Tips on getting over the Fear of Lead falling

David Kerkeslager wrote:

It's often true that a long soft catch is better than a short hard catch, but not so often that it can be summed up with "that's just bad belaying". Often the safest catch is a short hard catch, and a short hard catch in that case is correct belaying. There's no way to soft catch into a ledge or ground fall.

We're talking about long vs. short falls.  Not about ledges, groundfalls or anything else.

And I stand by my statement.  If the biggest hazard is getting "whipped into the wall", that's just bad belaying.  

John Byrnes wrote:

We're talking about long vs. short falls.  Not about ledges, groundfalls or anything else.

And I stand by my statement.  If the biggest hazard is getting "whipped into the wall", that's just bad belaying.  

With tha qualification, sure, that's true, but it's key not to leave out that qualification. I see some new Gunks leaders putting in slack and whatnot to give a soft catch, when all that means on beginner Gunks routes is that they'll bounce off two ledges instead of one.

Fritz N. wrote:

Where do you keep the bacon?  In your chalk bag?  How many slices do you bring?  Does the bacon fat on your fingers make holds greasy?  Does the bacon smell attract bears?  Inquiring minds want to know!

No pussyhangs, go till you fall or send.  

John Byrnes wrote:

Of course they are.  But they are no different from getting more and more pumped and knowing you're gonna fall, eh?

That's just bad belaying.  See the current thread:  Soft catch vs. hard catch.   

Maybe "whip" was the wrong description but It still feels like its a whip.  The fall still takes less time and my reflexes are slower.  Id rather take the fall several feet above the last bolt that with the bolt at my knees or ankle height.  And yes I'm talking about sport climbing without ledge or ground fall risk.

Yesterday, my wife and I went to a nice easy lead route and just took whippers on purpose. First, we jumped off at waist height from the bolt. Then, knee height. Then, with the bolt at our feet. Then, I climbed all the way to the next bolt and jumped off. My wife is always scared of catching my falls due to weight difference, but this was good practice for both of us to just get over it. I should mention as well - this was on an outdoor sport route. It was like 5.4, but had a nice section where one bolt was over a dead vertical section, so it was safe to jump out on. 

Then, I hopped on a route that was at my limit. I got about halfway up, realized I was at the crux, and knew I was going to have to work the route. So I jumped off right there to just get it out of the way. Helped me tremendously when actually climbing it. I didn't get the send, but it wasn't because I wasn't pushing myself - I fell 5 more times on it before realizing I was just going to have to come back. 

Mason Stone wrote:

I, breathe, meditate before I start, then when I am climbing if I notice I am losing the composure I felt at the bottom, I breathe, compose and keep climbing, I also try to remember to rest as I climb and if I know I am going to or fall i meditate as I descend, all the fear goes away. Works much of the time.

M

You must fall a lot slower than I do.

Mason Stone wrote:

But continue to freak out if you must.

Thank you, I will.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

.... I see some new Gunks leaders putting in slack and whatnot to give a soft catch...

Adding slack prior to a fall does not give a soft catch, in fact, it makes the catch harder.

Ken Noyce wrote:

Adding slack prior to a fall does not give a soft catch, in fact, it makes the catch harder.

The full sentence you quoted part of was "I see some new Gunks leaders putting in slack and whatnot to give a soft catch, when all that means on beginner Gunks routes is that they'll bounce off two ledges instead of one." Please don't cherry pick only parts of what I say.

For a discussion of more slack vs. less slack giving a softer catch see here. It doesn't seem like there's a simple answer.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

The full sentence you quoted part of was "I see some new Gunks leaders putting in slack and whatnot to give a soft catch, when all that means on beginner Gunks routes is that they'll bounce off two ledges instead of one." Please don't cherry pick only parts of what I say.

For a discussion of more slack vs. less slack giving a softer catch see here. It doesn't seem like there's a simple answer.

I cherry picked the part I wanted to clarify, I don't care about the second half of the sentence.  I was simply pointing out the indisputable fact that adding slack to the system does not give a softer catch, all it does is increase the fall factor which means a harder catch if all other things are equal.  

Ken Noyce wrote:

I cherry picked the part I wanted to clarify, I don't care about the second half of the sentence.  I was simply pointing out the indisputable fact that adding slack to the system does not give a softer catch, all it does is increase the fall factor which means a harder catch if all other things are equal.  

Did you watch the video in the thread I linked? I tend to believe video evidence over your declarations of indisputable facts.

"If all other things are equal" is a non sequitor, those falls aren't even the most common.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Did you watch the video in the thread I linked? I tend to believe video evidence over your declarations of indisputable facts.

"If all other things are equal" is a non sequitor, those falls aren't even the most common.

No I didn't watch the video, I don't have 15 minutes at the moment, but the physics is fairly simply in this case.  If all other things are equal is a totally valid argument as it is the only way to truly compare two scenarios, adding variables just confuses things.  I have no idea what you mean by "those falls aren't even the most common".

Ken Noyce wrote:

No I didn't watch the video, I don't have 15 minutes at the moment, but the physics is fairly simply in this case.  If all other things are equal is a totally valid argument as it is the only way to truly compare two scenarios, adding variables just confuses things.  I have no idea what you mean by "those falls aren't even the most common".

You have time to argue, but you don't have time to actually understand the problem?

Do you have time to define what "soft catch" means, in physics terms? Because if we're talking "indisputable facts" you should know that even what that means is a matter of dispute.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

You have time to argue, but you don't have time to actually understand the problem?

Do you have time to define what "soft catch" means, in physics terms? Because if we're talking "indisputable facts" you should know that even what that means is a matter of dispute.

I actually understand the problem quite well.  Soft catch in physics terms means increasing the length of time over which a force is distributed (i.e. decreasing the magnitude of the acceleration).  Adding slack to the system doesn't do that, all it does is increase the energy that has to be dissipated. 

Ken Noyce wrote:

I actually understand the problem quite well.  Soft catch in physics terms means increasing the length of time over which a force is distributed (i.e. decreasing the magnitude of the acceleration).  Adding slack to the system doesn't do that, all it does is increase the energy that has to be dissipated. 

I think most climbers define the "softness" of a catch to refer to the forces experienced by the climber. These forces are highly correlated to the fall factor of a fall. If you add slack to a given system, the fall factor approaches 1.

For a low-factor fall (less than 1), this means that adding slack increases the fall factor, resulting in harder catch. (To put it in terms of fall energy vs. energy absorption: the amount of energy to be dissipated increases faster than the system's ability to absorb and dissipate that energy.
- Example 1: A fall from 10 feet above a 50-foot-high bolt with no extra slack: FF=20/60=.33    
                     With 10 feet of extra slack, that fall becomes FF=30/70=.43
                     The fall factor increased, and the catch got "harder".

However, for a high-factor fall (greater than 1), adding slack would reduce the fall factor, resulting in a "softer" catch. In this case, the system's ability to absorb energy and dissipate the energy of the fall increases faster than the amount of energy added to the system by the longer fall.
- Example 2: A fall from 10 feet directly above a multipitch anchor, with a clean fall zone below the anchor. FF= 20/10=2.0
                     With 10 feet of extra slack, that fall becomes FF=30/20=1.5
                     The fall factor decreased, and the catch got "softer".

Andrew Krajnik wrote:

I think most climbers define the "softness" of a catch to refer to the forces experienced by the climber. These forces are highly correlated to the fall factor of a fall. If you add slack to a given system, the fall factor approaches 1.

For a low-factor fall (less than 1), this means that adding slack increases the fall factor, resulting in harder catch. (To put it in terms of fall energy vs. energy absorption: the amount of energy to be dissipated increases faster than the system's ability to absorb and dissipate that energy.
- Example 1: A fall from 10 feet above a 50-foot-high bolt with no extra slack: FF=20/60=.33    
                     With 10 feet of extra slack, that fall becomes FF=30/70=.43
                     The fall factor increased, and the catch got "harder".

However, for a high-factor fall (greater than 1), adding slack would reduce the fall factor, resulting in a "softer" catch. In this case, the system's ability to absorb energy and dissipate the energy of the fall increases faster than the amount of energy added to the system by the longer fall.
- Example 2: A fall from 10 feet directly above a multipitch anchor, with a clean fall zone below the anchor. FF= 20/10=2.0
                     With 10 feet of extra slack, that fall becomes FF=30/20=1.5
                     The fall factor decreased, and the catch got "softer".

Good point, I was neglecting falls with a FF > 1.  Typically when we are talking about giving a soft catch, we are talking about single pitch cragging where the FF will always be < 1.  In a multipitch scenario, with a high FF, yes, giving additional slack will decrease the fall factor resulting in a softer catch.

Dave Kos wrote:

Once you are comfortable with falling, remind yourself to never be too comfortable.

This.  Think about this Ormes story (he lived):

Ken Noyce wrote:

Soft catch in physics terms means increasing the length of time over which a force is distributed (i.e. decreasing the magnitude of the acceleration).  Adding slack to the system doesn't do that, all it does is increase the energy that has to be dissipated. 

That's only true if you completely ignore the horizontal axis to the fall. If the climber contacts the wall at a higher horizontal velocity, the energy of the fall will be dissippated into the climber's body over a shorter period of time. Even by your own definition of soft catch, less slack doesn't mean a softer catch.

This also isn't a very useful definition of "soft catch". There's no reason to be concerned about total energy to the system: a dynamic rope is perfectly capable of dissippating all the energy of most falls, so increasing the total energy of the system slightly is not a problem if it allows the rope to absorb more or all of the energy. I'd be much more concerned with minimizing the impulse (energy divided by time) dissippated into the climber.

To be clear, I'm not claiming I fully can model these physics either--I'm not sure there's anyone who can given current modeling technology.

However, empirical evidence in the video I linked shows that climbers would contact the wall with less velocity (in this case, directly proportional to energy) given more slack when the horizontal distance between the point of fall and the point of contact with the wall is >= 1.0 m.

climbing friend,

many hours solitary cave meditations, realize if you die on the groundfall 'tis nothing, you may not be here tomorrow regardless on your earth which you have destroyed soon past point of no return

feel the boldness in your heart pulling you ever upward

toughen yourself up it is not supposed to be easy like for them millenials wanting it so much be easy myah

visualize all the other peoplez you must impress with your climbing and your boldness

all your flash are belong to me