|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 5:39 PM
Post #51 of 93
(8459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying and then still, it's tough to do. When a person is clipped in while climbing as opposed to tied in, there are only two possible sources of pull on the biner. The rope, and the harness. Some would argue semantics and fine points because if the biner is running through two tie in points then technically there are three points of contact. When it's loaded however, just as with a rope tied in, the force is in one location. This is all bullshit though to begin with. You're just so eager to point out something that's incorrect in an attempt to make yourself appear knowledgeable that you miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter if TRIAXIALLY is a word or not. It is, but it won't happen to a climber being top-roped. As a matter of fact, it's pretty damned difficult to load a biner at three points. I'm pretty sure they design them that way. Look on your biners and you'll see an open gate strength along the long axis, a closed gate along the same, and a cross axis strength. Let me know if you find one with three arrows for triaxial loading strength smartass.
STFU, n00b. You don't know what you're talking about.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #52 of 93
(8448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
"...and when a smart-ass makes a mistake you point it out."
You mean... like this?
"You will not find a picture for triaxial loading strength, not because it is hard to load a carabiner on three axes, but because it is a bad idea to do so."
So by that rationale, we shouldn't find a picture of open-gate lengthwise loading either; minor axis loading of a carabiner; veeeerrry bad idea-yet it is there. And actually, it is difficult to load a biner three ways. The directions of force have to be damn near perfectly perpendicular to where they come into contact with the biner, and also have fairly equal amounts of pull. If not, then they tend to slip together into one location at the deepest part of the basket; try it. You'll see. But again, this is not the point.
" By ranting on somebody in a beginners forum for having trouble with a figure-8 you give the vibe of being a smart-ass..."
Really? First, I did not rant, and if I did, it was for a good reason. Being able to competently tie in is the very bottom tier of what any climber should know; even the most novice. If you have not mastered this simple task after an outing or two, you probably shouldn't be climbing. Second, if I seem harsh by saying that if a seven year old can correctly tie in with a retraced 8 and Yosemite finish AND get the knot untied with the help of her belayer (which is me the vast majority of the time) then I don't care. If you're so sensitive that this offends you, I have no sympathy. If a kid with the fraction of strength of an adult can do it, an adult with the help of his or her belayer should be able to as well.
My point is that no one has disputed that tying in is preferable to clipping in because of at least some small margin of error that can exist with clipping in. Also, if you add to this fact that a seven year old can do it, does it not then become laughable that grown climbers claim reasons why they should not, or would not?
The opposition to my platform is that in certain situations, it's ok to clip in. Here's #1: Speed. One guide, multiple noobs. Big deal. An extra thirty seconds per person for a little added security and practicing proper, time-tested methods. #1 reason debunked.
#2 The knot is just way too tight for me or my belayer to untie after having fallen on it multiple times. Bullshit. I am far from being a strong climber. I would venture to say in the strength department (particularly hand and finger) that I'm below average, and I can do it. #2 reason debunked.
#3 It's really not any less secure than tying in. Look up statistics. It is. More accidents and injuries have happened at and because of the point with which the rope is attached to the climber from clipping than tying in. Period. #3 reason debunked.
Go ahead and clip in though. It's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 6:04 PM
Post #53 of 93
(8442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying and then still, it's tough to do. When a person is clipped in while climbing as opposed to tied in, there are only two possible sources of pull on the biner. The rope, and the harness. Some would argue semantics and fine points because if the biner is running through two tie in points then technically there are three points of contact. When it's loaded however, just as with a rope tied in, the force is in one location. This is all bullshit though to begin with. You're just so eager to point out something that's incorrect in an attempt to make yourself appear knowledgeable that you miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter if TRIAXIALLY is a word or not. It is, but it won't happen to a climber being top-roped. As a matter of fact, it's pretty damned difficult to load a biner at three points. I'm pretty sure they design them that way. Look on your biners and you'll see an open gate strength along the long axis, a closed gate along the same, and a cross axis strength. Let me know if you find one with three arrows for triaxial loading strength smartass. STFU, n00b. You don't know what you're talking about. Jay
LOL. Great input Jay. I'm not intimidated. I don't care how hard you send or what your image of yourself is, I don't share your perspective, and I won't be shutting the fuck up. I have just as much of a right to speak here as you, and I do know what I'm talking about. Do people actually ever do what you tell them to? You're one of those guys that gets a chubb from picking on people less experienced or with less skill than yourself aren't you? I'll bet it's particularly pleasurable for you when you actually get compliance with your asanine order spray. Dick. 
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Oct 18, 2011, 6:42 PM
Post #54 of 93
(8431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Noobs should be taught to do things in the safest manner possible. Noobs should not give other noobs advice based upon their inexperienced assessment of what is safe and what is not.
Triaxial loading implies cross loading, which is inarguably a dangerous situation. Clipping in instead of tying in invites the very scenario that we wish to avoid. And for what? 30 seconds of convenience?
Jay is a pompous ass, but he is right.
STFU, noob.
Tie the fuck in.
(This post was edited by shimanilami on Oct 18, 2011, 6:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #56 of 93
(8404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying and then still, it's tough to do. When a person is clipped in while climbing as opposed to tied in, there are only two possible sources of pull on the biner. The rope, and the harness. Some would argue semantics and fine points because if the biner is running through two tie in points then technically there are three points of contact. When it's loaded however, just as with a rope tied in, the force is in one location. This is all bullshit though to begin with. You're just so eager to point out something that's incorrect in an attempt to make yourself appear knowledgeable that you miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter if TRIAXIALLY is a word or not. It is, but it won't happen to a climber being top-roped. As a matter of fact, it's pretty damned difficult to load a biner at three points. I'm pretty sure they design them that way. Look on your biners and you'll see an open gate strength along the long axis, a closed gate along the same, and a cross axis strength. Let me know if you find one with three arrows for triaxial loading strength smartass. STFU, n00b. You don't know what you're talking about. Jay . . . and I do know what I'm talking about.
No, you're actually a stupid, clueless n00b, who's on his way to a Darwin award.
You wrote: The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying . . .
Argument from ignorance, n00b. I've seen someone rappel an entire pitch with their biner in a stable triaxial configuration.
You wrote: [I]t's [triaxial loading] tough to do.
Wrong. There's nothing tough about it. The fact that you have never seen it just means you're a n00b, haven't been paying attention, or both.
You wrote: When a person is clipped in while climbing as opposed to tied in, there are only two possible sources of pull on the biner. The rope, and the harness.
If the biner is clipped through the two tie-in points (gotta wonder why they're called that, eh?), then there are three possible of pull on the biner. This is obvious, you twit.
You wrote: Some would argue semantics and fine points because if the biner is running through two tie in points then technically there are three points of contact.
Semantics? Hardly. Triaxial loading of the carabiner occurs exactly when the biner is loaded, um, triaxially with the rope and the two tie in points pulling in three different directions.
You wrote: [I]t's pretty damned difficult to load a biner at three points. I'm pretty sure they design them that way.
No, they're not designed that way. On the contrary, the locking sleeve of a locking biner predisposes the biner to triaxial loading.
You wrote: Look on your biners and you'll see an open gate strength along the long axis, a closed gate along the same, and a cross axis strength. Let me know if you find one with three arrows for triaxial loading strength smartass.
Look at the printed material that came with your biners, dumbass.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 8:05 PM
Post #57 of 93
(8397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
shimanilami wrote: Noobs should be taught to do things in the safest manner possible. Noobs should not give other noobs advice based upon their inexperienced assessment of what is safe and what is not. Triaxial loading implies cross loading, which is inarguably a dangerous situation. Clipping in instead of tying in invites the very scenario that we wish to avoid. And for what? 30 seconds of convenience? Jay is a pompous ass, but he is right. STFU, noob. Tie the fuck in.
You're saying the very same thing I did. I wasn't advocating clipping in. Quite the opposite. Perhaps if you weren't in such a blurred rush to both affirm my opinion of Jay and hop on his nuts at the same time (so confusing) you would have noticed that.
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 8:12 PM
Post #58 of 93
(8389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
marc801 wrote: jjones16 wrote: And actually, it is difficult to load a biner three ways. Actually, it isn't... [image]http://www.alpinets.com/images/triaxle.jpg[/image] ...esp. in belay anchors. Like Jay suggested: please STFU...you really don't quite know what you're talking about.
Jesus. Should we strap a saddle to Jay's nuts so everyone can get a comfy ride? If you read my post, it says that the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading. Look at your picture you dumb ass-kissing shitbird. That's exactly what is displayed. In this same picture, it's clear that the strands are not loaded. If you were to load them and the two on the basket end weren't close to the same force, they would both end up in the deep end of the basket, essentially pulling on the same part of the biner and negating the triaxial loading. I think you should try it and see if you get that result before you post some picture that both reaffirms one part of what I said and doesn't disprove the other part all while trying to earn brownie points with some dick that you look up to because he can send harder grades than you.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Oct 18, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #59 of 93
(8379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Jay and I have a long history of hopping on one another's nuts, even when we are in complete agreement. If I ever have the good fortune of meeting him face to face, I plan to kick him in the balls, and then offer him a beer (or was it scotch that you prefer, Jay?)
Your posts seemed to imply that cross-loading (or "triaxial" loading, whatever you prefer) is a myth. Forgive me for misinterpretting your posts, but I am sure I'm not the only one to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 18, 2011, 8:29 PM
Post #60 of 93
(8377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 18, 2011, 8:40 PM
Post #61 of 93
(8371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
jjones16 wrote: marc801 wrote: jjones16 wrote: And actually, it is difficult to load a biner three ways. Actually, it isn't... [image]http://www.alpinets.com/images/triaxle.jpg[/image] ...esp. in belay anchors. Like Jay suggested: please STFU...you really don't quite know what you're talking about. Jesus. Should we strap a saddle to Jay's nuts so everyone can get a comfy ride? If you read my post, it says that the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading. Look at your picture you dumb ass-kissing shitbird. That's exactly what is displayed. In this same picture, it's clear that the strands are not loaded. If you were to load them and the two on the basket end weren't close to the same force, they would both end up in the deep end of the basket, essentially pulling on the same part of the biner and negating the triaxial loading. I think you should try it and see if you get that result before you post some picture that both reaffirms one part of what I said and doesn't disprove the other part all while trying to earn brownie points with some dick that you look up to because he can send harder grades than you.
You really are quite ignorant of things that you claim to know. Perpendicular means at 90 degree angles - like the corner of a book. Those directions of pull (picture) are not perpendicular.
There are probably a number of reasons you don't see triaxial strengths on a biner, most notably that they aren't tested that way because it's contrary to their intended use.
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 8:43 PM
Post #62 of 93
(8369 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
"No, you're actually a stupid, clueless n00b, who's on his way to a Darwin award."
Just more prickery. To be expected.
"I've seen someone rappel an entire pitch with their biner in a stable triaxial configuration."
I submit to you, asshole, that you climb with noobs then. First, I don't rap in a manner that would be conducive to triaxial loading. Two points of loading: There's the point at which my biner is attached to the sling, and the other side has the ropes running through it. If indeed I was triaxially loaded and noticed it, I would lock off and fix it. To suggest that someone is a noob and doesn't have a clue because they haven't witnessed a fuckup like this is just... well... more prickery. To be expected. Again. By the way, were you right beside this person rapping the entire pitch down, or did you look at his configuration, rap real quick, and then examine it when he got to the bottom of the pitch? How did you witness the rap of the entire pitch? Or was it just a short pitch that you could see his biner the entire time?
"Wrong. There's nothing tough about it. The fact that you have never seen it just means you're a n00b, haven't been paying attention, or both."
Actually, it's not that easy to do. Being the super green noob that I am, when I'm done dreaming of finally nailing that 5.9 in the gym on top rope, I mess around with my shiny, unscratched gear. What I've found is that because of the oblong shape of the deep end of the basket, if the two loads aren't opposing each other and not nearly equal in force, the one at the shallow end of the basket will slide down rather easily to the deep end. Disputing this and pouncing on the chance to noob-bash without actually trying it is... yeah. You get the trend by now.
"Wrong. There's nothing tough about it. The fact that you have never seen it just means you're a n00b, haven't been paying attention, or both."
I didn't say that I've never seen it. Now you're just making up reasons to be a dick.
"If the biner is clipped through the two tie-in points (gotta wonder why they're called that, eh?), then there are three possible of pull on the biner. This is obvious, you twit."
Three possible of pull. Uhhh... ok. What happens when you fall? The force from the rop scrunches the two tie in points close together so that they are literally pulling in the same spot. Go test it out on your .13 project you hardman badass. The same thing happens with a biner, you twit.
"Semantics? Hardly. Triaxial loading of the carabiner occurs exactly when the biner is loaded, um, triaxially with the rope and the two tie in points pulling in three different directions."
Now you're just being redundant. Go hook your biner through both your tie-in points and clip the rope in and sit on it. I guarantee both tie in points will end up in the same spot on the biner, not pulling the biner in two different directions at one end.
"No, they're not designed that way. On the contrary, the locking sleeve of a locking biner predisposes the biner to triaxial loading."
Yes, they are. That is part of the reason for the widened, oblong basket; so that everything slides down to one central point; the deep end of the basket so that the force resides on the spine of the biner; the strongest axis.
"Look at the printed material that came with your biners, dumbass."
I do, asshole. I'm a noob remember? I have to look at the printed material to learn. Duh. Besides, I wasn't referring to what's printed on the packet, I was referring to what's stamped on the biner. It's quite clear that you have years of experience under your belt. It's also a shame that instead of helping via forums like this so that the noobs you so loathe will be safer and carry on the sport that you obviously have a passion for with the same zeal and integrity, instead you seek to bolster your image of yourself by attempting to bash others that may have less experience than you into submission. I hope you feel better. I feel really sorry for you.
*edited to add more bullshit.
(This post was edited by jjones16 on Oct 18, 2011, 8:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 8:47 PM
Post #63 of 93
(8365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
shockabuku wrote: jjones16 wrote: marc801 wrote: jjones16 wrote: And actually, it is difficult to load a biner three ways. Actually, it isn't... [image]http://www.alpinets.com/images/triaxle.jpg[/image] ...esp. in belay anchors. Like Jay suggested: please STFU...you really don't quite know what you're talking about. Jesus. Should we strap a saddle to Jay's nuts so everyone can get a comfy ride? If you read my post, it says that the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading. Look at your picture you dumb ass-kissing shitbird. That's exactly what is displayed. In this same picture, it's clear that the strands are not loaded. If you were to load them and the two on the basket end weren't close to the same force, they would both end up in the deep end of the basket, essentially pulling on the same part of the biner and negating the triaxial loading. I think you should try it and see if you get that result before you post some picture that both reaffirms one part of what I said and doesn't disprove the other part all while trying to earn brownie points with some dick that you look up to because he can send harder grades than you. You really are quite ignorant of things that you claim to know. Perpendicular means at 90 degree angles - like the corner of a book. Those directions of pull (picture) are not perpendicular. There are probably a number of reasons you don't see triaxial strengths on a biner, most notably that they aren't tested that way because it's contrary to their intended use.
I know what perpendicular means. I didn't mean perpendicular to each other. Each strand is pulling perpendicular to the point at which it is attached to the biner. Surely you cannot argue that. The strand that is pulling on the biner, in all three points, is perpendicular to the point at which it is connected to the biner, for that is what is keeping it in the position in which it resides. Not that tough to see from the picture. I really don't understand how you can disagree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 9:03 PM
Post #64 of 93
(8354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjvizzini sez, "Triaxial loading is inconceivable."
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 9:14 PM
Post #65 of 93
(8347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 9:20 PM
Post #66 of 93
(8342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in.
Ya. I know. Now use your imagination and rotate the picture 60 degrees clockwise so that the rope is vertical.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 18, 2011, 9:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 9:28 PM
Post #67 of 93
(8332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in. Ya. I know. Now use your imagination and rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise so that the rope is vertical. Jay
Whatever Jay. You know what I'm saying. You have a valid point. So do I. You can't sit here and tell me that you've never had a leg loop rest on the gate screw then pop off and end up right next to the waist loop as soon as you put some weight on it. By the same token, for me to say that this will always happen is ridiculous.
If it is really a point you're trying to get across though, being a dick and telling people to STFU under the premise that they should because you know more and they know less doesn't help accomplish that. However, if it is an ego boost you're looking for, and bashing people that you could be correcting and helping does it for you, then job well done sir. It's a shame that your expertise is wasted on insecurity.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 9:53 PM
Post #68 of 93
(8324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in. Ya. I know. Now use your imagination and rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise so that the rope is vertical. Jay Whatever Jay. You know what I'm saying. You have a valid point. So do I. You can't sit here and tell me that you've never had a leg loop rest on the gate screw then pop off and end up right next to the waist loop as soon as you put some weight on it. By the same token, for me to say that this will always happen is ridiculous.
Right. Yet throughout this thread you've made a series of absolute claims that were wrong, such as- What happens when you fall? The force from the rop scrunches the two tie in points close together so that they are literally pulling in the same spot.
- I guarantee both tie in points will end up in the same spot on the biner
- the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading
- The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying . . .
In reply to: If it is really a point you're trying to get across though, being a dick and telling people to STFU under the premise that they should because you know more and they know less doesn't help accomplish that.
The premise underlying my telling you to STFU was not that I know more; it was that you clearly did not have the base of experience necessary to be making absolute claims about what can and cannot happen in climbing scenarios. It's one thing for a climber with limited experience to express an opinion; another to make absolute claims as if he is an authority.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 18, 2011, 10:56 PM
Post #69 of 93
(8305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in. Ya. I know. Now use your imagination and rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise so that the rope is vertical. Jay Whatever Jay. You know what I'm saying. You have a valid point. So do I. You can't sit here and tell me that you've never had a leg loop rest on the gate screw then pop off and end up right next to the waist loop as soon as you put some weight on it. By the same token, for me to say that this will always happen is ridiculous. Right. Yet throughout this thread you've made a series of absolute claims that were wrong, such as - What happens when you fall? The force from the rop scrunches the two tie in points close together so that they are literally pulling in the same spot.
- I guarantee both tie in points will end up in the same spot on the biner
- the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading
- The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying . . .
In reply to: If it is really a point you're trying to get across though, being a dick and telling people to STFU under the premise that they should because you know more and they know less doesn't help accomplish that. The premise underlying my telling you to STFU was not that I know more; it was that you clearly did not have the base of experience necessary to be making absolute claims about what can and cannot happen in climbing scenarios. It's one thing for a climber with limited experience to express an opinion; another to make absolute claims as if he is an authority. Jay
LOL. I bet you kick your dog when your internet goes down and you can't release your angst in a forum. You're embellishing and distorting context to justify being a prick.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 18, 2011, 11:38 PM
Post #70 of 93
(8300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jjones16 wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: jt512 wrote: jjones16 wrote: Ya. I know. Now put all your weight on the rope so that it's vertical and directly in front of you and watch what happens to your leg loop tie in. Ya. I know. Now use your imagination and rotate the picture 90 degrees clockwise so that the rope is vertical. Jay Whatever Jay. You know what I'm saying. You have a valid point. So do I. You can't sit here and tell me that you've never had a leg loop rest on the gate screw then pop off and end up right next to the waist loop as soon as you put some weight on it. By the same token, for me to say that this will always happen is ridiculous. Right. Yet throughout this thread you've made a series of absolute claims that were wrong, such as - What happens when you fall? The force from the rop scrunches the two tie in points close together so that they are literally pulling in the same spot.
- I guarantee both tie in points will end up in the same spot on the biner
- the three load sources have to be perpendicular to the biner to maintain triaxial loading
- The only time I can think of when a biner would be TRIAXIALLY loaded is when someone is anchored in on the ground whilst belaying . . .
In reply to: If it is really a point you're trying to get across though, being a dick and telling people to STFU under the premise that they should because you know more and they know less doesn't help accomplish that. The premise underlying my telling you to STFU was not that I know more; it was that you clearly did not have the base of experience necessary to be making absolute claims about what can and cannot happen in climbing scenarios. It's one thing for a climber with limited experience to express an opinion; another to make absolute claims as if he is an authority. Jay LOL. I bet you kick your dog when your internet goes down and you can't release your angst in a forum. You're embellishing and distorting context to justify being a prick.
LOL. I bet you resort to the ad hominem fallacy and to making unsubstantiated accusations when you don't have a valid rebuttal.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
Oct 19, 2011, 12:14 AM
Post #71 of 93
(8290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
jt512 wrote: ceebo wrote: jt512 wrote: shockabuku wrote: ceebo wrote: ''The rope may fall out of the biner''. No ;].. you have more chance of winning the lottery. Take a biner a loop of rope, try it. Your signature: We are in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in something that they couldn't actually do them self. That will make a nice inscription on his Darwin award. Jay Ok jay, share your wisdom. Walk me through a realistic situation where the loop may ''fall out'' in a top rope situation. Why are you putting quotes around your own stupid phrase? And what part of this post did you fail to comprehend? Jay
It says in the report that the circumstances are unknown. That means.. for all we know their was a loose stopper not (or something of the like) that was mistakenly clipped into instead. Are bow lines have nothing as such to be of any confusion. Their could have been other reasons the rope came out, one being that they used the 2 harnes points instead of going from the belay loop. That is a huge set up error.. almost the same as tying into the belay loop befor taking a huge fall. Not the best idea.
Besides that, i love how you do not register the many deaths as a result of not tying in properly. Maybe they should oppose knots?.
Their is an obvius differance to the way your comunity operates (or percieves) the setup to how we have done it. In the time i have been around this has been used alot, and even before that.
I can assume maybe 17-20 years. With say 100 climbers per day climbing on avg.. 8 walls each on avg. How many of those left their gate open or it worked its way loose?. Maybe 1 out of every 20 climbs to give it good odds to your views. I don't have it in me to do the maths.. but that is a hell of allot of opertunity for us to have had somebody die or get injured. The count is zero, i don't see any other conclusion other than the setup (as we are using it) is safe.
For me the setup is nothing but a sheep in wolfs clothing. If thats what people need to do checks, sure.
Btw, i was looking for your views.. your experiance. Instead of just quating some shit that agree's with your argumental nature. Have you used the setup?.. with groups?. Have you seen it used day in day out?. Please share.
(This post was edited by ceebo on Oct 19, 2011, 12:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 19, 2011, 12:14 AM
Post #72 of 93
(8290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
Why is it so difficult to admit that you derive pleasure from giving people shit? It is so blatently clear that you lie in wait for the opportunity. I mean, you're clearly not a noob, and it's obvious you're not here in any kind of constructive or mentor capacity. So what does that leave? Why else would your presence be so prevalent in the beginner forum? You get off on it lol. Jesus that's so sad. I have a valid response, I just don't feel like rewriting what I've already said so you can skew it to fit your context. It will go on forever that way. Not interested. I hope your assumptions of others' experience and noob floggings go really well. Have fun and embrace it man, you're good at it.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Oct 19, 2011, 1:15 AM
Post #73 of 93
(8273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
jjones16 wrote: Why is it so difficult to admit that you derive pleasure from giving people shit? It is so blatently clear that you lie in wait for the opportunity. I mean, you're clearly not a noob, and it's obvious you're not here in any kind of constructive or mentor capacity. So what does that leave? Why else would your presence be so prevalent in the beginner forum?
For example, you keep saying that eventually the slings in a triaxially loaded biner will slide next to each other, eliminating the triaxial load. The problem isn't at that point - it's at the *instant* the force is applied - *that's* when a biner will fail. You totally ignore that point, which basically negates your fallacious argument that it doesn't matter.
Instead of getting all defensive - another hallmark of someone who really doesn't know as much as they think they do - you might actually try to understand the points others are making.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Oct 19, 2011, 1:51 AM
Post #74 of 93
(8268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ceebo wrote: jt512 wrote: ceebo wrote: jt512 wrote: shockabuku wrote: ceebo wrote: ''The rope may fall out of the biner''. No ;].. you have more chance of winning the lottery. Take a biner a loop of rope, try it. Your signature: We are in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in something that they couldn't actually do them self. That will make a nice inscription on his Darwin award. Jay Ok jay, share your wisdom. Walk me through a realistic situation where the loop may ''fall out'' in a top rope situation. Why are you putting quotes around your own stupid phrase? And what part of this post did you fail to comprehend? Jay It says in the report that the circumstances are unknown. That means.. for all we know their was a loose stopper not (or something of the like) that was mistakenly clipped into instead. Are bow lines have nothing as such to be of any confusion. Their could have been other reasons the rope came out, one being that they used the 2 harnes points instead of going from the belay loop. That is a huge set up error.. almost the same as tying into the belay loop befor taking a huge fall. Not the best idea. Besides that, i love how you do not register the many deaths as a result of not tying in properly. Maybe they should oppose knots?. Their is an obvius differance to the way your comunity operates (or percieves) the setup to how we have done it. In the time i have been around this has been used alot, and even before that. I can assume maybe 17-20 years. With say 100 climbers per day climbing on avg.. 8 walls each on avg. How many of those left their gate open or it worked its way loose?. Maybe 1 out of every 20 climbs to give it good odds to your views. I don't have it in me to do the maths.. but that is a hell of allot of opertunity for us to have had somebody die or get injured. The count is zero, i don't see any other conclusion other than the setup (as we are using it) is safe. For me the setup is nothing but a sheep in wolfs clothing. If thats what people need to do checks, sure. Btw, i was looking for your views.. your experiance. Instead of just quating some shit that agree's with your argumental nature. Have you used the setup?.. with groups?. Have you seen it used day in day out?. Please share.
You're slipping back into incomprehensibility; with a reasonable amount of effort, I can understand about half your post.
Before discussing the "debate" about tying in vs clipping in, let's first realize that in the real world of climbing there is no debate. To a very good first approximation we can say this: all climbers tie in on every climb, and have done so since the invention of the swami belt (actually even before that). The debate mostly occurs on the internet, fueled by gym climbers rationalizing a non-standard practice to the bitter end. The above notwithstanding, there are two ways to look at the issue: practical and theoretical.
On the practical side, there have been accidents due to problems with clipping in, as has been noted. You are correct that from purely practical considerations we should quantitatively compare the risk of injury from clipping in with that from tying in; however, no one has the data to make that computation. Therefore, we can't rationally discuss the issue from a practical perspective.
That leaves theoretical considerations, in which tying in wins hands down. Clipping in adds a completely unnecessary component to the system—a locking carabiner—with new modes of failure. The user could forget to lock the biner; the biner could come unlocked during the climb; the biner could become cross-loaded or triaxially loaded in a fall; and, in theory, if there are sharp edges on the sleeve (as there often are on autolockers), they could cut the rope in a fall. Furthermore, a proper tie-in is fail-safe, whereas clipping in is not: even if you clip in correctly, your clip-in can still fail.
If you think the minuscule time savings of clipping in is worth these additional risks, that's your own personal choice. The overwhelming majority of climbers worldwide throughout the history of climbing have disagreed, and will continue to disagree for the foreseeable future. Just stop rationalizing that clipping in is as safe as, or safer than, tying in. There exist no data (to the best of my knowledge) to back you up, and on theoretical grounds your claim is untenable: connecting yourself to the rope with a superfluous fallible link isn't safer.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Oct 19, 2011, 2:06 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjones16
Oct 19, 2011, 2:27 AM
Post #75 of 93
(8251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2010
Posts: 80
|
Ok, I get what you're saying. I do sometimes come off verbose, cynical, and somewhat holier than thou because of my verbage. I don't mean to sound like I know everything; I do not, and have never professed to. When trying to be descriptive, it diverges into pedantic nonsense sometimes. It is a flaw to be sure. Thank you for explaining in terms that are not sarcastic and full of rhetoric. That's what veterans SHOULD do in a beginner forum. You quote my question though, and don't offer an answer- and the question was not posed to you. A bit odd.
Also, you may want to reread my posts. I didn't say that triaxial loading didn't matter. Not once. You're sort of delving into the same skewing and distortion that your cohort is guilty of. I merely said it was an uncommon occurrence in my experience; however limited or not that might be. Had I offered the argument that it didn't matter, then yes, you would be correct that it would be fallacious.
I did get defensive. I don't know anyone that wouldn't; short of spineless pussies lacking any measurable amount of testosterone. Try this in person one time, not just on the internet: Listen in on someone's conversation in public. Make sure you're knowledgeable on the subject being discussed. Then, when you see an opportunity to pronounce someone incorrect, tell them to shut the fuck up and declare them clueless on the subject. Then expect them not to become defensive, remain calm and sift through the profane command to derive some humble, know-your-place lesson. Tell me how it works out.
By the way, I hope you at least know or climb with this dude, because if not, it's starting to look a little strange with you repeatedly coming to his defense. Have a swell evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
