Scary Gear Pulling Lead Fall Video

Thanks for the reminder Ron. There is not easy statement or fast solution here. As noted, always nice to have more than one piece between you and the ground. Maybe increase that to multiples if you think you will be falling or the rock is slick and the climber is relying on cams. Some cams have better holding power than others (cam angle, cam material factor in). I trust Metolius and Totems more than Black Diamond for that reason. (still use BD's as well though) Judging placements can be problematical as well.

Old people like to use nuts as they think they can be better assured that a nut placement is good by visually looking at it and also giving it a good tug or 2 if they are at all unsure. I still believe that even after seeing a guy rip 4 nuts out and dying of a ground fall from 70 feet up, so that is not always the case either. There are no hard and fast rules. There is often a lot of things involved in leading, some not so apparent. Stopping and putting in another piece may in fact cause you to pump out and fall. It all dependent on so many factors.

Through experience comes knowledge they say, at the end of the day glad your buddy is OK....

I've fallen on gear many times on quartzite at Devils Lake, on small cams. There is also a thread about cams on slick rock: Cams at DL

I also have to wonder if the cams were actually that well placed. Glad he's okay though!

Optimistic wrote: That was my thinking as well...seems like the comments attacking the OP are kind of verging on religious zealotry (ie, "the invincibility of climbing equipment shall not be questioned!"). I'm pretty sure that if the rock surfaces were perfectly parallel and the rock were frictionless, the placement would fail. Some rock is pretty slick, and some cracks are pretty parallel-sided, soo...

Yep. Sounds so much like religion that I just can't even... Makes me think of another weekend activity they might like.

• ** Edit: In retrospect, the climber who fell believes that he did not set the two failed cams with a good yank. He believes that this fact could have played a role in their failure. It certainly may have.

Also the first cam was actually a BD .3, not a .4.

It was warm and the dew point was fairly high. It had rained heavily overnight, but this east facing, fully sun exposed outcrop was fully dry to the touch. Even large horizontal legdes where water certainly would have pooled. The cracks and chimneys were also completely dry. I know this because I was deep inside a chimney just minutes before the fall.

This video is also a great reminder to periodically check your camera and make sure the lens is clean ....

Right on, Vincent.

Whats with the big wall rack?? I have climbed with partners who have climbed for years and notice they place cams perpendicular to the crack instead of in line with potential fall. These are guys with years of trad experience and it blew my mind they made such a rookie mistake. Could your buddy have placed the cams perpendicular?

The placements that failed could both be easily seen from the ground. Both cams were directly in line with the cracks in which they were placed. No significant rotation could have occurred.

How do we explain the cam that actually held? This was placed in the same type of rock. And actually had tons of force placed on it.

Too much gear being carried. The climber simply weighed too much

Ron Le Blanc wrote:Thanks Optimistic. Just trying to help educate the climbing community. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, Josh does raise a fair point, pulling multiple pieces of that size is pretty unusual. But it's good to stay open to possible limitations of the gear, and I (and I guess rgold as well) have seen cams (smaller than these) that looked totally fine and then pulled with a VERY light tug out of a Gunks horizontal. Since that experience I always look for a crystal or ripple or other constriction to put physics on my side a little more, so that I'm not just relying on friction.

lol @Wade.

0.3 makes much more sense. I will say that from my experience (limited as it is), the micro cams seem to rely much more on friction and are thus more susceptible to slicker rock. They're also much more finicky to place and easier to misjudge a solid placement. Notice that it was a 0.75 that caught him...

TS, maybe what could be learned from this is to use gear better designed for slick placements when you guys climb there. As mentioned earlier, Totems are particularly good for this, and I think you'll find a set of Basics would do better than C4s or X4s for the smaller sizes.

In this picture, you can see the .75 that held the fall. It's the topmost piece. You can probably speculate where the #2 was placed.

Ron Le Blanc wrote:Lobes about 75-80 percent uniformily retracted. 1-2" inches in non-flaring crack with quickdraws. You can choose to believe that or not. Makes no difference to me. Just trying to help educate others re: the risks. Note: It was somewhat warm and humid. Although it had rained heavily the night before, the rock was completely dry.

Ron, thanks for posting this. I appreciate the spirit in which it was posted. Cams can and do pull (obviously), hence the general rule to place them a body length apart at places like Indian Creek. But I'm wondering, if you weren't leading and didn't place the gear, how do you know the above to be true? I look at the video, and (at least from what you can see) the guy appears to be trashing around a bit, which can prompt sloppy placements. Like most others on this thread have already said, the most obvious reason is probably pilot error.

True Fat Dad, the pilot error is the simplest and most likely explanation in the vast majority of cases. In this case, the gear was placed from decent enough stances. The 'thrashing' didn't ensue until the climber attempted to pull the roof. Was the placement of a cam altered by the thrashing? It is certainly possible.

What are those weird claw-like pieces of metal in that photo, down the crack by his feet?

Also it appears to be some non-extended placements. That .75 at the top looks super taut to the crack. Potentially part of what happened.

Ron Le Blanc wrote:Lobes about 75-80 percent uniformily retracted. 1-2" inches in non-flaring crack with quickdraws

I'm guessing that's at least part of the equation. Given that the rock was obviously slick, he should have extended using something better than a draw. Even when rope drag is not an issue, a quickdraw is going to impart a lot more force from rope movement to the cam, thus increasing the probability of it walking into a bad placement. Something like a single length sling or even an alpine would have been a much safer bet.

Save the draws for sport routes.

Maybe go back there and test the cam placements a bit. With a solid tr backup(!), place them with a tug/without a tug/various positions and extension configurations, bounce test them, take some simulated (tr backed up) lead falls on them. If they pulled do to lack of friction, I'd think you'd be able to replicate the "failure". Be safe out there!

Tylerpratt wrote:Submit this to Rock and Ice and basque in your fame and glory...

Sorry. This just bounced off my eyes.
The word of the day is: bask
The Basques are an indigenous ethnic group characterized by the Basque language, a common Basque culture and shared ancestry.

Seth Jones wrote: That being said, I got wondering this morning what material is on the inside of the vise when they do pull tests on cams. Steel? Seems like it should mimic a perfectly smooth parallel crack pretty well:

A lot of vices have a knurled, grooved, or grained surface to hold the work piece, so maybe not.