Scary Gear Pulling Lead Fall Video

Seth Jones wrote: Not sure how you separate one from the other in friction based protection.

Yeah looks like it at least shows they don't have to have a smooth surface. Which makes sense. They are testing the strength of the hardware - at what point does it break. Not the holding power - at what point does it slip - which is variable based on the surface conditions as has been discussed.

So per that document, the cam itself must be able to hold 5kN minimum. If the piece slips before that, add more friction.

i'm sure there's more details about test set up in the actual standards. That's just a summary/pictorial description.

Chris, the same thought actually occurred to me as well. Usually, they tend to walk into the crack and get stuck, but if it's a funky flaring crack, it's possible it could work it's way into a wider section and rattle out. Maybe the placements were ";textbook"; to begin with, but worked their way out by the time he fell?

Just the other day, I belayed someone up Hammer Crack at DL which has a terrible crux right at the start (DL 5.9/YDS 5.10d or so lol). To protect what would be an awful tumble down the trail, he placed a number 3 blind into the crack above which was outwardly flaring (also the source of the crux). By the time he got past it and got new gear in (a 0.4 that also walked, but in this case into the point that we almost lost it and had to clean on rappel), the 3 was totally ripped out and in the flare, basically useless. Thankfully, he didn't fall...

Edit: looking at the photo, I don't see any spots for a textbook #2 placement, but maybe I'm missing something. From what I can see, I see an outwardly flaring crack (bad, bad, bad) with some fairly irregular constrictions that probably would've taken hexes or nuts much better. I also see a .75 that should have been extended...really not liking the way the rope is running in that picture.

Ron, can you explain why it appears that the belayer is holding the camera in his hand, since he sets it down on the ground after the climber has fallen??

Parallel looking cracks are great but it looks like there are small roofs on this route. Perhaps the crack was parallel-ish looking straight in at it, but flaring downward. Coupled with the twisting of the cams downward for the fall may have contributed to the failure.

Tylerpratt wrote: Viola! You're famous!!!

Not sure what a large violin has to do with being famous.

Good thing he had enough gear to aid The Leaning Tower to climb that 50ft choss pile. Never can have too many options.

Perfect placements don't pull. Either the rock wasn't perfect or the gear wasn't- or neither was. Perfect placements require both to be "perfect".

Perhaps the extra 40lb triple rack was just more that that poor little .3 could handle.

That joke's already been made.

Well place cams can pull in slick rock

youtube.com/watch?v=faKH_cU…

However were the pieces extended?

Its more likely that the pieces rotated as they were climbed above ... Especially with roofs

In a fall on steeper climbs the upward movement of the rope can be exceptionally violent and pull the lower pieces up, rotating them

Were the cams damaged at all

;)

Marc801 wrote: 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.

Yes, I know this and I put Basque in Italics to be funny.

Viola was also a joke.

Oh well.

Tylerpratt wrote: Yes, I know this and I put Basque in Italics to be funny. Viola was also a joke. Oh well.

I'll admit, I wasn't entirely sure you were joking - and the italics were a clue - but you have to admit it was pretty obscure how it relates to the OP. I missed viola entirely!

Seth Jones wrote: True. It's been hard to see the inside surface of the vise in the few pull tests I have seen on youtube. Seems that should be a standardized for UIAA testing. From this pic, it looks like there would be some sort of texture on the inside of the vice. The doc says that only strength is tested, not friction. Not sure how you separate one from the other in friction based protection.

Friction and breaking strength are unrelated. Think of it this way... If the surface of the vice produced just enough friction to hold the cam. The cam would still break at the same force as if it produced ample friction. The friction coefficient just determines whether or not it will hold.

In theory, a cam placed between surfaces that are too slick should pull out easily, regardless of how gently you pull on it. It either holds any force applied to it, or none of it. But of course reality differs from theory.

In reality, when a well placed/set cam pulls out of slick rock during a fall, i think there is usually some crushing/fracturing/surface deformation of the rock that occurs only when a large enough force is applied. The deformation causes a reduction in the coefficient of friction, allowing the cam to pop.

Wouldn't that deformation be more likely to occur in soft rock, not super hard? That might explain why placements would pull in limestone, but not quartzite...

In some soft rock the cam can track out under load..literally leaving narrow tracks when it does.

It takes quite a bit of force to deform most cam lobes..and a big load to deform them enough to fail.

I love all the gear he has. Perhaps this is the beginning of a big wall expedition we are unaware of.

Crazy that nothing held and not enough gear was placed to stop his fall. I feel that there should have been 5x the amount of gear placed... Especially given all the stuff he was carrying with him.

Glad he is ok.

@keithconn. Do you feel better about yourself now that you have belittled someone else? You have contributed nothing constructive to this conversaton. Do you think this is some kind of joke? Are you trying to present yourself as some sort of comedian?

All of MP is a joke, and every user is a comedian.

i think it is funny when 5.7 climbers belittle other 5.7 climbers for doing what 5.7 climbers do....

slim wrote:i think it is funny when 5.7 climbers belittle other 5.7 climbers for doing what 5.7 climbers do....

Yea because it was more funny upthread when the 5.12 climber belittles the 5.7 climber for what 5.7 climbers do.

slim wrote:i think it is funny when 5.7 climbers belittle other 5.7 climbers for doing what 5.7 climbers do....

It's even funnier when you incognito humblebrag about not being a 5.7 climber by calling out 5.7 climbers for doing what you just did. :D

everyone's a 5.7 climber at some point :)

slim wrote:everyone's a 5.7 climber at some point :)

only if you can solo any 5.7 out there ...

up and down

;)

Ron Le Blanc...thanks for the insight, but it was impossible to assess what pulled and how well placed (or not) the gear was from your video. Could be pilot/operator error or belayer error or both. Again, pretty hard to tell from the video.