Accident on Manic Crack in NM

mike seaman wrote: No rock inside the crack?? Not tall except for at the top? eh?

Hey, I certainly didn't miss those. A beautiful piece of comedy that I think a ton of people missed, which says something about some of the other comments.

George Perkins wrote:Hurray! A picture of me on "what not to do", though it's not completely clear IMO. Due to the a ledge/shelf a few feet up, the belayer is set back a bit and the lowest piece will see more of an outward pull than in typical placements, and may rotate to that position. The lower the first piece of gear is, the worse it is. Extending the placement might help, but makes falls bigger, which might be a risk at the start. The 2nd and 3rd pieces are more important, and that's as the climb gets more difficult. There have been a few posts above about the rock being soft or low quality, and I disagree- I think it's pretty good basalt.

I agree, George. The rock is fine.

Kerr Adams wrote: I agree, George. The rock is fine.

No no, he said it is pretty good basalt, and there is a reason why basalt trad climbing is exciting. I am scared that you are determined to not learn from your actions. I learned not to trust cams too much on that shit long ago, but nuts, now, it does takes nuts!

J Q, I can't vouch for the quality of rock at this particular area or on this particular route, but for you to categorically imply that all basalt is bad rock and in the same post tell someone else they are inexperienced based on their post makes you sound like a total fool. Just sayin'.

Josh Janes wrote:J Q, I can't vouch for the quality of rock at this particular area or on this particular route, but for you to categorically imply that all basalt is bad rock and in the same post tell someone else they are inexperienced based on their post makes you sound like a total fool. Just sayin'.

Actually, I climbed there 15 years ago, and I can't imagine it improved. Did I categorically imply that all basalt is bad? No. I didn't. I said it was exciting.

Can you vouch for the quality of the high rim volcanic rock in NM???

No you can't. So I do have an educated opinion, and you have weird uneducated hurt feelings.

And this is where climbing is headed.

Can't even say basalt climbing is exciting without hurting someones feelings.

Paradise Forks, Idaho, Smith etc etc it always seems best to place cams in stopper type placements that constrict or deep as a mofo. thats just me of course. Then you have eastern basalt where even if the cam is bomber you cant trust the rock to not blow out since its all ancient fractured shite.

of course basalt is the only rock where I saw the anchors and the block they were drilled in laying in the dirt on the ground so I am a bit biased.

I think that the major point of the rock discussion is that small cam placements in cracks without parallel sides are inherently suspect.

So, in the absence of a demolished cam (like an Alien with the head ripped off), I would go with user error.

Also, I think if you haven't led at least 100 basalt cracks with some falls, your opinion is worthless. :)

I went and climbed manic crack a couple days ago to remove any bad omens from the rock. It's good again.

Heal well, Kerr. I'm good friends with Jessi and Will. Heard all about it, and I'm glad you are cognizant and well.

WyomingSummits wrote: So you're telling me that the forces on a piece are greater when using a nylon sling than when clipped directly to a piece? How does adding another dynamic element like a sling INCREASE the fall forces?

Well, yes. For starters, what Ryan Watts said.

Your choice of the word "increase" is misleading. The energy generated in a lead fall is a function of gravitational force, mass, fall distance (mgh). The climbing system as a whole must absorb all of this energy to arrest the fall. A dynamic rope will absorb a majority of this energy. The leader's body and harness will deform, leaders knot will tighten, belay device will slip a bit, belayer will get lifted a bit. These factors will absorb additional energy. A nylon sling will absorb a minuscule amount of energy relative to the rest of the system. Yet, extending a piece with a 6" sling will add 1 additional foot of free fall, a 24" sling will add 4 feet of additional free fall, adding additional energy that must be absorbed.

Keeping rope drag to a minimum allows more effective rope to absorb this energy. So, slings are valuable to keep rope drag down. But, in the event in question, there were only three pieces between the leader and the belayer on a vertical route. So, rope drag was minimal at this time.

So, to answer your question: Yes, in this situation. And yes, nylon slings will do very little to absorb energy in a lead fall with a dynamic rope in the system. But, any sling will reduce drag and reduce the force on the top piece, yet will increase the fall distance increasing the amount of energy that must be absorbed.

Final answer: it depends.

Chris Clarke wrote:I think that the major point of the rock discussion is that small cam placements in cracks without parallel sides are inherently suspect. So, in the absence of a demolished cam (like an Alien with the head ripped off), I would go with user error. Also, I think if you haven't led at least 100 basalt cracks with some falls, your opinion is worthless. :)

Even in parallel cracks on solid rock with textbook placements microcams are still suspect

Squamish is known to have easy placements and bomber gear in general ... And those suckers can still pull

;)

Evan Belknap wrote:I went and climbed manic crack a couple days ago to remove any bad omens from the rock. It's good again. Heal well, Kerr. I'm good friends with Jessi and Will. Heard all about it, and I'm glad you are cognizant and well.

woo hoo! i think I might have scared a couple people off with this ordeal

MJMobes wrote:of course basalt is the only rock where I saw the anchors and the block they were drilled in laying in the dirt on the ground so I am a bit biased.

you've obviously never walked along the base of El Cap

Greg D wrote: Yet, extending a piece with a 6" sling will add 1 additional foot of free fall, a 24" sling will add 4 feet of additional free fall, adding additional energy that must be absorbed.

Agree with your other points but how would extending a piece with a 2 foot runner result in 4 additional feet of free fall? Wouldn't it just lower the biner 2 feet below the pro resulting in the rope catching the pro 2 feet below it for a total of 2 additional feet of free fall?

Let's say you are 1 foot above a cam where the cam is clipped without any runner to extend it. If you fall, you will fall 2 feet (plus some rope stretch we can ignore). That's clear.

When you are 1 foot above a cam slung with a 2 foot runner, you are now 3 feet above the "effective" protection. If you fall from 3 feet above this effective pro, you fall 6 feet.

So, with the protection "effectively 2 feet lower," you will fall 4 additional feet.

I'm glad to see this has turned into a productive forum interested in an increase in knowledge and theory.

OP didn't put slings or extend his placements, he clipped right to the X4. SO even if he PLACED them pointing down, the simple act of pulling rope could rotate them to vertical towards the crack (which it appears is the position they were in at the time of the fall as already been pointed out).

I always extend my pieces for this exact reason, even if it's a straight up crack. I rarely clip directly into a piece so as to minimize walking.

kerr get well and thanks for posting all of the pics as it has led to some great discussion and hopefully saved some others from making similar mistakes.

david doucette wrote:OP didn't put slings or extend his placements, he clipped right to the X4. SO even if he PLACED them pointing down, the simple act of pulling rope could rotate them to vertical towards the crack (which it appears is the position they were in at the time of the fall as already been pointed out). I always extend my pieces for this exact reason, even if it's a straight up crack. I rarely clip directly into a piece so as to minimize walking. kerr get well and thanks for posting all of the pics as it has led to some great discussion and hopefully saved some others from making similar mistakes.

There is no way to say this without it sounding like spraying/hating, but I promise you that's not what I'm trying to do.

"Extending every placement" is a reasonable thing to do on easier/moderate climbs as they tend to wander more and/or be low angle (so more likely to walk and/or cause rope drag). Also you are rarely making a desperate clip so you have time to futz with extending every placement.

Try doing that on a 5.11 finger crack (what Manic crack appears to be).

Not nearly as practical or helpful.

Also as someone else said when you clip directly into a piece glance down at it as you move past it. A lot of times that is when it will walk and you can correct it before you go too far.

My two cents: I don't own any X4s, but I have a green alien which is pretty much the same thing. To simulate basalt, I made a crack shape with my left hand, and placed the alien in it with my right - set it, and then yanked really hard to create forces like Kerr probably felt in this fall.

Totally held. I think he might be telling us a fib about them being good placements. Science doesn't lie.

Adam Burch wrote:My two cents: I don't own any X4s, but I have a green alien which is pretty much the same thing. To simulate basalt, I made a crack shape with my left hand, and placed the alien in it with my right - set it, and then yanked really hard to create forces like Kerr probably felt in this fall. Totally held. I think he might be telling us a fib about them being good placements. Science doesn't lie.

You owe every reader of that post $.02

I simulate choss by picking my nose. I don't have x4 so I stuck my finger in the hole and it fell out.

science don't lie.