|
krosbakken
Oct 13, 2008, 1:18 AM
Post #1 of 42
(10355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 581
|
I was just sitting and thinking back to something I read or heard about pulling on your protection to test it a bit. Im talking free climbing here. When I lead yes, I pull or yank on my nut placements or anything passive. But now that I think about it. I don't yank or pull on my cam placements.
Im just kinda thinking out loud, but do you pull or test you cam placements?? Because I don't.
(This post was edited by krosbakken on Oct 13, 2008, 1:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Oct 13, 2008, 1:21 AM
Post #2 of 42
(10350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Do you mean pulling on quickdraws with your ice tools on M routes?
|
|
|
|
|
Maddhatter
Oct 13, 2008, 1:23 AM
Post #3 of 42
(10346 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2008
Posts: 1752
|
krosbakken wrote: I was just sitting and thinking back to something I read or heard about pulling on your protection to test it a bit. Im talking free climbing here. When I lead yes, I pull or yank on my nut placements or anything passive. But now that I think about it. I don't yank or pull on my cam placements. Im just kinda thinking out loud, but do you pull or test you cam placements??
No.
Sounds like a good way to go blind. 
Ok, some times I do if there sketchy.
(This post was edited by Maddhatter on Oct 13, 2008, 1:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 13, 2008, 1:59 AM
Post #5 of 42
(10300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
krosbakken wrote: I was just sitting and thinking back to something I read or heard about pulling on your protection to test it a bit. Im talking free climbing here. When I lead yes, I pull or yank on my nut placements or anything passive. But now that I think about it. I don't yank or pull on my cam placements. Im just kinda thinking out loud, but do you pull or test you cam placements??
As with everything else its situational but yeah, I frequently "test" nut and cam placements.
It was discussed, with some good insight, not to long ago here - http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Oct 13, 2008, 2:03 AM
Post #6 of 42
(10295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
notappliable wrote: michaellane wrote: One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load Link here - http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iew&post=1908493 - Hmmmmmm, sounds like gear tuggers might know a little something after all.  I all seriousness though, I do think that is something everyone should see and its not gonna get many eyes on it in I&A, so I brought it out here.
This is a cross post from that thread and links an accident investigation thread that produced interesting results concerning the value of setting a piece (specifically cams) and how doing so improves the likely hood of the piece holding a fall.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Oct 13, 2008, 2:35 AM
Post #7 of 42
(10251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
God, I love inside jokes that only I get. I almost think inside jokes that no-one is on are might be the best.
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
Oct 13, 2008, 2:48 AM
Post #8 of 42
(10239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
STFU!
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Oct 13, 2008, 2:53 AM
Post #9 of 42
(10233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
With the fleshlight, you don't yank on your gear. I'd link it but the mods would get me.
|
|
|
|
|
seatbeltpants
Oct 13, 2008, 2:55 AM
Post #10 of 42
(10232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581
|
dude i was belaying yesterday gave a cam placement a hefty yank and a rock the size of his head spun gracefully down to crash at my feet. so yeah, i'm of the opinion that it's not just yer nuts that need a tug. but what would i know...
steve
|
|
|
|
|
climbingtrash
Oct 13, 2008, 3:38 AM
Post #11 of 42
(10196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2006
Posts: 5114
|
Only on the dicey/shallow placements do I ever give the cams a tug. I'm mostly climbing sandstone and pulling on a cam at times can give you a better idea of whether the placement/rock is good or not.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Oct 13, 2008, 1:03 PM
Post #12 of 42
(10128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
angry wrote: With the fleshlight, you don't yank on your gear. I'd link it but the mods would get me.
|
|
|
|
|
lwilson
Oct 13, 2008, 2:16 PM
Post #13 of 42
(10099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2006
Posts: 101
|
I sometimes test my cam placements, but it depends on the placement itself, like if the placement wasn't straight forward, or was a little funky. I tend to test a cam before a crux or harder section too. Maybe I do this because I haven't been trad climbing long, and I am still building my confidence ?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 13, 2008, 3:14 PM
Post #14 of 42
(10055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I almost always test my cams, just a good tug to make sure they're solid. Once I set a rap anchor with 2 cams and didn't tug on them, and they both failed. I'm pretty sure if I had pulled on them just a little, then I would have seen that they were placed against a loose block.
|
|
|
|
|
mattb1921
Oct 13, 2008, 3:53 PM
Post #15 of 42
(10021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 144
|
I tug now and then depending on the rock quality or placement. Sometimes i do it so that it sets in the direction it would take a fall. I have a buddy who is an aid climber and when I second him on a free pitch I always have a nightmare removing any nuts he places. I swear he sets them with his body weight.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Oct 13, 2008, 10:57 PM
Post #16 of 42
(9915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
krosbakken wrote: I was just sitting and thinking back to something I read or heard about pulling on your protection to test it a bit. Im talking free climbing here. When I lead yes, I pull or yank on my nut placements or anything passive. But now that I think about it. I don't yank or pull on my cam placements. Im just kinda thinking out loud, but do you pull or test you cam placements?? Because I don't.
I do. I keep one of those Metolius Pocket Aiders on me and bounce test all my gear. I'm just very careful that afterwards I downclimb to the exact holds that I was on when I placed the piece so that I wasn't using the aiders for upward mobility. Even bumping up 1 hold, even accidentally, would disqualify the free ascent.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Oct 14, 2008, 12:22 AM
Post #18 of 42
(9860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: I almost always test my cams, just a good tug to make sure they're solid. Once I set a rap anchor with 2 cams and didn't tug on them, and they both failed. I'm pretty sure if I had pulled on them just a little, then I would have seen that they were placed against a loose block.
How did that situation pan out? Did you ride the block to the ground? Sounds like you're lucky to be alive!
(This post was edited by joeforte on Oct 14, 2008, 12:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
alleyehave
Oct 14, 2008, 12:28 AM
Post #19 of 42
(9854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
|
rgold wrote: All cam placements should be set with a jerk. Consider the results of the tests Omega Pacific did on cam placements after the infamous JT failure: michaellane wrote: One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load. This quote is part of the text referenced upthread.
This theory would be in regards to the action of the cam obtaining necessary friction in order for the camming effect to take place. Such is very important in shallow placements. But I would not bother to take the the time on a deep uniform parallel placement, unless extremely slick (unlikely).
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 14, 2008, 1:40 AM
Post #20 of 42
(9816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
joeforte wrote: climbingaggie03 wrote: I almost always test my cams, just a good tug to make sure they're solid. Once I set a rap anchor with 2 cams and didn't tug on them, and they both failed. I'm pretty sure if I had pulled on them just a little, then I would have seen that they were placed against a loose block. How did that situation pan out? Did you ride the block to the ground? Sounds like you're lucky to be alive!
I made it out, I should type this up in the I&A but it was before I was a member, but the block didn't come down, it just spit the cams out. I fell 40 feet to the deck. I broke: my pelvis, 3 metatarsals, my scafoid (wrist) had a severe concussion, and had to get some stitches, because the cams hit me after I hit the ground.
I was TR soloing so about 30 mins after I fell a family found me and called 911, I got carried to the road, driven the the helipad, and flown to the hospital. I spent 1 day in ICU, 10 days total in the hospital, had 5 surgeries several pins put in (and taken out) I didn't walk for 3 months and didn't climb for 6 months.
After it was all said and done, I have occasional pain in my pelvis and ankle, I lost about 10 degrees of flexion in my wrist. The worst part is I still hate leaning over the edge when rappelling but maybe that makes me safer.
|
|
|
|
|
joeforte
Oct 14, 2008, 1:57 AM
Post #21 of 42
(9803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
Wow, good to hear you made it out alive. Like you said, you're probably a safer climber as a result. Your story actually might make people think twice before they set off over the edge.
I arrived at a belay once to see my friend had set all of his pro in a crack alongside a loose block. After realizing what could have happened, he said he'll never put all his eggs in one basket again.
|
|
|
|
|
krosbakken
Oct 14, 2008, 2:45 AM
Post #22 of 42
(9767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 581
|
rgold wrote: All cam placements should be set with a jerk. Consider the results of the tests Omega Pacific did on cam placements after the infamous JT failure: michaellane wrote: One interesting thing we noted was how important "setting" the piece was. A simple tug on the gear before it's loaded made a difference in whether the gear held or popped. Even some compromised placements that were spit out when we didn't "set" the piece held fast when the gear was "set" prior to the load. This quote is part of the text referenced upthread.
mmmmm. interesting. thanks
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Oct 14, 2008, 8:55 AM
Post #23 of 42
(9740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
alleyehave wrote: This theory would be in regards to the action of the cam obtaining necessary friction in order for the camming effect to take place. Such is very important in shallow placements. But I would not bother to take the the time on a deep uniform parallel placement, unless extremely slick...
Personally, I just don't know. There is nothing in the elementary theory of the cam shape and its interaction with wall friction that would indicate that setting a cam would make any difference at all in its holding power. But in reality, the assumption that friction behaves in the idealized way is probably wrong, and the effects of lobe deformation under load are not part of the elementary theory.
Moreover, if classical friction is decisive, than there doesn't seem to me to be any reason to suppose that shallow placements need to be treated differently than deep ones. That assertion seems to assume that cams can recover from slipping by re-engaging if the placement is deep enough. Whether this is true in parallel-sided placements I have no idea. It seems as if it would depend on how effective the cam springs are in getting the lobes back in contact with the walls...
By the way, the elementary theory would tell you that if the cam withstands a jerk, it will withstand any load (that does not deform the lobes or destroy an axle---some big ifs) and so jerking as a testing method would give an excellent idea of the cam's security. But this description is based on the concept that the resisting frictional force is proportional to the normal force, an idea whose validity I just got done impugning. Even though that reasoning might be faulty, I considered it enough reason to always jerk on cams, even before I read Michael Lane's test results. And I've been surprised a number of times to have a cam that looked at least adequate come flying out when tested this way.
|
|
|
|
|
taydude
Oct 14, 2008, 12:15 PM
Post #25 of 42
(9682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2006
Posts: 531
|
I was setting an anchor once and put a cam under this block, gave it a yank and the block lifted up and the cam popped out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
