Gear Failure on West Face Leaning Tower results in whipper.

Sirius wrote:The question about the static line is a really good one, any chance of that?

I think we'd all sleep a little better if we could blame this fall on the rope being a static line, but unfortunately there's no way it was. A 60' factor 2 on a static line would cut you in half, or at least break your pelvis into 100 pieces. You wouldn't walk away from it.

Sirius wrote:The question about the static line is a really good one, any chance of that? I think everyone would really like that to be the answer, because the alternative is kind of terrifying! Nah, if the fall had been on a static line the body trauma to the belayer - who caught the fall on his waist - would have been catastrophic. I think the best question to mull over here is not about the biners, but the belay device, as others have posted. Seems likely that the leader would have gone the whole rope length to the tie-in if it not the auto-lock. IMHO the Gri trumps the ATC when belaying leads on a wall in a million ways.

I agree... so how do I get people "more experienced" than me to belay w/ a Gri-Gri? Sometimes I don't feel like questioning their methods if they've used an ATC for forever.

Unless I'm crazy, this doesn't qualify as a factor 2. If he had no gear between him and the anchor when he fell, that would be a factor 2

Wow. Quite a crazy thing! Glad your all okay.

I've seen and had the rope end biner on a sport draw unclip, once on me and a couple times on others. I also saw a guy break a biner on Etude at Suicide a few years ago (he had a load limiter on a fixed pin so it probably rattled the gate open.)

I always have a draw or two set up with small lockers for those situations where you can't afford any weirdness.

Just a note, it's probably not fair to call this a factor two fall since the breaking biners had to absorb quite a bit of energy before failing (I hope??) Did you feel the rope pull tight before the failures?

Adam Burch wrote:Unless I'm crazy, this doesn't qualify as a factor 2. If he had no gear between him and the anchor when he fell, that would be a factor 2

True enough, though it's hard to say how much energy the 3 pieces absorbed as they failed. It may have still been pretty close to a factor 2 fall. As a theoretical minimum, if the pieces were spaced evenly below him, and if each piece completely stopped his fall before failing, he would have essentially taken 4 factor 0.5 falls in sequence. In practice, I think the fall factor was probably well above 1.

Locker wrote:"I've seen ... the rope end biner on a sport draw unclip".

Locker Question for ya; Have you (or anyone for that matter) ever heard of flipping you carabiner (rope end) up once clipping your rope into the draw, so that the biner is facing upwards? It's suppose to reduce the possibility of the rope unclipping its self in the event of a fall or accidental back-clipping. A couple showed this to me once at the New River and I seemed to make sense. Has anyone else heard of doing this?? Just wondering...Also I'm sure this works better on a sport draw where the biner does not move around as much.

Kaleem Khwaja wrote: I think we'd all sleep a little better if we could blame this fall on the rope being a static line, but unfortunately there's no way it was. A 60' factor 2 on a static line would cut you in half, or at least break your pelvis into 100 pieces. You wouldn't walk away from it.

What if the trad draws were nylon instead? It would be a bitch to carry trad draws made of nylon instead of dyneea, but ... would the nylon help absorb the fall enough to reduce gear failure, or is it too short of a distance?

If a rope was not dynamic and were a steel cable instead it would snap off all the pro, even bolts.

It's not the fall that kills you but the stop. If it weren't for dynamic properties the rope stop would be like a ground fall.

Kaleem Khwaja wrote: True enough, though it's hard to say how much energy the 3 pieces absorbed as they failed. It may have still been pretty close to a factor 2 fall. As a theoretical minimum, if the pieces were spaced evenly below him, and if each piece completely stopped his fall before failing, he would have essentially taken 4 factor 0.5 falls in sequence. In practice, I think the fall factor was probably well above 1.

You're correct, it would be hard to say, but we know he put enough stress on it to snap a biner. I'd be careful speculating on the factor, too many variables (and your math is a little suspect). One thing to take away for sure, is don't skimp on your belay anchor, and run the rope through it from your harness.

Yeah I've done that flipping of the biner. Usually after I made the clip thinking the moves would go one side of the bolt or pro (thus orienting the biner with that in mind,) then realizing the moves go the other way.

Factor two or not? Shern (belayer) could help us out by telling us if he felt the rope come tight, as if he were catching the fall, before each of the two biners failed. If the rope did not come tight, generating a lot of force, then the failure of these biners is a real mystery.

Locker wrote:"Locker Question for ya; Have you (or anyone for that matter) ever heard of flipping you carabiner (rope end) up once clipping your rope into the draw, so that the biner is facing upwards?" Yes and I am certain MANY others have as well. ;-) EDITED: "Also I'm sure this works better on a sport draw where the biner does not move around as much." I find the opposite to be true. An OPEN draw works better than a "DOGBONE" as the tightness of the "BONE" can make it difficult to rotate the biner.

I think perhaps the point is being missed. Lack of ability to rotate is a GOOD thing when it comes to preventing crossloading, which is probably what caused the breakage here. Could also have been something odd with the biner being levered over a corner or something, but the footage didn't seem to have any of that going on at that bolt.

Adam Burch wrote: I think perhaps the point is being missed. Lack of ability to rotate is a GOOD thing when it comes to preventing crossloading, which is probably what caused the breakage here. Could also have been something odd with the biner being levered over a corner or something, but the footage didn't seem to have any of that going on at that bolt.

I understand that, I just was making a comment a little of topic, wasn't suggesting that this was the problem in the west face scenario. Maybe I should have just created a new thread for the question. Sorry for the confusion..

Adam Burch wrote: I think perhaps the point is being missed. Lack of ability to rotate is a GOOD thing when it comes to preventing crossloading, which is probably what caused the breakage here.

I think that it is much more likely that the biners failed due to open gates than due to cross loading, especially given the fact that they are solid gate biners.

kennoyce wrote: I think that it is much more likely that the biners failed due to open gates than due to cross loading, especially given the fact that they are solid gate biners.

Good point. All my babies are wire - hope they behave themselves and stay shut.

Looking at the pics of open gate failures on black diamond's site. They look a lot like OPs failed 'biner. Anybody with more expertise know about open vs. crossloaded failure patterns?

Wow, thank you for posting. Here's to placement and anchors that held--keeping you both from being a couple of statistics.

I agree and should have added that to last post... glad you made it!

I don't have the math chops to do the calculations, but, aren't there additive forces on the gear when a falling climber is being caught?

As I see it those biners were subjected to the force generated by the falling climber plus the force generated by the belayer, who is pulling hard against the biner to arrest the fall.

The same is true if one catches a fall directly on the belay with the rope clipped through the anchor (as opposed to just off the harness.)

On another note, am I reading it right? at the bolt above the belay the rope end biner on a sling unclipped from the sling but remained clipped to the rope? Now that is unusual.

I am reminded of a video I saw (DMM?) warning how if you use a rubber keeper for the rope end biner on an open sling, and one side of the sling gets pulled through the biner gate (say while rummaging around through gear in a pack) the rubber thing will keep the biner attached to the sling but the sling will not be through the biner. When loaded the rubber will break releasing the biner.

Locker wrote:"I think that it is much more likely that the biners failed due to open gates than due to cross loading, especially given the fact that they are solid gate biners. Good point. All my babies are wire - hope they behave themselves and stay shut." You OBVIOUSLY weren't very convinced with your original theory. You sure as hell backed off QUICK! LOL!

Glad you're digging the lulz, lock-dawg. Neither one of us had our ass ducktaped to the wall that day, so these are all "theories". Mine, and his.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I likely am. But a fall factor has less to do with potential absorption of failed pieces as it does the length of rope in relation to the anchor the fall was stopped on.

In other words, if a climber is at a belay station and has 30ft of rope between him and the anchor, he pitches off at the anchor and falls 30ft. Technically a factor 2 fall no? 30 ft of rope out, 30ft fall onto last piece.

So, in theory, a climber even ripping gear out, the force absorbed by gear pulling would be negated at the point in which the climber falls past the belay in a free fall.

Maybe someone with 133734 math skills can dissolve my theory.

Regardless, a F2F produces roughly 10kn, which is less than half of what most modern slings/carabiners are rated to, and Mammut produces.

That wall in general is extremely overhung, and that pitch is no exception. Its safe to say that neither of the carabiners were positioned against the rock in a way to create an action that would be unnatural torque or leverage on the carabiner. Nor would it be likely or even plausible that a rock protrusion or feature on that wall would cause a gate to inadvertently open.

With fall forces and rock features causing a stuck gate being eliminated as a candidate for cause of failure. Only two explanations exist: Fault in carabiner production/design, and gate rattling open on first piece.

This seems fucking impossible in my mind. I'm hoping this is a hoax because it defies nearly everything we understand about climbing physics and our gear.

JLP wrote:My only conclusion is that lightweight biners with a solid gate seem like a bad idea. The longer draws probably also acted like a whip - ie, the biner accelerated and decelerated faster than it would on a sport draw.

This would be interesting to test, but this phenomenon occurring on three biners in succession would be on par with winning the lottery.