5.11+) instead of the usual four letter-grade subdivisions. Jay
I stand corrected-
-thanks jay for the info
still gotta say it was a bad generalization though
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 6:11 PM
Post #17 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: still gotta say it was a bad generalization though
Wrong! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 6:24 PM
Post #18 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: In reply to: still gotta say it was a bad generalization though Wrong! :lol:
:lol: so you'll stand by 5.9- climbs having more 'scary' falls than a 5.10+?
:lol:
The grade denotes difficulty, not steepness, size of features, or danger.
A better way to say it would have been that 'easier' climbs tend to have more to hit on the way down than 'difficult', steeper climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 6:28 PM
Post #19 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: still gotta say it was a bad generalization though Wrong! :lol: :lol: so you'll stand by 5.9- climbs having more 'scary' falls than a 5.10+? :lol: The grade denotes difficulty, not steepness, size of features, or danger. A better way to say it would have been that 'easier' climbs tend to have more to hit on the way down than 'difficult', steeper climbs.
As a generalization, it was fine. Sure, there are exceptions.
Allow me to generalize: Harder climbs are generally steeper, and generally have smaller features, generally resulting in safer falls.
So yes, I will stand by saying that 5.9 and under climbs generally are more dangerous to fall on than 5.10+.
But I wouldn't know for sure, since I don't fall on 5.9. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 6:40 PM
Post #20 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
In reply to: As a generalization, it was fine.
:lol: no, it really wan't :lol:
In reply to: Sure, there are exceptions.
:shock: To call the large number of 5.10 climbs that aren't vertical or overhanging (clean falls) exceptions is beyond absurd.
In reply to: Allow me to generalize: Harder climbs are generally steeper, and generally have smaller features, generally resulting in safer falls.
Whew, thank you for enlightening me with that gem of wisdom. I know I've learned something new. :wink:
In reply to: So yes, I will stand by saying that 5.9 and under climbs generally are more dangerous to fall on than 5.10+.
hey smart guy, the poster didn't say 5.9 and under. He said 5.9-.
If you've got to change the quote to help out your response, don't bother posting.
You know, with three thousand some odd posts you seem to be 'caughtinside' quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #21 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
bob, you're ridiculous, and you know jack shit about climbing. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 10, 2006, 6:47 PM
Post #22 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: hey smart guy, the poster didn't say 5.9 and under. He said 5.9-.
Since he contrasted "5.9-" and "5.10+," I believe he meant them to mean "5.9 and under" and "5.10 and over," respectively, rather than literal grades.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 7:22 PM
Post #23 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Only with you, caughtinside, does a debate over technicalities so quickly stoop to childish denigration.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 10, 2006, 7:28 PM
Post #24 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
See Jay's post about .9- and .10+. I assumed we were talking about two groups of climbs. Those .9 and under, and those .10 and up. Because it doesn't make any sense to discuss only climbs that are .9- and those that are exactly .10+.
Sorry, it was my mistake to assume that we were speaking in common climbing terms, since you obviously don't know them. You were wrong about +/- grades, who knows what else you are ignorant of?
I made that post about you not knowing what you're talking about, because you don't, which makes it difficult for me to discuss climbing with you. I simply can't speculate as to which basic climbing lingo/terms/practices/generalizations you don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 10, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #25 of 39
(11538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Well, I've been told that 5.9- is a legitemate climbing grade, so if we're speaking in common climbing terms, then apparently 5.9- would refer to climbs with the grade of 5.9- ...and likewise with 5.10+
if the poster wanted to refer to climbs easier than 5.9, then he'd post "<5.9"
you're absolutely right, it doesn't make sense to discuss climbs that are 5.9- and 5.10+ exclusively, hence my original response. Even to draw an arbitrary line at these grades would be ridiculous.
But again, thanks for attacking me personally, and trying to impugn my knowledge base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
