|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 13, 2008, 7:41 PM
Post #1 of 42
(4623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
1-You and your partner found a 50 feet rock to do some face climbing but the desired anchor was few feet away from the edge however, you noticed a closer natural anchor (tree) near the edge but questionable . You decided to use the tree as a redirect since it was closer to where you wanted to climb and then you setup your main anchor in the back some distance away.
Based on how you rig this TR, if your main anchor is rated to 18 KN, how strong your redirect anchor should be ?
A-Less than 18 KN
B-18 KN plus an additional (40%+) but no more than 36 KN
C- up to 2X of the original belay anchor
D-18 KN plus an additional 10 % = 19.8 KN
E-Same as main anchor or 18 KN
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
2- Your partner was up 10 feet when he lost his footing and since you did not do your TR redirect calculation correctly, the whole redirect was gone. Based on what you knew a typical dynamic 10.5 mm rope and since you had 90 feet of rope in service before your belay device cached, Your TR rope is going be stretched to;
A- No more than 2 additional feet
B- An additional 20% - 40% rope stretch
C- An additional 60% rope stretch
D- 90 feet plus an additional 2.5 % rope stretch
E- Partner may hit the ground
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Feb 13, 2008, 7:56 PM
Post #2 of 42
(4610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
... question 1 is meaningless without angles. Also, sort of meaningless in general...
question 2 also meaningless without specific dimensions.
Majid, man, this isn't your day.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 13, 2008, 7:58 PM
Post #3 of 42
(4605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In picture #2, the combined weight of the tree+ climber, dragged across the edge of the cliff, will saw through the rope, dropping the climber to the ground, where (Wile E Coyote-like), he will then be struck by the falling tree!
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 13, 2008, 8:05 PM
Post #4 of 42
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
glytch wrote: ... question 1 is meaningless without angles. Also, sort of meaningless in general... question 2 also meaningless without specific dimensions. Majid, man, this isn't your day.
Every thing is right there
may be you should respond after your PMS is over
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Feb 13, 2008, 8:12 PM
Post #5 of 42
(4588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
majid_sabet wrote: glytch wrote: ... question 1 is meaningless without angles. Also, sort of meaningless in general... question 2 also meaningless without specific dimensions. Majid, man, this isn't your day. Every thing is right there may be you should respond after your PMS is over
aww shucks. Well, let's make a deal: I promise I won't comment on your asinine threads if you learn high school physics and middle school trigonometry. Deal?
|
|
|
|
|
tuna
Feb 13, 2008, 8:25 PM
Post #6 of 42
(4570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2004
Posts: 188
|
This is really fucking stupid.
The whole setup is fucking stupid OR MAYBE THAT IS THE POINT.
ciao
Santana
|
|
|
|
|
theShiba
Feb 13, 2008, 10:13 PM
Post #7 of 42
(4536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 23
|
How is the tree the "redirect" anchor? If you know anything about physics, the greater percentage of load is on the tree, as pictured.
As for #2... does it really matter when there is a tree falling on top of you?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 13, 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #8 of 42
(4502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
theShiba wrote: How is the tree the "redirect" anchor? If you know anything about physics, the greater percentage of load is on the tree, as pictured. As for #2... does it really matter when there is a tree falling on top of you?
Also, may you want to teach some basic physics to
glytch
|
|
|
|
|
theShiba
Feb 13, 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #9 of 42
(4488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 23
|
No, I get it... the problem is: the. tree. broke. Now it's falling. Down. Onto the climber. Look at the picture. Maybe the rope will act as a pendulum and swing the climber out of the way of the falling tree...
I honestly don't know why I am keeping this going. I guess I am just getting sick of these asinine TR tests that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 14, 2008, 1:34 AM
Post #10 of 42
(4452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
theShiba wrote: No, I get it... the problem is: the. tree. broke. Now it's falling. Down. Onto the climber. Look at the picture. Maybe the rope will act as a pendulum and swing the climber out of the way of the falling tree... I honestly don't know why I am keeping this going. I guess I am just getting sick of these asinine TR tests that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Ok, since you are bored I will give your TR final exam right now;
Assuming you find a solid tree and I give 30 feet of webbing, one biner and a 60 meter rope and I ask you to setup the strongest and the safest anchor with minimum failure for a straight 50 meter long rappel. How do you rig your anchor?
|
|
|
|
|
tolman_paul
Feb 14, 2008, 1:37 AM
Post #11 of 42
(4448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 385
|
Tie the rope to the tree, assuming no ginsu edge for the rope to run over.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 14, 2008, 1:40 AM
Post #12 of 42
(4444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
tolman_paul wrote: Tie the rope to the tree, assuming no ginsu edge for the rope to run over.
how do you tie it ?
|
|
|
|
|
skinnyclimber
Feb 14, 2008, 1:47 AM
Post #13 of 42
(4434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 406
|
Answer to question 1. Place gear in a crack, place a bolt (if local ethics allow) or climb somewhere else.
Answer to question 2. The gear / bolt you placed as a redirect doesn't fail and you are fine. Or you climbed somewhere else and you are fine.
|
|
|
|
|
theShiba
Feb 14, 2008, 2:30 AM
Post #14 of 42
(4412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 23
|
Underhand monkeyfist.
|
|
|
|
|
no_email_entered
Feb 14, 2008, 3:10 AM
Post #15 of 42
(4392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 558
|
did you give up on TR test part III? I still didnt get where the top ropeing was taking place.
i really like this one tho.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Feb 14, 2008, 4:50 AM
Post #16 of 42
(4336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
The answer to question 1 is F - none of the above, because as long as your "main anchor" and your "redirect anchor" are each good for, oh I don't know, let's say 10kn, you'll be plenty safe, because ain't no way a tope rope fall will generate that much force.
|
|
|
|
|
itstoearly
Feb 14, 2008, 9:47 PM
Post #17 of 42
(4243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2005
Posts: 166
|
Question 1:
Rope breaks from rubbing that nice sharp edge.
Question 2:
The tree is about to kill your climber, so how far he falls is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
tuna
Feb 14, 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #18 of 42
(4218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2004
Posts: 188
|
How about who gives a damn about your stupid test.
Just walk off the top of the choss pile.
ciao
Santana
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Feb 15, 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #19 of 42
(4200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
majid_sabet wrote: few feet away from edge
Is this 30 feet or three feet? What does "few" mean here? Not that it matters but the question looks ill-conceived without sticking in real numbers even if they don't matter in the end.
majid_sabet wrote: ...in the back some distance away...
Do you mean directly in line with the climb and 3000 feet behind the tree or at a 90 degree angle (rope redirection) but six inches from the tree? Again, the question looks pretty lame without this information. It makes it look like you are not competent even if the numbers don't affect the answer.
majid_sabet wrote: A-Less than 18 KN
Why would anyone ever say that an anchor SHOULD be less than any specific value. That's just stupid. Also, zero is less than that and zero is not really acceptable, is it?
majid_sabet wrote: B-18 KN plus an additional (40%+) but no more than 36 KN
Completely unnecessary for a TR anchor.
majid_sabet wrote: C- up to 2X of the original belay anchor
What the hell does "up to" mean? 0.00001kn qualifies as being "up to" 2x of the original belay anchor. This is a gibberish answer without giving both ends of the range. Or maybe zero, as the assumed lower end of an "up to" range is what you meant like in the "lower than 18kn..." answer. That's pretty dumb.
BTW, I'd like to mail you up to 2 million dollars. What is your address.
majid_sabet wrote: D-18 KN plus an additional 10 % = 19.8 KN
At least this is a reasonable choice since it's not a range from zero to 2000000kn or anything dumb like that. Still, This is getting tiring.
majid_sabet wrote: E-Same as main anchor or 18 KN
Ah. Less gibberish.
My guesses are:
1. If the rock is close to the tree and when the tree falls off the cliff such that the climber will get dropped less than 1 foot from the event, the tree is pointless as part of the anchor.
or
2. If the rock is far enough from the tree that when the tree falls, the climber hits the ground regardless of where he/she is on the climb then the tree needs to BE the anchor and the rock is useless. It must hold the full force and the anchor must be appropriate for any TR situation. Of course if this is the real question then the force the tree must hold will be more than the rock must hold based on the angle of the rope through the tree anchor carabiners. So what is that angle?
or
3. If the rock is far enough to the side but close enough to the tree that the climber won't hit the ground when the tree fails but will swing to the side and hit the death-sticks that protrude from the side of the climb then the tree again must be the anchor and the rock is pointless.
or
4. If the rock is lined up with the tree and the climber then what is the tree use for again? Maybe keeping the rope from rubbing on the edge of the cliff then it needs to hold some reasonable TR fall. If the edge is sharp then we're back to the tree needing to hold the full force and the rock is no longer useful again.
On the other hand, another possible answer is that this is a deep-water free-solo type of climb and as long as the tree won't hit the climber, the anchors are not necessary. The climber simply falls into the water then swims to shore at which point eh tree falls on him there.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 15, 2008, 1:59 AM
Post #20 of 42
(4176 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
drector wrote: majid_sabet wrote: few feet away from edge Is this 30 feet or three feet? What does "few" mean here? Not that it matters but the question looks ill-conceived without sticking in real numbers even if they don't matter in the end. majid_sabet wrote: ...in the back some distance away... Do you mean directly in line with the climb and 3000 feet behind the tree or at a 90 degree angle (rope redirection) but six inches from the tree? Again, the question looks pretty lame without this information. It makes it look like you are not competent even if the numbers don't affect the answer. majid_sabet wrote: A-Less than 18 KN Why would anyone ever say that an anchor SHOULD be less than any specific value. That's just stupid. Also, zero is less than that and zero is not really acceptable, is it? majid_sabet wrote: B-18 KN plus an additional (40%+) but no more than 36 KN Completely unnecessary for a TR anchor. majid_sabet wrote: C- up to 2X of the original belay anchor What the hell does "up to" mean? 0.00001kn qualifies as being "up to" 2x of the original belay anchor. This is a gibberish answer without giving both ends of the range. Or maybe zero, as the assumed lower end of an "up to" range is what you meant like in the "lower than 18kn..." answer. That's pretty dumb. BTW, I'd like to mail you up to 2 million dollars. What is your address. majid_sabet wrote: D-18 KN plus an additional 10 % = 19.8 KN At least this is a reasonable choice since it's not a range from zero to 2000000kn or anything dumb like that. Still, This is getting tiring. majid_sabet wrote: E-Same as main anchor or 18 KN Ah. Less gibberish. My guesses are: 1. If the rock is close to the tree and when the tree falls off the cliff such that the climber will get dropped less than 1 foot from the event, the tree is pointless as part of the anchor. or 2. If the rock is far enough from the tree that when the tree falls, the climber hits the ground regardless of where he/she is on the climb then the tree needs to BE the anchor and the rock is useless. It must hold the full force and the anchor must be appropriate for any TR situation. Of course if this is the real question then the force the tree must hold will be more than the rock must hold based on the angle of the rope through the tree anchor carabiners. So what is that angle? or 3. If the rock is far enough to the side but close enough to the tree that the climber won't hit the ground when the tree fails but will swing to the side and hit the death-sticks that protrude from the side of the climb then the tree again must be the anchor and the rock is pointless. or 4. If the rock is lined up with the tree and the climber then what is the tree use for again? Maybe keeping the rope from rubbing on the edge of the cliff then it needs to hold some reasonable TR fall. If the edge is sharp then we're back to the tree needing to hold the full force and the rock is no longer useful again. On the other hand, another possible answer is that this is a deep-water free-solo type of climb and as long as the tree won't hit the climber, the anchors are not necessary. The climber simply falls into the water then swims to shore at which point eh tree falls on him there. Dave
Dave
You confused yourself. At 9 KN the tree starts to see some action . This is due to MA created by redirect. at 18Kn one of those anchor will pop cause the main in rated at 18. For redirect to survive and not to fail before main anchor, it must take min of 2X of the main anchor.
At 90 degree angle (what you see out there) it could see additional 40% + extra forces .
Next; when you have 90 feet of rope in service (as I was shown) and you are 10 feet up and loose your redirect, you are guaranteed up to 40% extra stretch in your rope length. At 10% rope stretch (9+ feet drop) your partner will deck not counting amount of pendulum to one side. When you have 40 feet of rope distance to redirect and another 50 feet of rope to climber, hitting the ground is guaranteed 100% even without a rope stretch with such pendulum .
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Feb 15, 2008, 2:01 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Feb 15, 2008, 2:36 AM
Post #21 of 42
(4144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
If I were a mod I'd consider to move all this bull$hit of "TR tests" from the beginners forums before someone takes them seriously. Unfortunately this self-appointed "rope master" can create quite a bit of confusion.
With 90º angle you get 40%+ forces?? Check your basic trigonometry:
F_anchor = 2xFxcos(45) = 1.05xF --> an extra 5%, not 40% (and that would be without friction in the biner)
Stretch of 40%?? That's a bungee, not a climbing rope.
Top ropes generating 18kN???
Please....
|
|
|
|
|
tuna
Feb 15, 2008, 2:51 AM
Post #22 of 42
(4131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2004
Posts: 188
|
yokese wrote: If I were a mod I'd consider to move all this bull$hit of "TR tests" from the beginners forums before someone takes them seriously. Unfortunately this self-appointed "rope master" can create quite a bit of confusion.
Yes you hit the nail on the head about the idiot being a self-appointed rope master.
ciao
Santana
|
|
|
|
|
Drjellyfinger
Feb 15, 2008, 3:44 AM
Post #23 of 42
(4111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 8
|
tuna wrote: yokese wrote: If I were a mod I'd consider to move all this bull$hit of "TR tests" from the beginners forums before someone takes them seriously. Unfortunately this self-appointed "rope master" can create quite a bit of confusion. Yes you hit the nail on the head about the idiot being a self-appointed rope master. ciao Santana
You aren't kidding tuna!
it's clear that if you tied a full douche bag (or the poster) to the climber in the CARTOON, the whole system would fail.......
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 15, 2008, 4:56 AM
Post #24 of 42
(4091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
yokese wrote: If I were a mod I'd consider to move all this bull$hit of "TR tests" from the beginners forums before someone takes them seriously. Unfortunately this self-appointed "rope master" can create quite a bit of confusion. With 90º angle you get 40%+ forces?? Check your basic trigonometry: F_anchor = 2xFxcos(45) = 1.05xF --> an extra 5%, not 40% (and that would be without friction in the biner) Stretch of 40%?? That's a bungee, not a climbing rope. Top ropes generating 18kN??? Please....
three anchors, same forces applied as load = 10kn.how much forces each redirect anchor will see ?
get on it
[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/]
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 15, 2008, 5:13 AM
Post #25 of 42
(4081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
yokese wrote: If I were a mod I'd consider to move all this bull$hit of "TR tests" from the beginners forums before someone takes them seriously. Unfortunately this self-appointed "rope master" can create quite a bit of confusion. With 90º angle you get 40%+ forces?? Check your basic trigonometry: F_anchor = 2xFxcos(45) = 1.05xF --> an extra 5%, not 40% (and that would be without friction in the biner) Stretch of 40%?? That's a bungee, not a climbing rope. Top ropes generating 18kN??? Please....
most dynamic rope elongations are between 30 to 38% and yes they act like a bongee cord.
GOT IT?
http://mtntools.com/...e/03DynamicRope.html
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Feb 15, 2008, 7:25 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
