|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 18, 2012, 6:39 PM
Post #26 of 40
(6695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
shimanilami wrote: So after the first 5m, the leader has a bunch of rope dangling from his harness for the rest of the climb?! And you do this in the name of safety!? Why not just tell the leader to clip at his waist and avoid the hassle?
No. I have the 8mm rope clove-hitched to a locker on my harness’ loop. Before starting to climb up to and lead above the 2nd progression pro, I just unclip the locker and let the belayer recover the short rope.
Clipping a single rope at the waist, you’re still leading above your last pro and, therefore, in a potential high impact/high FF fall situation for the first couple of them, even if you place those early pros fairly close together.
In answer to Cracklover, I guess I deserve the flak for briefly outlining the general principle of this particular "no-FF2" method and moving straight to some particulars of its belaying implications without providing more context or details. Your reply also helps point out to those not familiar with half rope belaying that this is by no means a standard method.
This approach of holding one rope while paying out slack on the other is applied only for the first couple of progression pros where there is extremely minimal possibility of a high FF because you’re not supposed to climb above the previous pro. As soon as the second progression pro is clipped at arm’s length from the first, things change. If we're climbing on a single rope, I've already mentioned above what happens. If we're on half ropes, I resume (or expect my belayer to resume) belaying in a fashion similar to what you describe with the braking ends of both ropes being held by the belayer’s braking hand at all times, with the fancy finger wraps so both ropes can be held or slid semi-independently to allow the "(nearly) simultaneously taking up and paying out of slack".
I admit that, even with the low FFs involved in what would basically be an extremely short top-rope fall just one or two metres out of the belay, it’s not impossible that the last pro on which the leader is being held would rip out. If that occurs while the leader is placing the next pro, I should mention that at this point, he is being belayed on both ropes. Only when he pulls slack for the next clip does the belayer switch to holding only the holding rope. This early in the lead, the slack taken for the next clip will be greater than the distance to the next lower clip on the rope being held so the fall will still get caught better and sooner by holding that rope alone.
The thread that explored the various "no-FF2" options is at http://www.rockclimbing.com/...tring=Jesus;#2386970. Each option is fairly easy to describe with a single sentence (see my long "recap" post on p.3) but when you start exploring their practical implications in detail, things get complicated pretty quickly. A few of the practical implications are discussed in the latter part of the thread and others are discussed here but I’ve come across and worked through quite a few more over the past couple of years. I have not reported back with a complete synopsis because it would require a very long post that most people would find way too complicated. The additional details provided in this post are only what I thought would be the minimum needed to answer cracklover’s criticism but should NOT be construed as representing the sum total of what to do to implement this option safely!!
Most of the practical considerations concern the leader. I’m OK with them and with managing the decision-making tree for selecting which option to apply, depending on the belay configuration and several other criteria. In terms of getting others to adopt these approaches, I’m happy if I can just get a belayer to whom I have not already shown this approach to accept it and correctly apply it to my lead.
(edited for clarity)
(This post was edited by jktinst on Dec 18, 2012, 6:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 18, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #28 of 40
(6681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I've briefly looked through your posts on that thread, and I do not see a description of what you're doing to belay the leader that sounds like what you're advocating here.
So if we've all got you pegged wrong - maybe it would be best if you started from scratch and explained what you actually do. I don't care how bizarre it sounds, or "overcomplicated" it is. It's either safe enough or it isn't. And while I may not understand it based on the bits and pieces you've thrown out so far to describe it, it certainly doesn't sound safe.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 19, 2012, 3:20 AM
Post #29 of 40
(6607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
The thread in question did not go into all the practical implications and resulting sequences of the different "no-FF2" approaches. I explored those later. However, your questions have led me to work through different scenarios and I have to admit that there could be a worst case situation where this technique would be more dangerous than the standard one.
Say the leader is at a point in the sequence where he is being belayed only on the short rope clipped to the first progression pro but the belayer has not yet paid out slack on the climbing rope for clipping the second progression pro and he falls. Say further that the belayer catches him on the 1st pro but that pro pops (boy, that sure was a crappy placement for it to pop on such an easy, TR-type catch with next to no slack on the rope but there you are, shit happens). He now faces a longer fall with a much higher FF to be arrested by the next clip down (a locker clipped to the CP of the main belay anchor) on a skinny short rope attached to his harness through a clove hitch on a locker.
That’s not so good. If instead, both ropes had been held by the belayer, the higher FF would be arrested more easily on both ropes together. On the other hand, if the belayer had already paid out the slack on the climbing rope at the time of the fall, this rope would again be just as ineffective at arresting the fall as if it had not been held at all: the arrest could only be done by the short rope. Even if the belayer was unable to block it, the fall would still be arrested very soon after, when the knot at the end of that short rope jammed the ATC. Of course, if instead of the first progression pro popping, it holds as it really should, then there is absolutely no problem in arresting the TR fall with only one hand braking the short rope as we do with TR falls all the time.
Still, avoiding the occasional trouble with paying out slack is not worth the risk of that one worst case scenario, no matter how unlikely. So thanks for the heads up. I expect I will switch back to standard belaying throughout. I will keep the sequence I worked out for arm’s length clipping of the first 2 pros that ensures an extremely low likelihood of high FF over those first few moves and, no, I will not detail the 20 or so steps that make up this sequence. I will say that, even though it may sound ridiculously complicated and time-consuming, with a little bit of practice on the part of the leader and the belayer, it really goes fairly smoothly and quickly although, obviously not as smoothly and quickly as just clipping the highest pro of the belay anchor and leading out from there, which seems to be what a lot of leaders prefer.
And now, I probably should stop hijacking this thread
(edited for clarity)
(This post was edited by jktinst on Dec 19, 2012, 4:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Dec 19, 2012, 6:30 AM
Post #30 of 40
(6586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
I´ll admit the idea behind all this completely escapes me (and I skimmed the other thread as well). If I´m right then all your worried about is the leader falling when they pull slack to clip the second piece of gear which as pointed out above is cured by clipping at waist level or extending the gear down so the clip is at waist level.
Alternatively (and the approach I use) don´t trad climb with leaders who make a habit of falling off.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 19, 2012, 5:25 PM
Post #31 of 40
(6551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
JimTitt wrote: I´ll admit the idea behind all this completely escapes me (and I skimmed the other thread as well). If I´m right then all your worried about is the leader falling when they pull slack to clip the second piece of gear which as pointed out above is cured by clipping at waist level or extending the gear down so the clip is at waist level. Alternatively (and the approach I use) don´t trad climb with leaders who make a habit of falling off.
Yeah, I'm as puzzled as you are. I neither understand exactly what jktinst's solution is, nor what problem exactly he thinks he's solving. Oh well, to each their own.
If, as you suggest, the problem he's trying to solve is that of having a leader fall on the first piece off the belay with an armful of slack (trying to clip the second piece), the solution is simple: use doubles technique, and learn to feed rope out properly. Then, if the pieces are close enough, the leader can still be on toprope on the first piece while clipping the second.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 19, 2012, 5:33 PM
Post #32 of 40
(6548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jktinst wrote: So thanks for the heads up. I expect I will switch back to standard belaying throughout.
Happy to oblige, although I still am not sure my thoughts were really appropriate to your situation, because I'm still not sure I have a clear understanding of what you're doing. Nevertheless, if anything I said was helpful, that's good.
In reply to: I will keep the sequence I worked out for arm’s length clipping of the first 2 pros that ensures an extremely low likelihood of high FF over those first few moves and, no, I will not detail the 20 or so steps that make up this sequence. I will say that, even though it may sound ridiculously complicated and time-consuming, with a little bit of practice on the part of the leader and the belayer, it really goes fairly smoothly and quickly although, obviously not as smoothly and quickly as just clipping the highest pro of the belay anchor and leading out from there, which seems to be what a lot of leaders prefer.
No idea what you're trying to get at, but of course it's up to you whether you want feedback on your method or not.
In reply to: And now, I probably should stop hijacking this thread
Eh, how much is there, really, to say about a new device that none of us have actually had a chance to play with? It's gets old saying "looks cool, we'll see!" So the diversion was fine IMO.
One last thing - you have not responded, but I hope you'll take to heart my point about belaying with two ropes that are nearly 2.5 mm different in diameter through the same tube style device. I think this may be a major safety issue, and worth reconsidering.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 20, 2012, 4:40 AM
Post #33 of 40
(6493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
As I discussed in the referenced thread and mentioned again in my first post on this thread, the idea is to have a variety of methods on hand that allow leading out from a mid-route trad belay while avoiding altogether the risk of a fall directly on the belay anchor or greatly minimizing the impact of this fall. Clipping the first couple of progression pros at arm’s length from each previous pro is one of the ways to achieve that, provided, as you say, that you use the double rope technique and the belayer secures the leader on the previous pro with one rope at the same time as he pays out a bunch of slack on the other for the arm’s length clip, so it seems that we're in complete agreement there.
Regarding your concern about using two ropes of very different diameters with the same device, my Reverso is rated for 8mm; I have taken test falls on the short rope on this rig and arrested them myself and there was no problem. Of course, they were the short TR-type falls to be expected with this method. No doubt things would get trickier in that highly unlikely catastrophic worst case scenario I discussed above but there'll be back-ups for that, as mentioned.
About the detailed sequence of leader's and belayer's steps that translates the general statement above into practice, there's really no need to make a big deal out of it. Anyone reasonably competent in trad leading can work it out and end up with a sequence that works for them for either half-ropes or for a single-rope-plus-additional-short-rope. The two sequences are slightly different. For half-ropes, it's fine to end up with each clipped alternately, which makes for a more straightforward sequence whereas for the single-rope-plus-etc. you want to end up with the single rope clipped in all the pros after you remove the additional short rope and that makes for a slightly more complicated sequence. Other people's sequences may end up being slightly different from mine but that's no big deal.
I've already mentioned several different aspects of my single-rope-plus-etc. sequence in the previous posts. One aspect I have not yet mentioned is that although I do not like clipping the highest pro of the belay anchor and leading out from there, for this arm's length clipping method, I do clip that highest pro as the initial "previous pro" from which to clip the first progression pro at arm's length so the whole "TRing your way up to the 2nd progression pro" starts right from the belay floor. I remove that high anchor pro clip as soon as the first progression pro has been clipped.
If you really want to know all the other details, I could pm them to you.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Dec 20, 2012, 7:41 AM
Post #34 of 40
(6472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
I am so confused by the direction this thread has turned. jktinst seems to be complicating things in an amazing way.
If you want to use halfropes/twins then do so but keep a hand on the brake side of BOTH ropes while belaying.
If you want to avoid a FF2 the doing so is simple. If there is no good pro above the belay then belay from BELOW the anchor and suddenly there is good pro above the belay.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Dec 20, 2012, 7:51 AM
Post #35 of 40
(6469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
patto wrote: I am so confused by the direction this thread has turned. jktinst seems to be complicating things in an amazing way. If you want to use halfropes/twins then do so but keep a hand on the brake side of BOTH ropes while belaying. If you want to avoid a FF2 the doing so is simple. If there is no good pro above the belay then belay from BELOW the anchor and suddenly there is good pro above the belay.
^^^^ whuddah he said ...
additionall if you are worried about "losing control " ... make a guess of how far away the first piece is ... tie a knot that far down the rope ... and youre basically guaranteed thats how far youll fall even if your belayer loses control ...
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 20, 2012, 12:36 PM
Post #36 of 40
(6454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
patto wrote: jktinst seems to be complicating things in an amazing way.
patto wrote: If you want to use halfropes/twins then do so but keep a hand on the brake side of BOTH ropes while belaying.
patto wrote: If you want to avoid a FF2 the doing so is simple. If there is no good pro above the belay then belay from BELOW the anchor and suddenly there is good pro above the belay.
bearbreeder wrote: additionall if you are worried about "losing control " ... make a guess of how far away the first piece is ... tie a knot that far down the rope ... and youre basically guaranteed thats how far youll fall even if your belayer loses control |
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 20, 2012, 4:02 PM
Post #37 of 40
(6430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jktinst wrote: Regarding your concern about using two ropes of very different diameters with the same device, my Reverso is rated for 8mm; I have taken test falls on the short rope on this rig and arrested them myself and there was no problem. Of course, they were the short TR-type falls to be expected with this method. No doubt things would get trickier in that highly unlikely catastrophic worst case scenario I discussed above but there'll be back-ups for that, as mentioned.
My concern is not about holding the fall on the small rope (although it might well be impossible for you on your Reverso with a big high fall factor fall) but holding it on the small rope with a fat rope keeping the Reverso from clamping down on the small rope.
In reply to: If you really want to know all the other details, I could pm them to you.
No thanks. I'm quite happy with the way I do things. It's entirely up to you whether you want input on the way you do your thing.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 20, 2012, 6:04 PM
Post #38 of 40
(6406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
cracklover wrote: My concern is not about holding the fall on the small rope (although it might well be impossible for you on your Reverso with a big high fall factor fall) but holding it on the small rope with a fat rope keeping the Reverso from clamping down on the small rope.
However, with the technique I describe of using a short thinner rope to allow the use of the half-rope technique over the first couple of progression pros only, the belayer is clearly expected to hold and pay out both strands completely independently (even if he does not let go of either) and losing track of which is which would seems pretty far-fetched.
Or is this the same thing again as this other comment you were making earlier?
cracklover wrote: ...For a few years I used one single and one half rope, (8.4 and 9.7 IIRC) and never had any difficulty feeding out one while holding the other.... ...By the way, I think you may have a much more serious problem on your hands than a slightly unorthodox method of feeding slack, and that is using one 8mm and one 10.3, where the high fall-factor fall right off the belay is always expected to hit the skinny rope. The difference in diameter is so large that I would be really suspicious that you could hold a hard high-fall-factor fall right off the belay on the 8mm rope, like you're planning on doing. No matter how hard you clamp down, the big rope is going to be holding the belay device away from the small rope. It will start 2.3mm away, and only after it compresses 2.3mm will it begin to put friction on the small rope - the one that's doing the catching. 2.3mm is a lot of compression. And since the big rope will not be taking any load in the way you do it, it will not be stretched like the small one will be. So the relative difference between rope sizes will be even more.
I really could not make head or tails of it at the time, but since you were talking about arresting high factor falls, and this is exactly the opposite of what the technique I describe is doing, I didn’t pay too much attention to it. Between the two comments, you seem to be saying that having a fatter rope in the other slot of the Reverso3 would actually prevent it from working properly on the thinner one. I really fail to see how that could happen and have definitely not experienced anything like it. My Reverso3 hits its biner as soon as I start braking and certainly appears to do so just as fast if I have the 10.3 & 8 mm ropes in it or the old 2X8.5mm. I also feel no difference in braking the 8mm with or without the 10.3 beside it.
Once the Reverso has slammed against the biner, it is providing the maximum braking capacity that it can. The rest depends solely on where and how tight I hold the braking ends. Since you belayed on the 8.4 and 9.7 mm for years, did you notice that the 8.4 was not braking properly? The difference is not as marked as 8 vs 10.3 but it’s still pretty wide. Your reasoning should apply in that case as well.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 20, 2012, 6:48 PM
Post #39 of 40
(6398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
After thinking more about it, with a standard tube-style device the particular concern I was trying to express is not a real one. Sorry for any confusion!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Dec 20, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #40 of 40
(6380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
Ah, but going back to the original subject of this thread, you’re absolutely right when it comes to brake-assist devices that work by pinching the ropes between the biner and the device. The two ropes must be of the same diameter for the brake-assist to work properly, which means that if I were to switch to one of those, I would definitely have to change the short rope.
When I tried the Smart Alpine in the store, I brought my own gear to avoid having to borrow rope, harness, biners, etc. and for the rope I just brought one of the old 8.5mm, so, of course, it worked fine.
(edited to add 2nd par.)
(This post was edited by jktinst on Dec 20, 2012, 7:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
