Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 


lilvicks22


May 21, 2013, 8:34 PM
Post #1 of 15 (2335 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 7, 2013
Posts: 15

Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So I'm planning on taking a friend to Peterskill and was spotting some routes to climb. I found a perfect one for the two of us on the Oops wall.

I'll be climbing Oops and Floops...and he wants to TR Pencil & Johnny's Arete which requires a directional to run the route.

Any thoughts on how to make the directionals? I'll be making TR anchor with the double bolts on top of the Oops route which is on the right of Pencil & Johnny's Arete.

Here is the route info on Mountain Project.http://www.mountainproject.com/v/pencil--johnnys-arete/105910438


(This post was edited by lilvicks22 on May 21, 2013, 9:13 PM)


bearbreeder


May 21, 2013, 11:11 PM
Post #2 of 15 (2300 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [lilvicks22] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

get someone experienced to show you how to place cams/tricams/hexes/etc on reel rock ... and have him/her check yr placements

its that simple Wink


lena_chita
Moderator

May 22, 2013, 3:56 AM
Post #3 of 15 (2277 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5586

Re: [lilvicks22] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

How are you setting TR-- are you leading your route first, or are you just getting to the anchors from the top?

Even if you are just setting TR from the top, and don't know how, or don't trust yourself, to place gear on lead, you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

SO what you do is climb your route, take a few extra gear pieces, and while being lowered, you swing over to the arete, place them, and clip your rope into them.

Then your partner can climb on that side of the rope and unclip/clean as he goes up, or leave the gear and re-clip into it, if he plans to do it more than once.


lilvicks22


May 22, 2013, 4:41 AM
Post #4 of 15 (2265 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 7, 2013
Posts: 15

Re: [lena_chita] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks, that was tremendously helpful! Angelic

I'm going to lead up, so I'll swing over when lowering and place a gear there so that my friend can clip in/out as he climbs.


Partner rgold


May 22, 2013, 8:58 AM
Post #5 of 15 (2192 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [lilvicks22] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I find this really puzzling. The routes you are leading are 5.10. You're a competent 5.10 leader and are asking on the internet how to rig directionals?

lena chita wrote:
...you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

Oh god, this is some of the worst advice I've every seen on the internet. If a directional at the top of a route blows, especially when the climber is close to it, they'll be subjected to a potentially dangerous swing.

People following usually have no occasion to check the set-up and may not be experienced enough to judge it anyway. Any risks associated with the anchor are imposed on the second without their knowledge and consent. The leader has an absolute moral obligation to make sure the integrity of the directional is beyond question.

This means that directionals set up for protecting the second have to be as bomber as the belay anchor itself. In general, some redundancy and distributed rigging are required, just as they are for the primary anchor. Do not, even for a second, adopt the mental attitude that such pieces need to be "just ok."


meanandugly


May 22, 2013, 9:19 AM
Post #6 of 15 (2181 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 312

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I wish we had a like button to click.


csproul


May 22, 2013, 9:26 AM
Post #7 of 15 (2176 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
I find this really puzzling. The routes you are leading are 5.10. You're a competent 5.10 leader and are asking on the internet how to rig directionals?

lena chita wrote:
...you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

Oh god, this is some of the worst advice I've every seen on the internet. If a directional at the top of a route blows, especially when the climber is close to it, they'll be subjected to a potentially dangerous swing.

People following usually have no occasion to check the set-up and may not be experienced enough to judge it anyway. Any risks associated with the anchor are imposed on the second without their knowledge and consent. The leader has an absolute moral obligation to make sure the integrity of the directional is beyond question.

This means that directionals set up for protecting the second have to be as bomber as the belay anchor itself. In general, some redundancy and distributed rigging are required, just as they are for the primary anchor. Do not, even for a second, adopt the mental attitude that such pieces need to be "just ok."
^^This^^


zchandran


May 22, 2013, 10:33 AM
Post #8 of 15 (2156 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 117

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
I find this really puzzling. The routes you are leading are 5.10. You're a competent 5.10 leader and are asking on the internet how to rig directionals?

lena chita wrote:
...you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

Oh god, this is some of the worst advice I've every seen on the internet. If a directional at the top of a route blows, especially when the climber is close to it, they'll be subjected to a potentially dangerous swing.

People following usually have no occasion to check the set-up and may not be experienced enough to judge it anyway. Any risks associated with the anchor are imposed on the second without their knowledge and consent. The leader has an absolute moral obligation to make sure the integrity of the directional is beyond question.

This means that directionals set up for protecting the second have to be as bomber as the belay anchor itself. In general, some redundancy and distributed rigging are required, just as they are for the primary anchor. Do not, even for a second, adopt the mental attitude that such pieces need to be "just ok."

I think there's a couple of things being mixed up here. If I'm reading this correctly, OP wants to lead Oops, then set up a TR anchor on the appropriate bolts for the other route. But the TR route is along the arete, so OP just wants a directional along the route, so there's not a huge swing. In that case, a tricam or something should work as long as his buddy can remove it on the way up. Doesn't have to be bomber since the swing won't be extreme if it pops.

So the question boils down to "what piece of pro do I need to place along this particular arete and where"? Which is a perfectly cromulent question for a sport climber that doesn't do a lot of trad. Never climbed that area so I can't help you there.


csproul


May 22, 2013, 11:20 AM
Post #9 of 15 (2137 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1767

Re: [zchandran] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

zchandran wrote:
rgold wrote:
I find this really puzzling. The routes you are leading are 5.10. You're a competent 5.10 leader and are asking on the internet how to rig directionals?

lena chita wrote:
...you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

Oh god, this is some of the worst advice I've every seen on the internet. If a directional at the top of a route blows, especially when the climber is close to it, they'll be subjected to a potentially dangerous swing.

People following usually have no occasion to check the set-up and may not be experienced enough to judge it anyway. Any risks associated with the anchor are imposed on the second without their knowledge and consent. The leader has an absolute moral obligation to make sure the integrity of the directional is beyond question.

This means that directionals set up for protecting the second have to be as bomber as the belay anchor itself. In general, some redundancy and distributed rigging are required, just as they are for the primary anchor. Do not, even for a second, adopt the mental attitude that such pieces need to be "just ok."

I think there's a couple of things being mixed up here. If I'm reading this correctly, OP wants to lead Oops, then set up a TR anchor on the appropriate bolts for the other route. But the TR route is along the arete, so OP just wants a directional along the route, so there's not a huge swing. In that case, a tricam or something should work as long as his buddy can remove it on the way up. Doesn't have to be bomber since the swing won't be extreme if it pops.

So the question boils down to "what piece of pro do I need to place along this particular arete and where"? Which is a perfectly cromulent question for a sport climber that doesn't do a lot of trad. Never climbed that area so I can't help you there.
I think this was well understood by RGold. Directionals need to be solid placements, not marginal, "ok" placements. The 2nd (or top-roping climber) falling on a marginal directional will cause a swinging fall if the piece come out...you said it yourself:

zchandran wrote:
But the TR route is along the arete, so OP just wants a directional along the route, so there's not a huge swing.

The directional is there to prevent the "huge swing"! it needs to be a solid piece. I'm not sure how anyone who is in the position of leading routes (a 5.10 at the Gunks nonetheless!) and setting up TR's for someone else can't figure this out.


(This post was edited by csproul on May 22, 2013, 11:34 AM)


Partner rgold


May 22, 2013, 11:34 AM
Post #10 of 15 (2126 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [zchandran] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

zchandran wrote:

I think there's a couple of things being mixed up here. If I'm reading this correctly, OP wants to lead Oops, then set up a TR anchor on the appropriate bolts for the other route. But the TR route is along the arete, so OP just wants a directional along the route, so there's not a huge swing. In that case, a tricam or something should work as long as his buddy can remove it on the way up. Doesn't have to be bomber since the swing won't be extreme if it pops.

You may not agree with me, but I'm not mixed up about anything.

First of all, the advice given is general, in a beginner's forum, and is not specific to this particular route.

Second of all, the severity of the swing depends on how high the directional is relative to the bolts. The higher it is, the worst the swing, including possible a leader fall for the second. If it is low down, then the second will have to unclip from it and face the worst swing without protection.

So given that the directional has to be high, it is far from clear what it means to say the swing "won't be extreme." But more importantly, if the swing really "won't be extreme," then why bother with a directional at all? The fact that a directional is required means the second is supposed to be protected from something. That being the case, the leader has no business being satisfied with anything but the best possible placement. In a low-key top-roping situation (as opposed to, say, an alpine epic) I don't think it is acceptable for a directional to pop, and a attitude that is prepared to accept "ok" rather than "bombproof" is irresponsible.


lena_chita
Moderator

May 22, 2013, 12:34 PM
Post #11 of 15 (2098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5586

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
I find this really puzzling. The routes you are leading are 5.10. You're a competent 5.10 leader and are asking on the internet how to rig directionals?

lena chita wrote:
...you don't need a bomber piece or pieces that would hold a lead fall for directionals. They need to be just O.K. to keep the rope where you want it to be, e.i. over the arete.

Oh god, this is some of the worst advice I've every seen on the internet. If a directional at the top of a route blows, especially when the climber is close to it, they'll be subjected to a potentially dangerous swing.

True, but not on that route. The routes converge near the top, and there is nothing in the way, no bulges, etc. And the anchors are bolted. The swing gets smaller the higher you go.

I shouldn't have said it the way I did, because, obviously, directionals falling out are not good. They have to be good enough to hold a potential swinging fall, or there is no point in having a directional in the first place. But my recollection of the routes is that there is a very good place for gear on the arete higher up. There is a tricky spot in the middle where you have to traverse on lead, to place gear to protect ground fall, but on TR it is straightforward climbing with no traversing and not a bad swing near the top, or after the directional is unclipped.


(This post was edited by lena_chita on May 22, 2013, 12:50 PM)


zchandran


May 22, 2013, 12:36 PM
Post #12 of 15 (2097 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 117

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
zchandran wrote:

I think there's a couple of things being mixed up here. If I'm reading this correctly, OP wants to lead Oops, then set up a TR anchor on the appropriate bolts for the other route. But the TR route is along the arete, so OP just wants a directional along the route, so there's not a huge swing. In that case, a tricam or something should work as long as his buddy can remove it on the way up. Doesn't have to be bomber since the swing won't be extreme if it pops.

You may not agree with me, but I'm not mixed up about anything.

First of all, the advice given is general, in a beginner's forum, and is not specific to this particular route.

Second of all, the severity of the swing depends on how high the directional is relative to the bolts. The higher it is, the worst the swing, including possible a leader fall for the second. If it is low down, then the second will have to unclip from it and face the worst swing without protection.

So given that the directional has to be high, it is far from clear what it means to say the swing "won't be extreme." But more importantly, if the swing really "won't be extreme," then why bother with a directional at all? The fact that a directional is required means the second is supposed to be protected from something. That being the case, the leader has no business being satisfied with anything but the best possible placement. In a low-key top-roping situation (as opposed to, say, an alpine epic) I don't think it is acceptable for a directional to pop, and a attitude that is prepared to accept "ok" rather than "bombproof" is irresponsible.

This is about a specific route. It is about Pencil & Johnny's Arete on the Oops wall. The OP even included a picture, and made it clear that he's looking for information on this particular route, not general info on how to place a directional in any given situation.

I agree with you that appropriate thought has to be put into the placement. However, in a lot of sport areas, you have to take what you get. I would hope someone who is leading 5.10 and setting up anchors can evaluate how bad a swing would be, or if there is potential for decking.

So in a lot of cases, the choice is between using a single OK directional or nothing at all. Saying that any directional has to be as safe as a belay anchor is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Again, can't speak to this case. But someone who's done that route should be able to clear the matter up quickly.


Partner rgold


May 22, 2013, 1:27 PM
Post #13 of 15 (2075 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [zchandran] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

The OP asked a specific question, but the response was general, even if that wasn't Lena's intention. There was nothing in the response that said, "on this route..." or "...as I recall, you can..." or anything else that made the response specific to the particular route. So no, the response as written (as opposed to as intended) is not about a specific route. And it is in a beginner's forum where it will be read by people doing other routes.

As far as "the perfect being the enemy of the good," its not the issue and in any case is wrong. It is wrong because nowhere did I say that you shouldn't place a directional if you can't make it perfect. So no "enemy" relationship exists.

More importantly, it's not the issue because the original post didn't say that the leader should make every effort to make the directional bombproof and only settle of "ok" if all efforts at "perfection" fail. The original post said "ok is good enough." I'm saying ok is not good enough, and once you start thinking that way you'll almost inevitably settle for ok when you could have had "perfect."

In my experience, it is pretty rare that you can only get a so-so directional. Usually, if you can get in one piece, you can back it up with another. But if I can't do better than "ok," I'll do two things. (1) The first and most important thing is to tell the second what the situation is. They ought to have a choice about the risks they are taking. (2) I'll do everything I can to modify the situation that called for the directional. I'll work to get in extra pieces along the traverse, try to climb straight up to a better directional and then traverse, etc.

Sorry for being argumentative, but sadly, my comments are not hypothetical. I've seen what I consider violations of this fundamental responsibility of leaders to their seconds over and over again, including some that would have fatal consequences if the single directional piece pulled, and that piece in a spot that would have taken several to back it up.

Relatively inexperienced leaders are often focused on their own security but really don't think clearly about the second's security. This is backwards. The choices you make for yourself are your decision and your mistakes are your problem. But when you fail to protect the second properly, you are imposing choices on someone else who has no input into the situation and may not even know enough to make a comment after the fact. This means the leader, really as a matter of moral integrity, has to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to the second.

And a final word on tricams, since they have been repeatedly mentioned. A tricam in a horizontal placement is often insecure if it is subjected to a load with a horizontal component, as is the case when it used as a directional. The more horizontal the rope after the directional, the bigger the horizontal component and the less reliable the tricam will be. This makes such a tricam just about the worst single piece you could place as a directional, unless you are able to angle the placement in the crack towards the direction of pull and have tested the placement with vigorous horizontal as well as vertical jerking. Even so such a piece is never more than barely "ok" and should never, if there is any opportunity to do better, be the only piece in a directional.


bearbreeder


May 22, 2013, 1:27 PM
Post #14 of 15 (2074 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [zchandran] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

1. they are TRAD climbs, not sport ones

2. a competent 5.10 leader should already know how to set up directionals ... hell if you cant how will youre follower clean your route safely??? ... if you need to ask then get someone to show you

3. you DONT want the directionals to fail ... there have been injuries with people swinging into features ... hell my partner swung and snapped his ankle a few months ago when he did something stupid in a similar situation, hes still in a cast

4. if the topo says use directionals ten i suggest following em by placing SOLID ones ... just because the swing doesnt "look" dangerous doesnt mean it isnt ... the one my partner snapped an ankle on wasnt an obvious swing

5. if your directional is only "OK" and theres a real chance of it failing .... place multiple ones

the crack route my partner snapped his ankle on because of a swing ... most people wouldnt consider this a HUGE swing ...




zchandran


May 22, 2013, 2:09 PM
Post #15 of 15 (2047 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 117

Re: [rgold] Directionals on TR Gunks-Peterskill [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think I'm on the same page as you. Of course I would take a solid placement over an "OK" one any day. And if placing the directional increases the risk of injury, then it shouldn't go in. I would say my minimum standards for a directional are far less than that for an anchor - but I'm not advocating using a wadded up Coke can on a sling... which I have witnessed...

Tricams are something I've been forced to use for directionals more than once, so they're a good example. On some of the climbs around here those are the only thing that will work in the sandstone pockets. For a horizontal crack I would generally use an Alien, but there are some routes where the pinky is the only thing that will work. So when tugging it into place, I try to strike a balance between it not coming loose, and being reasonably easy for someone to clean if they've never used a nut tool before. But to reiterate, I would only do that if the piece coming loose at any point would not increase the injury risk.


Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook