Accident on Manic Crack in NM

don'tchuffonme wrote:All I'm saying is, you're wrong. Stick to bouldering.

That was excellent.

Mark Paulson wrote: wildcountry.com/files/publi… Example 2b. . . bad. Example 2a. . . good.

As a climbing noob I've been trying to follow this thread (in order to learn from it) and this link was a great help, thank you.

Mark Paulson wrote: wildcountry.com/files/publi… Example 2b. . . bad. Example 2a. . . good.

The funny notch taken out of the .4 x4 may be explained the following.
If the cam was first placed as example 3a then when leader called 'take' the cam shifted to a 3b position.

J Q wrote: What really impresses me is the torrent of self righteous tards who think that perfect placement removes any risk of putting a cam on basalt. Wrong!!!!! You can minimize the risk on basalt, but NM basalt is kinda like limestone, and kinda a bad idea, like so many other fun things. Most climbers like to believe themselves invincible, and attacking the inherent risk of putting a small cam in basalt is just one way to reassure ourselves that everything we do is controlled.

What is so different about NM basalt compared to anywhere else in the world?

Thank you for the positive messages everyone.

Glad the OP is ok. My personal take on the rabid attacks is that people are subconsciously desperate to disparage any notion that their cam's may not be the best solution in many situations. In my opinion. most of the climbers in the game today rely on them way too heavily in instances where a stopper placement would be a much better choice. The fewer the number of moving parts, pieces, and wires.....the BETTER! :) Seems like people were scared out of their minds that they might actually need to learn to place stoppers again......but I just pretend to be the consultant to an expert that consults experts on TV.

rocknice2 wrote: The funny notch taken out of the .4 x4 may be explained the following. If the cam was first placed as example 3a then when leader called 'take' the cam shifted to a 3b position.

A placement in the "3b" orientation seems like it could yield the failure mode in the pics. Well spotted, even if that's not what it was it makes the most sense so far.

Noah.J wrote: A placement in the "3b" orientation seems like it could yield the failure mode in the pics. Well spotted, even if that's not what it was it makes the most sense so far.

I envision it more like being placed like 2b with that broken potion of the cam butted against a protrusion/crystal in the crack. If the cam were loaded and tried to rotate into position 2a, that protrusion might cause the damage seen in the picture (see Shoo's picture).

Regardless of whether it was the placements or the cams (or some combination)...I hope you heal up. It could have been worse.

doligo wrote: Wrong. If the gear is bad, don't place it. Or place it in hopes for it to hold and place another bomber gear soon. Otherwise, down climb to your last good piece.

"Or place it in hopes for it to hold" is what I do when something is "better than nothing at that point"

csproul wrote: I envision it more like being placed like 2b with that broken potion of the cam butted against a protrusion/crystal in the crack. If the cam were loaded and tried to rotate into position 2a, that protrusion might cause the damage seen in the picture (see Shoo's picture).

It's speculation either way, but I'm pretty satisfied with the general observation that you should never see damage to that part of the cam without something very wrong with the placement.

So looks like there isn't anything suggestive of actual gear failure (I count 1 placement out of line of fall, 1 obvious umbrella, and 1 semi-mystery which almost certainly could not have resulted from a "good" placement). Kerr, anything we aren't seeing here?

Brian Prince wrote: "Or place it in hopes for it to hold" is what I do when something is "better than nothing at that point"

Luckily, I've never had gear I deemed to be "good" pull out unexpectedly, but I have definitely had "marginal" gear hold unexpectedly. Better than nothing, but back it up ASAP!

WyomingSummits wrote:Glad the OP is ok. My personal take on the rabid attacks is that people are subconsciously desperate to disparage any notion that their cam's may not be the best solution in many situations. In my opinion. most of the climbers in the game today rely on them way too heavily in instances where a stopper placement would be a much better choice. The fewer the number of moving parts, pieces, and wires.....the BETTER! :) Seems like people were scared out of their minds that they might actually need to learn to place stoppers again......but I just pretend to be the consultant to an expert that consults experts on TV.

the other thing to note is that i believe somewhere the OP said he fell on the gear at the same spots with the C4s and they held

- note that the C4s have a bit more margin for error, as they are rated passively ... im not much of a limetone trad climber myself, but some of my partners are ... and when i asked them why they used camalots with the higher camming angle on limestone, they told me that its becamse all the C4s are rated passively ... they often try to get a placement where if the cam slips, it becomes a passive placement

also note that ALL the common brit cams in all the small sizes (baby dragons, demons, 3/4cu, zeros, helium friends) are ALL rated as full strength stoppers ... im told this is because of the irregular UK rock and the likelyhood of less than optimal cam placements

- the other thing to note is that prior to the X4 BD insisted that very flexible cams werent the best solution ... as with their C3s the stiffer stem would force the cam to rotate inline to the fall, while with flexible stems the loading can stay perpendicular ... obviously they changed their story with the X4s ... is the possible kinked wire one that pulled something that BD warned about years ago? perhaps

what BD said ....

Not only do we have tests to show that it (the ‘stiffness’ of the stem) is not a problem, but we have tests that show too much flexibility is a problem in certain placements. Think about how cams work in a perfect placement: you pull straight down on the cams, that force is converted to a rotational force on the cams, and the surface of the cams push against the rock surface. Now place a highly flexible cabled cam in a vertical bottoming crack (the stem is sticking out horizontally). Should be good right? Think again about how the cams need to work. Pull straight down on this placement and you’ll notice a large component of the downward force is acting parallel to the cam surfaces. This is not how the cam is designed to work. The cams will not push against the rock surface without a force perpendicular to the cams plane of movement. In short, it stops camming and acts like a nut placement. You need some torque on the placement to convert the parallel load to more of an outward one that can act on the cams. This torque is provided by the stiffness of the cable, or the length of the shank of head terminal, or some combination of both. In testing, the high flexible cables did not generate the torque necessary to hold the falls and the units slid sideways out of the placement at very low loads. We even made C3s proto types out of softer cable, only to watch them fail our bottoming crack test because of this issue.



alpineexposures.com/pages/b…

- also note that the aliens IMO are one of the small cams least likely to walk due to the bit of extra length, its extremely flexible nature, and the suppleness of its sling ... the X4s ive used have a bit of a stiffer wire and sling than the aliens ... the WC zeros and DMM cams have extendible slings to deal with walking of course

would the above materially have affected the outcome? ... perhaps, perhaps not ... well never know

but with microcams all the little things add up

ive said it over and over again on this site ... never truly trust a microcam if you can help it ... get a stopper or two in somewhere ... and if you get a stopper at the crux and whip on it over and over again ... its much cheaper to replace a 10$ wire than a 70$ cam

shoo wrote: It's speculation either way, but I'm pretty satisfied with the general observation that you should never see damage to that part of the cam without something very wrong with the placement. So looks like there isn't anything suggestive of actual gear failure (I count 1 placement out of line of fall, 1 obvious umbrella, and 1 semi-mystery which almost certainly could not have resulted from a "good" placement). Kerr, anything we aren't seeing here?

They were all placed in the line of fall. The route, at least the part I was on, Is straight up and down and does not wander at all.

Kerr Adams wrote: They were all placed in the line of fall. The route, at least the part I was on, Is straight up and down and does not wander at all.

how far was the belayer from the wall, and did he/she sit down into the catch

its a myth that cams cant zipper out ... they can walk into poor placements with the upward pull and fail

i found that out the hard way once, fortunately i had plenty of piece that held still

bearbreeder wrote: how far was the belayer from the wall, and did he/she sit down into the catch its a myth that cams cant zipper out ... they can walk into poor placements with the upward pull and fail i found that out the hard way once, fortunately i had plenty of piece that held still

I couldn't give you an exact distance but thinking back, the belayer could have been a little closer. Not too sure what she did to catch the fall but unfortunately it does't really matter. All the gear ripped.

Kerr Adams wrote: They were all placed in the line of fall. The route, at least the part I was on, Is straight up and down and does not wander at all.

You don't understand his question which says something.

Kerr Adams wrote: They were all placed in the line of fall. The route, at least the part I was on, Is straight up and down and does not wander at all.

He is not asking about the wandering nature of the route. He's suggesting that the cams might have been placed more perpendicular to the wall/fall angle instead of the cam wires pointed in the same direction as the fall. See the WC technical document that was linked upthread. Were the cams slung with a runner or draw, or was the rope clipped directly to the cam?

Greg D wrote: You don't understand his question which says something.

bingo

i'm on a lot pain meds. please excuse me for not comprehending randoms on the internet.