By Joey Wolfe
Nov 22, 2007
| I am looking into buying a new rope and wanted to hear everyone's opinion on what they think is a good sub 10mm (i thinking 9.8 to 9.6 at the smallest) for steep trad routes. I use a 10.3 edelweiss now, and was think about shaving some grams. So what are the pros and cons of ropes you have bought/used. haven't really used a lot of different brands, and even less under 10mm, so anything you can think of lets hear it. Thanks |  |
By Jake D.
Nov 22, 2007
| big fan of my Mammut Infinity 9.5mm i've also heard good things about the new petzl ropes that are out now too | |
By saxfiend
Administrator
From Atlanta, GA
Nov 22, 2007
| I have a 9.8 Edelweiss 70-meter single that I like a lot. In terms of handling, it feels no different than my 10.2 Mammut 60-meter single. Weight is where the advantage is for me: the 70m rope weighs about the same as the 60. I wouldn't buy another rope >10mm.
JL | |
By John Hegyes
From Las Vegas, NV
Nov 22, 2007
| I recommend my Mammut 9.8mm bi-color 60m and I second saxfiend - I'll never buy a rope larger than 10mm.
Also, you should look into double ropes like my 8.5mm Mammut Genesis. You'll find some advantages here, for sure. | |
By Mike Morley
Administrator
From Oakland, CA
Nov 22, 2007
| I've been happy with the 9.2 Mammut Revelation. A bit pricey, but look around for deals. I was able to pick one up for under $130 on sale. | |
By Steve Williams
From Denver, CO
Nov 23, 2007
| I like the Beal ropes--9.7's are great, they come with middle marks
already, or you can get the bi colored ropes too. Great feel,
handle well. Look around online and you can usually get a deal
somewhere | |
By JamesW
Nov 23, 2007
| The new petzl ropes are nice, but pricey & don't last very long...I've had very good luck with a 9.8 Edelrid 70m Dry. I picked it up last winter & it's holding up nicely...REI for $130 I think?
Doubles are great if you're planning on climbing multi-pitch or meandering routes | |
By Joey Wolfe
Nov 24, 2007
| The idea of a 9.5 or 9.2 sounds great but don't they stretch like crazy when weight and when you take a ride? Also with a 9.2, is there a lot of slip in a regular atc? Seems like 9.5 and below wouldn't be that great for Trad, but like i said, never used one for Trad. | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Nov 24, 2007
| The stretch during the first fall as well as the static elongation of a rope are much more a function of its brand than of its diameter. For instance, most Beal single ropes stretch between 37 and 38%, while most Mammut single ropes stretch between 29 and 31%. Each manufacturer has its own ideas about the trade-off between impact force and stretch. (You'd want both to be low, but that's hard to achieve.)
As for the amount of friction, it is a function of both belay device and rigging. For instance, when I rappel on 10 mm ropes with my ATC Guide, I get too much friction, but with my 9.1 rope it's just right. That's partly because the ATC Guide has rather narrow slots, but also because I use a fairly high-friction setup that works well with skinny ropes. | |
By Rick Miske
From Orem, UT
Dec 1, 2007
| Joey Wolfe wrote: The idea of a 9.5 or 9.2 sounds great but don't they stretch like crazy when weight and when you take a ride? Also with a 9.2, is there a lot of slip in a regular atc? Seems like 9.5 and below wouldn't be that great for Trad, but like i said, never used one for Trad.
I have a Sterling 9.8 I use quite a bit and yes, it seems to stretch a lot more than I expected. | |
By Tim Stich
From Colorado Springs, Colorado
Dec 1, 2007
| I have the 9.8 Edelweiss Laser bi-color 70-meter single. It's been a really great rope so far. I love the extra long cord for linking pitches and long pitches on the Flatirons. Doubles and twins seems to tangle up too easily to me. Really skinny cords are a bummer like that. | |
By Kevin Craig
Dec 1, 2007
| Beal Booster (9.7mm?) for me! Love their ropes. I have a hard time finding the bi-color versions though they do make them. Their middle marks are fairly durable though and they sell a marking "pen" to renew the mark.
OTOH, in my experience, Mammut ropes are much more durable than Beal, but they do have a much higher impact force too. | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Thinner ropes have quite a bit more stretch in them, yes, but that reduces the impact force you put on your gear; an advantage in the trad realm, IMO.
I also will not buy another rope >10mm, with the exception of workhorses for long aid lines.
Ropes that are less <10mm have the following characteristics:
~~Lower Impact force on the whole system (gear, climber, belayer)
~~Fewer UIAA falls (not a good thing, IMO, if you're going to be taking a lot of whippers on them, unless you're sponsored :))
~~More stretch during falls (good for impact force, bad for hitting ledges)
~~They generally don't last as long because they don't put burly sheaths on them to keep the weight down
I mostly trad climb. Right now, I'm buying ropes in the 9.4 to 9.8 range. The super-light ones have a really low number of UIAA falls (from what I've seen) and are mostly for sponsored sport climbers and people with a lot of money. Anything over 9.8mm is heavier than I like to carry and climb with, personally.
The best thing to do, IMO, is to go into a store and get familiar with all of the different numbers on ropes in various rope diameters. Personally, what I look at (in order of importance):
1) Number of UIAA falls
2) Impact Force (The lower the # the better)
3) Weight per meter
Of course you also have to consider the length (50m vs 60m vs 70m)
Hope that helps.
--Marc | |
By John Langston
Dec 1, 2007
| Marc Horan wrote: 3) Weight per meter
My thoughts exactly, not diameter. My ropes generally get used A LOT. This fattens them up over time.
My Edelweiss is 9.6, most people ask me if it's a 10.2. My last rope, at 9.9 looks 11. My 8mm twins are a lot bigger than most peoples 8.5.
It's not a big deal though. The ropes are newish, have a lot of life left, and still handle well. It's not like the grams per meter changes (ok a little dirt). The only problem is the autolock mode on on an ATC guide sucks ass on thick ropes. | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Marc,
There is no appreciable correlation between diameter and impact force. There is good correlation between diameter and weight and decent correlation between these two and the number of falls. I tried a little analysis on the specs of the Beal and Mammut ropes. Here is the correlation matrix for Beal ropes:
Diameter Impact.F St..Elong. Dyn..El. Falls Weight
Diameter 1.0000000 -0.1304991 0.3403128 -0.5628931 0.7891174 0.9585587
Impact.F -0.1304991 1.0000000 -0.4366178 -0.3571664 -0.4679471 -0.2067046
St..Elong. 0.3403128 -0.4366178 1.0000000 0.2345891 0.3479002 0.3837969
Dyn..El. -0.5628931 -0.3571664 0.2345891 1.0000000 -0.4556809 -0.5662889
Falls 0.7891174 -0.4679471 0.3479002 -0.4556809 1.0000000 0.8790613
Weight 0.9585587 -0.2067046 0.3837969 -0.5662889 0.8790613 1.0000000
The matrix for the Mammut ropes is similar, and since it's equally unreadable, I'll leave it out. Rather, here are scatterplot matrices that are gentler to the eye. First Mammut and then Beal. If the browser does not render them well in the forum page, click on them.
Analysis performed with R. Data from the manufacturers' websites. | |
By caughtinside
From Point Richmond, CA
Dec 1, 2007
| Skinny ropes are great! I'd only advise using them with some sort of higher friction belay device for more control though, like an atc xp or guide.
I own and use:
Beal Booster 9.7--my favorite! smooth handling, springy rope, stretches a fair bit.
Bluewater Dominator 9.4--also really nice, very light.
Maxim 9.8--a fine rope, but this one fuzzed up faster than the others.
I've also got a joker 9.1, but it's still in the bag, probably break it out next spring.
I agree with whoever said they are not buying a rope over 10mm again (except for aid climbing) | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| brenta-
Sorry, man, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
My understanding is that thinner ropes stretch more than fatter ropes. More stretching equals lower impact force on the system. At least that's how I understand it. Those matrices are mumbo-jumbo to me. Good luck with that though.
brenta wrote: If the browser does not render them well in the forum page, click on them.
Yeah, cuz that's gonna help. LOL. Sorry, but I find it slightly humorous that you think that your matrices are going to mean anything to a layperson.
--Marc | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| For the layperson, the message is this: "The notion that thinner ropes have lower impact force is a common misconception." | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| brenta wrote: For the layperson, the message is this: "The notion that thinner ropes have lower impact force is a common misconception."
Much better; thank you. Most of the people that use this sight are laypeople and not mathematicians (or would statistician be a more appropriate label?).
Would you say, as an apparent expert, that a rope with a higher elongation would have a lower impact force? Is it safe to say there is a direct correlation between those two values?
--Marc | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| John Langston wrote: The only problem is the autolock mode on on an ATC guide sucks ass on thick ropes.
I would agree. It does appear as though belay device manufacturers are aware that ropes are gradually getter smaller and therefore they're making their devices a little smaller. Again, that's the way it appears. I don't know if that's actually true.
--Marc | |
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Marc Horan wrote: Would you say, as an apparent expert, that a rope with a higher elongation would have a lower impact force? Is it safe to say there is a direct correlation between those two values?
Based on brenta's analysis, that looks like a grey area; i.e., a correlation of -0.36 (between impact force and dynamic elongation; Beal) suggests a relationship, but certainly not a "direct" correlation. In other words, impact force is not purely a function of elongation; other variables appear to be involved. | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Richard Radcliffe wrote: Based on brenta's analysis, that looks like a grey area; i.e., a correlation of -0.36 (between impact force and dynamic elongation; Beal) suggests a relationship, but certainly not a "direct" correlation. In other words, impact force is not purely a function of elongation; other variables appear to be involved.
Thanks for your opinion. I'm slightly amazed that you can pull that out of those numbers. Do you agree with Richard's opinion/statement of fact, brenta?
--Marc | |
By Richard Radcliffe
From Louisville, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Marc Horan wrote: I'm slightly amazed that you can pull that out of those numbers.
It's not really that difficult. Look at the scatterplot of diameter vs. weight -- it's nearly a straight line, just what you'd expect. Think about what that means and then look at some of the other scatterplots. | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Richard Radcliffe wrote: It's not really that difficult. Look at the scatterplot of diameter vs. weight -- it's nearly a straight line, just what you'd expect. Think about what that means and then look at some of the other scatterplots.
I looked, Richard; I still don't get it. It's been 8 years since I studied statistics; I wasn't that good with it to begin with. I don't know how to read a scatterplot unfortunately. But thanks for calling it "not..difficult" :)
Also, Richard, when you say "other variables appear to be involved," would the "other variable(s)" have to be one that is incorporated into the matrix? Or could it be something that wasn't accounted for in the matrix? All of a sudden I find this kind of interesting; go figure. Thanks again for your input.
--Marc | |
By brenta
From Boulder, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| Marc Horan wrote: Would you say, as an apparent expert, that a rope with a higher elongation would have a lower impact force? Is it safe to say there is a direct correlation between those two values? --Marc
I'm not an expert on ropes. An expert would be able to explain how the construction of real ropes accounts for the weak correlation among parameters that intuition suggests should be strongly correlated. Indeed, if climbing ropes were ideal springs, a thicker rope made of the same material would have a larger rope modulus. Therefore, it would elongate less and exert larger forces. Climbing ropes, however, are significantly different from ideal springs.
Coming to your question, the correlation between elongation (both static and dynamic) and impact force is rather weak (-0.36 and -0.44) but at least it has the right sign (we expect impact force to decrease with elongation), and is better than the abysmal -0.13 we find for the correlation between diameter and impact force. Said otherwise, differences in elongation explain only in part differences in impact force.
(For the layperson, correlation coefficients go from -1 (strong negative correlation) to +1 (strong positive correlation). Absolute values close to 0 indicate weak correlation.)
Edit: I was composing my message when Richard posted his. Yes, I agree with him. | |
By Marc Horan
From Lafayette, CO
Dec 1, 2007
| brenta wrote: I'm not an expert on ropes. An expert would be able to explain how the construction of real ropes accounts for the weak correlation among parameters that intuition suggests should be strongly correlated.
Ok, you're not an expert, but you appear to be significantly more knowledgeable than me, and I'm gonna pick your brain for a minute, if that's cool.
brenta:
Indeed, if climbing ropes were ideal springs, a thicker rope made of the same material would have a larger rope modulus. Therefore, it would elongate less and exert larger forces. Climbing ropes, however, are significantly different from ideal springs.
brenta wrote: Coming to your question, the correlation between elongation (both static and dynamic) and impact force is rather weak (-0.36 and -0.44) but at least it has the right sign (we expect impact force to decrease with elongation), and is better than the abysmal -0.13 we find for the correlation between diameter and impact force. Said otherwise, differences in elongation explain only in part differences in impact force. (For the layperson, correlation coefficients go from -1 (strong negative correlation) to +1 (strong positive correlation). Absolute values close to 0 indicate weak correlation.)
Ok. I think that I understand this, for the most part; it's possible my next question will prove otherwise though. Say you were to make two different ropes with the same exact materials (just the core, for simplicities sake) and the same exact manufacturing process; one is 8mm and one is 12mm. You then compared the characteristics of each rope in a matrix, might that change the outcome, or no? | |
|
[ Forums > Climbing Gear Discussion ]
RSS Feed
