Mountain Project Logo

Accident in Eldorado

Josh Warfield · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 75
Dee A wrote:Yes he was wearing a helmet. No doubt it saved his life.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (this being the internet), but aren't climbing helmets specifically designed to protect against rockfall, and not exactly rated for anything else? I'm having trouble finding/interpreting info on testing standards (UIAA 106 and Snell RS-98 for ski helmets) but just looking at my helmet (BD Half Dome) it seems very poorly designed to soften a lateral impact, like you'd get from hitting the ground or swinging into the rock. It's just plastic on the sides and only has the foam stuff in the top part, compared to my ski helmet and bike helmet which seem much more designed to absorb an impact to the side, back, or front. Not saying the helmet didn't help, but sounds like the bolt and/or whatever force those pieces absorbed before blowing are more likely to have prevented worse injury. Or even maybe his legs absorbed enough force that the head injury was less severe.

In any case, glad he's gonna make it through and (sounds like) climb again if he wants to.

And as far as learning from other's misfortune goes, to me it seems the lessons are 1. try not to get off route in Eldo, and 2. cams are not always bomber. Hard to say anything more specific about small cams or whatever (unknown whether the rock broke, whether the force on the piece was past its rated strength, whether the outward-facing placement really made the difference between holding and failing, etc.), so for now I'm just gonna stick with the manufacturer's advice about how to use their gear because they're the ones who do controlled tests on that all the time.
Paul Hassett · · Aurora CO · Joined Oct 2002 · Points: 161

Helmets have become the climbing PC's new crusade for some reason. Seemingly to add the illusion of "safety" to a sport that is inherently unsafe.

Take this in context of this picture:

"Helmut" folk

sean o · · Northern, NM · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 48
Paul Hassett wrote:Helmets have become the climbing PC's new crusade for some reason.
I always get a kick out of ANAM: "Mr. Smith fell from the boulder and broke his fibula and tibia. He subsequently died of dehydration while crawling across the desert to get help. He was not wearing a helmet."
aikibujin · · Castle Rock, CO · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 300
Josh Warfield wrote: I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (this being the internet), but aren't climbing helmets specifically designed to protect against rockfall, and not exactly rated for anything else?
No, climbing helmet rated to UIAA 106 or EN 12492 does have front, rear, and side impact requirements.

From UIAA 106 section 2.2.1, Safety Requirements:
The force transmitted to the head form as a result of the impact of the falling mass shall not exceed 8 kN for the vertical impact test, for the side impact test, for the front impact test and the rear impact test.
Pogie · · Breckenridge, CO · Joined Nov 2015 · Points: 45
Paul Hassett wrote:Helmets have become the climbing PC's new crusade for some reason. Seemingly to add the illusion of "safety" to a sport that is inherently unsafe. Take this in context of this picture:
Make your own decisions on wearing a helmet but belittling someone for their choice, especially as concerned to safety is shitty.
Daniel Evans · · Phoenix, AZ · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 80
seano wrote: I always get a kick out of ANAM: "Mr. Smith fell from the boulder and broke his fibia and tibia. He subsequently died of dehydration while crawling across the desert to get help. He was not wearing a helmet."
I'm stealing this
Paul Hassett · · Aurora CO · Joined Oct 2002 · Points: 161
Pogie wrote: Make your own decisions on wearing a helmet but belittling someone for their choice, especially as concerned to safety is shitty.
I do, and I am not "belittling" anyone for wearing one, just for the constant nannying that seems to arise every time someone reports an accident on this site, or for that matter submits a picture that involves some "dangerous" climbing.

I find it "belittling" and insulting that random douches feel that they need to tell the rest of the world how they should behave when they go climbing.

As you say, "it is shitty", in my opinion.
patto · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 25
Josh Warfield wrote:Hard to say anything more specific about small cams or whatever (unknown whether the rock broke, whether the force on the piece was past its rated strength, whether the outward-facing placement really made the difference between holding and failing, etc.)
Actually we can still say a fair bit.
-The outward facing placement clearly lead to the failure of the yellow piece.
-The piece wasn't loaded past its ultimate strength because otherwise the stem would be broken.
-The rock most likely did break because something held force and the gave way. The other option was lobe compression but that is less likely.

Josh Warfield wrote:so for now I'm just gonna stick with the manufacturer's advice about how to use their gear because they're the ones who do controlled tests on that all the time.
That would be a poor decision. There are plenty of intricacies in gear placement that are important to know that manufactures do not comment on.
Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422
don't ever trust cams between you and the ground

I think you mean, don't trust small cams.

-------------------------------------------------

The paraphrased quote / advice from Metolius that I think you're looking for is:

"don't trust a single cam in a ground fall placement"
jason.cre · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 10
patto wrote: -The piece wasn't loaded past its ultimate strength because otherwise the stem would be broken.
....wait really? A cam that fails due to load will snap in the stem?
Mason Roberts · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 197

I'm glad he was wearing one, and I hope he is able to get back on the rock soon.

Paul Hassett wrote: I do, and I am not "belittling" anyone for wearing one, just for the constant nannying that seems to arise every time someone reports an accident on this site, or for that matter submits a picture that involves some "dangerous" climbing. I find it "belittling" and insulting that random douches feel that they need to tell the rest of the world how they should behave when they go climbing. As you say, "it is shitty", in my opinion.
Do what you want dude. I wasn't "nannying" anyone, just wondering.

Also, my pic is showing me having fun climbing. Posting my pic as an example of the PC police is belittling, and I can't help to think that you're calling me a "random douche". Plus, your argument makes no sense. You could say that a picture of someone next to a cam is showing an unreasonable amount of safety in an inherently unsafe sport.

You seem like someone with a bone to pick. I've got no bones here.
patto · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 25
jason.cre wrote: ....wait really? A cam that fails due to load will snap in the stem?
Yes, in general. It does depend on the cam but most well made cams have the weak point being the load bearing stem. Some double axle cams have weaknesses in their axles. AKA old Camalots

A well made cam will break at the stem. In the case of C4s this happens at the bend in the thumb loop. A decent cam doesn't just give up and pull out. It breaks in a spectacular fashion.

(Weak axles, or super soft lobes can cause a CAM to track out as its effective camming angle decreases or simply due to shear. But any well made cam shouldn't suffer these deficiencies.)

I say well made because even a basic homemade cam can hold 20kN! (See Aric's homemade cam.)
Josh Warfield · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 75
patto wrote:-The outward facing placement clearly lead to the failure of the yellow piece.
It's not clear to me; care to expand on this? I can definitely see that it was placed facing outward, and it seems intuitive that that would result in a higher force on certain parts versus if it had been placed facing downward. But I'm not sure if that means 200% more force or 3% more force, and I'm definitely not convinced that if the cam had been in the same spot but facing downward, that it would have held.

patto wrote:That would be a poor decision. There are plenty of intricacies in gear placement that are important to know that manufactures do not comment on.
Perhaps I overstated what I meant. I wouldn't want someone to *only* read the info that comes with the cam and then head out for their first trad lead. What I mean is more that this is a sample size of 2, with nothing at all resembling controlled conditions, and some people in this thread are going off the deep end and saying things like "never trust small cams".
patto · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 25
Josh Warfield wrote: It's not clear to me; care to expand on this?
-The cam held a significant load as can be seen by the deformation of the stem.
-The cam stem didn't fail so it failed below rated strength.
-One set of lobes took a very significant load due to the outward nature of the placement. Based on the 2-3x cam loading mentioned below, one would conclude that the cams lobes were loaded to a greater amount than if they were in a downwards placement. Very likely exceeding the loading expect at rated strength.
-The failure seems to have occurred at these two lobes. Whether it was rock failure of lobe compression failure it is hard to tell. But what we can say is that these lobes only experienced those extreme forces because of the sideways placement.
-Therefore the conclusion that it failed due to it being a sideways placement follows.

Josh Warfield wrote:I can definitely see that it was placed facing outward, and it seems intuitive that that would result in a higher force on certain parts versus if it had been placed facing downward. But I'm not sure if that means 200% more force or 3% more force
The mathematics are relatively straightforward with a few approximate assumptions. Balancing the momements of a cam that is perpendicular to the rock will quickly lead you to an 2-3x cam loading.

Josh Warfield wrote:I'm definitely not convinced that if the cam had been in the same spot but facing downward, that it would have held.
That is counter factual. For all we know a cam could not have even been placed in an downward facing position. So I can't speculated on that.
patto · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 25

Oh and one more thing...

The majority of the cames I place aren't strictly downwards facing. But likewise a significant amount of time the forces on the cam unit isn't downwards! The vector forces on the cam need to be considered based on the surrounding rock features. Sideways or even upwards forces can occur even during a downwards fall.

(I've certainly weighted cams on lead which have their stems pointing straight to the sky.)

RangerJ · · Denver, CO · Joined Jan 2012 · Points: 65

Looks like there was another fall in Eldo.

9news.com/news/local/crews-…

The story says the climber wasn't wearing a helmet, but there are few other details.

doublediamond100 · · Thousand Oaks, CA · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 0
jason.cre wrote: ....wait really? A cam that fails due to load will snap in the stem?
Based on this video from totem, it looks like smaller cams (in this case a green alien, slightly larger than the yellow x4 in question) can fail by shearing of the lobes when undercammed. Interestingly, the rated strength of the cam in the video is equal to the breaking force of the second, undercammed test (~1:40 in the video). While the geometries and metals used in x4s are different from totem basics, it looks like it's possible the cam used in the fall could have failed at its rated strength.

youtube.com/watch?v=qIAZ4DF…
patto · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2012 · Points: 25
doublediamond100 wrote: Based on this video from totem, it looks like smaller cams (in this case a green alien, slightly larger than the yellow x4 in question) can fail by shearing of the lobes when undercammed.
That isn't shearing of the lobes. That is lobe compression caused failure. (All lobes elastically compress under load. This will be greater in undercammed positions. This compression changes the camming angle and moves the centre of the load further back on the cam. For an tipped out cam this can readily mean total failure. (But that is of course why we don't place cams in an undercammed position.)

doublediamond100 wrote:Interestingly, the rated strength of the cam in the video is equal to the breaking force of the second, undercammed test (~1:40 in the video). While the geometries and metals used in x4s are different from totem basics, it looks like it's possible the cam used in the fall could have failed at its rated strength. youtube.com/watch?v=qIAZ4DF…
If it was undercammed certainly. But from the scoring on the lobes it certainly seems like the X4 was not undercammed.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "Accident in Eldorado"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.