|
Adk
Mar 4, 2009, 11:01 PM
Post #76 of 177
(9830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
I'm glad I didn't have $90 to trash!!! 
USNAVY, If you ever have that kind of money to just throw away again I'd be happy to take a new OP cam from ya.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 4, 2009, 11:17 PM
Post #77 of 177
(9817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
ladyscarlett wrote: Sorry, as the a newbie I shouldn't throw stones at the glass house, but really.... jt512 wrote: Haven't you ever heard of giving an A for effort? Jay Is this like the trophy for participation that the non winning team gets, or school award for good attendance? Effort gets you the privileged of participating, A's are only for those who both try and succeed above and beyond, I've been constantly told. USNavy's efforts mean that he now gets to be a subject for discussion, and allowed to participate - but doesn't make what he has to say any more or less valid...the results must speak for themselves. In this case? That would be for all you experts to decide. On the newbie perspective.. learning interesting stuff about cams...and the viability of a conclusion made off a single data point...,I love seeing science determine what it "good." I learn lots... cheers ls
ls-- you might be too nice of a person to survive this site. Jay was being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 4, 2009, 11:25 PM
Post #78 of 177
(9811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: It seems that the test may actually have subtracted from our body of knowledge. Are you saying that reading this made us dumber, according to the statistics?
I would sure as hell like my brain cells back.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Mar 4, 2009, 11:32 PM
Post #79 of 177
(9803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: It seems that the test may actually have subtracted from our body of knowledge. Are you saying that reading this made us dumber, according to the statistics? I would sure as hell like my brain cells back. Curt
This thread just really ticked me off-- especially the willingness of folks to encourage the guy --not simply because it is so monumentally stupid or because it adds to the general stupidity of the site, but because if others start joining the crash test dummy club, there could be real life consequences for the rest of us.
Sooner or later, one of these meat bombs is going to get seriously injured or worse. Five'll get you ten, that this particular debacle was enacted on public lands.
Given the current climate, and the large numbers of places where access is touchy anyway, the last thing this sport needs is for its most publicly visible internet site to be seen encouraging gumbies to run out to the nearest crag and huck volunteer whippers onto random gear placements under the pathetic illusion that they are doing "science" of some sort.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 4, 2009, 11:42 PM
Post #80 of 177
(9806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
cracklover wrote: USnavy wrote: cracklover wrote: USnavy wrote: cracklover wrote: It sure sounds, though, like the direction of the fall line was not the same as the orientation of the cam. In such a situation, a fall of factor .3 is *not* a minor fall, as far as the the impact on the cam is concerned. It sounds like the BD cam had two of its lobes ripped out of the placement, such that the final position in which it caught the fall was more in line with the fall line. The cams were orientated in the direction of the anticipated fall. Falling from a distance where my feet was only slightly over the cam with about 25 feet of rope out is a minor fall. Again, if the cam was torqued due to something you did not anticipate about either the placement or the fall (you state that the cams were placed in line with the anticipated force, but also that the BD cam rotated 45 degrees) then that 6.5kN force in the direction of pull could result in very high forces at the individual lobes. GO What do you mean by "torqued"? It was pulled in such a way as to produce rotation or torsion on the piece. GO
This is the route I placed the cam on. The red arrow indicated the approximate location where I tested the cam. If I remember right the actual location of the cam is just slightly below the end of the picture. At most it’s within a foot of that red arrow. I was approximately at the same place the climber in the first picture is at when I fell onto the cam.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 4, 2009, 11:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Mar 4, 2009, 11:50 PM
Post #81 of 177
(9798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
No offence, dude, but I just cringed.
The bolt... it's right beside two cracks...
|
|
|
|
|
zxcv
Mar 5, 2009, 12:14 AM
Post #82 of 177
(9782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Posts: 96
|
Yeah, what is with the bolts? You can see two of them in the bottom picture. Does this indicate unreliable rock so that apparently solid placements would simply blow out? I hope so, as it would answer both why your placement failed and why such an easily protected route is bolted. Also, though one can not really tell, it looks as if that crack is very non-uniform, lending itself to passive gear and also increasing the possibility that the link cam was torqued in the fall. In other words- many previous posters appear to have the correct diagnosis.
K.l.K has a very good point if US was not backed up by a toprope or at the very least to one of the bolts shown in the pictures. It is plain idiotic to throw yourself onto “fair” gear without other safety measuers. However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold- this might not have been the safest way to do so, and it clearly does not warrant generalizations about anything whatsoever.
Still, I have intentionally taken short falls on gear with a toprope backup and clean fall line as a means of discovering how cams behave in different placements. Some held, some did not- some got tweaked. It was much more informative than bounce testing or following…
|
|
|
|
|
Sin
Mar 5, 2009, 12:49 AM
Post #83 of 177
(9762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 236
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: It seems that the test may actually have subtracted from our body of knowledge. Are you saying that reading this made us dumber, according to the statistics? I would sure as hell like my brain cells back. Curt
Sorry no refunds! You should have just dodged the U.S. draft!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 5, 2009, 1:00 AM
Post #84 of 177
(9756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: jt512 wrote: cracklover wrote: Actually, I believe that this test *does* show something, but not what the tester supposes. What we can learn from the test is that, based on a sample size of 2, the probability of a cam failing in a poorly characterized "marginal placement" in response to an unmeasured impact force is 0.500 ± 0.487ą; that is, roughly speaking, somewhere between 0 and 1. Before the test, most competent climbers knew not to trust marginal placements; however, based on these results, I don't think we can make such a blanket statement anymore—the confidence interval is just too wide. It seems that the test may actually have subtracted from our body of knowledge. Jay _____________ ąMean ± 95% confidence interval. Ha! But no, I'm serious.
I know, and I think you made a good point. I had already given your post 5 stars when I decided to use it as a springboard for my post.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 5, 2009, 1:08 AM
Post #85 of 177
(9750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
USnavy wrote: cracklover wrote: USnavy wrote: cracklover wrote: USnavy wrote: cracklover wrote: It sure sounds, though, like the direction of the fall line was not the same as the orientation of the cam. In such a situation, a fall of factor .3 is *not* a minor fall, as far as the the impact on the cam is concerned. It sounds like the BD cam had two of its lobes ripped out of the placement, such that the final position in which it caught the fall was more in line with the fall line. The cams were orientated in the direction of the anticipated fall. Falling from a distance where my feet was only slightly over the cam with about 25 feet of rope out is a minor fall. Again, if the cam was torqued due to something you did not anticipate about either the placement or the fall (you state that the cams were placed in line with the anticipated force, but also that the BD cam rotated 45 degrees) then that 6.5kN force in the direction of pull could result in very high forces at the individual lobes. GO What do you mean by "torqued"? It was pulled in such a way as to produce rotation or torsion on the piece. GO Maybe these pictures will help alittle well we are waiting on the placement pictures. This is the route I placed the cam on. The red arrow indicated the approximate location where I tested the cam. If I remember right the actual location of the cam is just slightly below the end of the picture.
So, let me get this straight. In order to help clarify your poorly controlled test you're posting a picture in which the placement in question is not in the frame.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 5, 2009, 2:33 AM
Post #86 of 177
(9715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
zxcv wrote: Yeah, what is with the bolts? You can see two of them in the bottom picture. Does this indicate unreliable rock so that apparently solid placements would simply blow out? I hope so, as it would answer both why your placement failed and why such an easily protected route is bolted. Also, though one can not really tell, it looks as if that crack is very non-uniform, lending itself to passive gear and also increasing the possibility that the link cam was torqued in the fall. In other words- many previous posters appear to have the correct diagnosis. K.l.K has a very good point if US was not backed up by a toprope or at the very least to one of the bolts shown in the pictures. It is plain idiotic to throw yourself onto “fair” gear without other safety measuers. However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold- this might not have been the safest way to do so, and it clearly does not warrant generalizations about anything whatsoever. Still, I have intentionally taken short falls on gear with a toprope backup and clean fall line as a means of discovering how cams behave in different placements. Some held, some did not- some got tweaked. It was much more informative than bounce testing or following…
The bolts are there because that is a sport route. Its 70 feet tall and only 15 feet follow a crack. Furthermore there is a recommended placement in the crack. The recommended placement is below the bolt shown in the picture. Lastly, that crack is not uniform and does not offer any bomber placements which leads to the reason why I chose it for my test. It also happens to be right at the first crux of the climb.
Of course I had a bolt clipped under the cam. I threw a two foot sling on the bolt in the first picture and placed the cam between the sling and the bolt. It would be rather idiotic of me to intentionally take falls on questionable placements without redundancy.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 5, 2009, 2:50 AM
Post #87 of 177
(9707 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 5, 2009, 2:52 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 5, 2009, 3:07 AM
Post #88 of 177
(9695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility?
Are you kidding?
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
Mar 5, 2009, 3:20 AM
Post #89 of 177
(9689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
steady_climbing wrote: Keep it up USNAVY!!! Lets see, we now have a thread concerning your evidently poor belaying skills and, now one showing poor gear placements. Just climb, stop filling this site with crap.
stfu
moving on, this is really interesting to hear.. .thanks for posting up navy!
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 5, 2009, 4:14 AM
Post #90 of 177
(9690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility? Are you kidding?
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 5, 2009, 4:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 5, 2009, 4:20 AM
Post #91 of 177
(9681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
USnavy wrote: jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility? Are you kidding? Enlighten me.
Geeze. I don't know what to say. It's self-evident. Don't you think a leader ought to know the difference between a good placement and a bad one?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 5, 2009, 4:25 AM
Post #92 of 177
(9677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility? Are you kidding? Enlighten me. Geeze. I don't know what to say. It's self-evident. Don't you think a leader ought to know the difference between a good placement and a bad one? Jay
Well, if you never fall, they're all good. 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 5, 2009, 5:01 AM
Post #93 of 177
(9660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility? Are you kidding? Enlighten me. Geeze. I don't know what to say. It's self-evident. Don't you think a leader ought to know the difference between a good placement and a bad one? Jay
Of course. That’s implied. However Zxcf said "there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold". He wrote it in the since that there is a specific technique or specific device that can determine if a placement is good. I am positive there is no device or tool that can positively identify if a placement is good or not, and beyond simple bounce testing, yanking on the cam, ect. I have never heard of any special physical action or technique that can determine if a placement is will hold (accept falling on it of course). So I am wondering what this magical utility is that he speaks of. That is unless he is simply referring to mileage / experience in which case that’s not really a utility, but a skill. A leader can only hypothesize as to if a placement will hold and the factors that weigh the hypothesis can only come from mileage and training.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 5, 2009, 5:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 5, 2009, 5:13 AM
Post #94 of 177
(9648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
USnavy wrote: Of course. That’s implied. However Zxcf said "there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold". He wrote it in the since that there is a specific technique or specific device that can determine if a placement is good. I am positive there is no device or tool that can positively identify if a placement is good or not, and beyond simple bounce testing, yanking on the cam, ect. I have never heard of any special physical action / technique that can determine if a placement is will hold (accept falling on it of course). So I am wondering what this magical utility is that he speaks of. That is unless he is simply referring to mileage / experience in which case that’s not really a utility, but a skill.
This might help.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...se/utility?qsrc=2888
utility [yoo-til-i-tee]
–noun
1. the state or quality of being useful; usefulness: This chemical has no utility as an agricultural fertilizer.
2. something useful; a useful thing.
3. a public service, as a telephone or electric-light system, a streetcar or railroad line, or the like. Compare public utility (def. 1).
4. Often, utilities. a useful or advantageous factor or feature: the relative utilities of a religious or a secular education.
5. Economics. the capacity of a commodity or a service to satisfy some human want.
6. the principle and end of utilitarian ethics; well-being or happiness; that which is conducive to the happiness and well-being of the greatest number.
7. Computers. utility program.
8. utilities, stocks or bonds of public utilities.
|
|
|
|
|
zxcv
Mar 5, 2009, 5:18 AM
Post #95 of 177
(9644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Posts: 96
|
By "utility" I meant usefulness... I did not mean to imply that there is "a/an" utility meaning some specific mechanism- though there is (falling). The term has both meanings, sorry if I was unclear.
In my opinion, the only way to know that a placement, a bolt or a tree (any anchor point) will hold a fall is to actually fall (though I suppose it only prves that the anchor would hold that specific fall). My first post was meant to indicate that i think what you were doing (falling on gear in a safe manner) has great utility (usefulness) as it can be a better teacher of good/bad placements than bouncing or following.
However, just because we can only "know" in the strictest sense that any specific anchor point will hold a fall by actually falling does not mean we are not warrented in trusting anchors that are not tested. Though never %100 certain, we can all make reasonable and educated estimates of an anchor point based upon experience (following, falling, bounce testing, reading, etc.) I was under the impression that this was what you were trying to do- gain real life experience to better educate yourself about gear placements.
Damn man, I was sticking up for you. And i am glad to hear that the route was not a completely bolted crack...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 5, 2009, 5:18 AM
Post #96 of 177
(9642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
USnavy wrote: jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: jt512 wrote: USnavy wrote: zxcv wrote: However, as has been pointed out, there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold And what is this great utility? Are you kidding? Enlighten me. Geeze. I don't know what to say. It's self-evident. Don't you think a leader ought to know the difference between a good placement and a bad one? Jay Of course. That’s implied. However Zxcf said "there is great utility for new leaders to discover what does and does not hold". He wrote it in the since that there is a specific technique or specific device that can determine if a placement is good. I am positive there is no device or tool that can positively identify if a placement is good or not, and beyond simple bounce testing, yanking on the cam, ect. I have never heard of any special physical action or technique that can determine if a placement is will hold (accept falling on it of course). So I am wondering what this magical utility is that he speaks of. That is unless he is simply referring to mileage / experience in which case that’s not really a utility, but a skill.
He did not say that there was "a great utility." He said that there was "great utility," meaning "great usefulness." Look it up.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Mar 5, 2009, 5:18 AM
Post #97 of 177
(9641 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
Unless you are a really slow learner, the more trad placements you place (and remove), the more you get a sense of what is good/marginal/junk.
But it is interesting--your average rec climber (like me) very rarely falls on gear (I know there are plenty of exceptions, but they're not the average). I've often wondered--how good a sense does that average climber really have? Certainly there are plenty of cases of people ripping gear and getting injured/killed on moderate routes that should take good gear.
I think it's a great idea to aid climb to really get a sense of how well gear works (and doesn't), but I haven't done that myself.
Sorry for wasting anyone's time with my random musings: please resume flaming.
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Mar 5, 2009, 5:59 AM
Post #98 of 177
(9619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
Navy,
Kindly remove the phrase "of course" from your working vocabulary when using this site. It's you brash confidence, after all, that's leaving us with such a poor impression of yourself. If you knew how evident your inexperience was, you'd stop asserting yourself in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 5, 2009, 4:27 PM
Post #100 of 177
(9889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
pfwein wrote: Unless you are a really slow learner, the more trad placements you place (and remove), the more you get a sense of what is good/marginal/junk. But it is interesting--your average rec climber (like me) very rarely falls on gear (I know there are plenty of exceptions, but they're not the average). I've often wondered--how good a sense does that average climber really have? Certainly there are plenty of cases of people ripping gear and getting injured/killed on moderate routes that should take good gear.
Right on. I think the one salient point in this whole discussion is this one. I doubt that US Navy's eye for gear placement is significantly better or worse than most people at his experience level.
Nearly every trad climber with a little experience can correctly identify a perfect placement, and a terrible one. But for all the placements that fall in the wide gray area in the middle, I suspect that most folks have a much poorer ability to judge what will happen to a piece in a significant fall than they think they do.
In reply to: I think it's a great idea to aid climb to really get a sense of how well gear works (and doesn't), but I haven't done that myself.
I think easy aid definitely helps a huge amount at the beginning of the learning curve. At the point where you understand the basics, but lack proficiency. But even aid climbing only takes you so far in understanding what works and what doesn't in lead falls.
Getting beyond that point only happens by putting the kind of forces on your gear that happens when you fall on it.* And falling on gear is inherently dangerous, especially when you don't have the knowledge gained by falling on your gear. Kind of a catch 22!
Because of that problem, it's normal for one's knowledge of gear placement to progresses beyond that intermediate point only rather slowly, over years and decades. This is not a bad thing. But it's the reason why most long term trad climbers suggest to new climbers that they should take their time before getting to the point where they're leading at their limit, and potentially falling on their gear. And even then, not to take falling on your gear lightly.
When you reach that catch 22 point - recognize that you're there, and if you're going to start falling, have the humility to know that you need to place backup gear when a fall is possible.
In reply to: Sorry for wasting anyone's time with my random musings: please resume flaming.
Not at all. Worthwhile points, and well said.
GO
*Of course, as I've pointed out, it's not necessary to have a person fall on your gear to generate those forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
