Accident on Manic Crack in NM

slim wrote: is it not possible that they were (originally) placed in the direction of potential fall, but shifted?

Yes. I should have said "the truth of the statement is impossible to verify."

However, if you are going to take on a piece of gear at waist-level there's no reason to have the damn thing pointing down. The idea is to have the stem pointed in the direction of the loading, which would be outward if you are taking at a waist-level piece.

If you point a cam at your waist downward (and you could have placed it outward) and then take on it you are making a mistake.

If you point a cam outward (and you could have placed it downward) and then fall on it you are making a mistake.

Another thing, I am surprised that more people aren't mentioning the fact that the OP and friend have at no point produced any evidence that even 1 cam failed, even though the basic premise of his original post was that 3 cams failed.

Instead OP has produced pictures that fail to indicate they pulled as a result of the hardware, has responded in such as manner to indicate he didn't understand the concept of "placed in the direction of a fall" (so how the hell could you possibly evaluate at the time that you had placed them correctly if you aren't even clear on what that means), and ultimately has failed to concede his accident was more likely a result of his error than because of defective gear.

It is as if getting injured makes you above reproach. Which is completely BS. I am sorry someone got hurt but that doesn't give you a free pass to wildly speculate about gear failure. Providing incorrect information (whether purposefully or not) is at best ignorant and at worst potentially dangerous to anyone that comes across it without knowing better.

All three cams are X4's. The .4 can be confused with a mastercam but when you take a closer look it definitely an X4 .4

And a whole bunch of thing can happen when you take on a cam. All depending on how, at what angle and what you do right after. If the leader shifts around the cam may shift as well. If it finds a bad spot then it's game over. All this is no fault of the cam though.

It's not really clear what exactly happened but suffice it to say that the cams did not explode.

Guy Keesee wrote: shoo.... got you to check it out... pretty silly- true. I have watched several "ground falls" .... and that is what is being discussed right here... all of them involved somebody "TAKING" on thin marginal gear, cams or stoppers, that were at best A3 placements.... One at JT involved a DEATH after a poor fellow repeatedly TOOK and fell and TOOK somemore on his one thin cam placement, he never reset it, just treated it like it was a bolt.... a cheap way to die. and one of my friends, placed a small cam, then TOOK and it pulled out and he fell on his head!!!! Knocked himself out cold (with helmet on) for about 30 min .... yes we were very worried. All I am trying to say is this: Never take on your thin crummy placements, down climb to the ground - pull test the sucker, and never settle for crap placements.

Again, completely silly. People have been injured or died when non-micro gear pulled. Also, on a hard route it might be less safe to try to downclimb to the ground - if you come off and the piece pulls you will be closer to the ground. Never settle for crap placements? Sometimes that's all you can get - there are a lot of routes that don't have perfect gear every 5 feet, and you have to make a judgment call.

slim wrote: Never settle for crap placements? Sometimes that's all you can get - there are a lot of routes that don't have perfect gear every 5 feet, and you have to make a judgment call.

Slim... agreed, but in the end, its all about judgment....one must be able to tell the difference between crap placements and good ones and then make a call of what to do.

michael s... wrote: The idea is to have the stem pointed in the direction of the loading, which would be outward if you are taking at a waist-level piece. If you point a cam at your waist downward (and you could have placed it outward) and then take on it you are making a mistake. If you point a cam outward (and you could have placed it downward) and then fall on it you are making a mistake.

Your understanding of gravity is faint at best...

Boissal wrote: Your understanding of gravity is faint at best...

A useful response! Thank you for that.

Maybe you could help improve my faint understanding of the concept of gravity?

Boissal wrote: Your understanding of gravity is faint at best...

He's actually got a fair point, even if it was not articulated very well (or maybe not even the point I think he's making?!). I have seen, and done it too. Often when people "take" on their gear they pull it at more of an outward angle than they would if they were to fall on it or even freely hang on the gear. Sometimes this is because they actually grab the gear. Sometimes this is because their feet are on the wall with the gear at their waist, and they are leaning back. Definitely an angle different than would happen if you fell and were hanging below the piece.

One of my biggest, most dangerous falls occurred this way. I encountered a wet/icy section on a slabby section of a climb and felt my self coming off right by a thin stopper. I hung on the piece with the rope tight and the outward pull ripped the piece. Long, upside down fall. Second go, I placed the stopper in same spot, but this time fell on it. No problem. The angle of the pull was different. 3rd go, I put my foot in the sling and aided past it.

michael s wrote: The idea is to have the stem pointed in the direction of the loading, which would be outward if you are taking at a waist-level piece.

If you point a cam at your waist downward (and you could have placed it outward) and then take on it you are making a mistake. If you point a cam outward (and you could have placed it downward) and then fall on it you are making a mistake.

Yeah. No. Not exactly. If your tie in knot is right at the piece and you are pulling outward horizontal and the rope going to the belayer is pointing downward, the net resultant vector force would be roughly in between these directions, approximately 45 degress.

Resultant direction of load

The details might be wrong, but the point is still same. If you're not careful, hanging on gear and falling on gear can result in forces that are not in the same direction. Something to consider when you call "take".

Bronco wrote:Informative thread. Here's my observation: I wish I could lead 5.11.

me too ;p

michael s... wrote: A useful response! Thank you for that. Maybe you could help improve my faint understanding of the concept of gravity?

The back of the napkin drawing below should be enough. Not exactly rocket surgery. If you don't get it, stick to clipping bolts...

As far as considering what you said a fair point, it's not, unless you're talking about low angle slab (as csproul described). For a vertical or over-vertical wall the force exerted on your cam won't be perpendicular to the wall, or even at a 45 degree angle as drawn. To get anywhere near these angles you'd need the belayer to pull every inch of slack in the system while the cam is at your waist and you're not weighing it. Then you'd have to sit on the cam so you don't drop anywhere below it while pushing as hard as you can on your legs to get your hips away from the wall. Sounds like a dumb move. It's easy enough to do on slab though because you're a lot more stood-up and outward pull is easy to achieve.

Thinking about this I realized I was talking about instances where the climbing is basically vertical or less than vertical. This doesn't apply to overhanging terrain.

Boissal wrote: To get anywhere near these angles you'd need the belayer to pull every inch of slack in the system while the cam is at your waist and you're not weighing it.

Why exactly would the belayer need to pull out all the slack before you're weighing it? Whether you are weighting the rope or they are pulling out slack the effect is the same.

In fact, I would like to hear about how it would be possible to have a rope with no slack in it while simultaneously none of your weight is being supported by the rope.

Boissal wrote:Then you'd have to sit on the cam so you don't drop anywhere below it while pushing as hard as you can on your legs to get your hips away from the wall.

I am picturing you "taking" and apparently your legs aren't very strong so your hips just get pushed directly against the wall and its pretty funny. Maybe I am like Hercules or something but usually it isn't that hard for me to weight a cam and keep my hips away from the wall.

Boissal wrote: Sounds like a dumb move.

Good advice. Next time I need to take I am just going to go limp and let the chips fall where they may.

Boissal wrote:It's easy enough to do on slab though because you're a lot more stood-up and outward pull is easy to achieve.

That's what I'm saying broseph. Outward pull. Watch out for it.

I don't really know why I feel the need to respond to so many strangers on the internet. Hopefully this will go away soon.

Brian Treanor wrote:Boissal However, there is no way you can hang on a piece and still have the pull perpendicular to gravity, that is, directly out or at 90 degrees to a vertical wall.

I agree with the theory and the napkin picture and all that. However, If you are leaning back on a piece the outward pull of the rope is going to want to rotate the cam so it is in line with the direction of pull, and you should be mindful of that.

Sure it probably isn't 90 degrees exactly but it certainly isn't the same direction as what would happen if you are 10 feel above a piece and you fall on it.

Thinking about this more, I never said that "outward" meant 90 degrees from vertical. Ya'll just decided that and ran with it.

When people talk about placing nuts in a way to guard for "outward" pull they are talking about anything more outward than dead vertical.

Hey Kerr,

Good on you for keeping your sense of humor. Hope you heal quickly.

bearbreeder wrote: Do you know the brand and model of the rope? Also did all the pieces pull out without any force on the belayer, or did she get pulled up temporarily ... In other words did any of the cams hold weight for a split second?

It was a Mammut Apex.
Belayer did not feel anything during fall.

MSBriggs wrote: It was a Mammut Apex. Belayer did not feel anything during fall.

I felt the wind in my hair

MSBriggs wrote: It was a Mammut Apex. Belayer did not feel anything during fall.

with the 45 lb weight differential between Keer and the belayer ... the belayer should definitely have felts something if the climb was vertical/slightly overhaning with a clean run of the rope ... especially when the first piece blew and he fall onto the next cam ... and the cam there after

my guess is that either the rope was caught/rubbing somewhere and that increased the friction in the system ... or the pieces walked so badly that they couldnt hold much force in the fall ... or the rock blew out at lower impact forces

if the pieces held a decent amount of weight before blowing, the belayer wasnt anchored, the rope run was clean and straight ... and she didnt feel a thing ... thats a clue

Petzl impact forces

video ... note how much the belayer is pulled up

petzl.com/files/all/product…

i notice from MP that the crack is a bit of a dihedral at the bottom ... any chance the rope rubbed there somehow, or got caught up a bit in the crack?

mountainproject.com/v/left-…

the rope is a "high impact" one (like maxims, some edelrids, and certain mammuts) but unless the rope was caught/rubbing then that has little effect ... if however it did catch/rub that could make a difference

bearbreeder wrote: you can ... its a matter of time and dedication i can get anyone to redpoint a 5.11 or two out in squamish ... if yr here you know the ones

Kangaroo corner.

shoo wrote: Kangaroo corner.

Im going to see if i can get a 5.7/8 climber to redpoint that this year

Peter croft must have been smoking some good Squamish bud when he graded that one

No one i know thinks its 11a, despite being rated so in both book and described as a "testpiece"

;)

ironic
geartrade.com/item/366702/m…