stopper only climbing

Xam wrote:

Thank you for being so accommodating!  I really appreciate your permission and guidance, given the OP:  

Jack main wrote: I've been wanting to build a trad rack for while now and I've decided that this is the year i'll get started, i was wondering if you can lead with only stoppers, I've heard its good practice for placing pro but i was wondering if its really safe to do? i don't know much about trad so i hope this isn't a stupid question.  

I hope you can understand my confusion in thinking that some technical discussion of stopper placements was at all appropriate.  Next time I will know better and will stay focused!  Thank you so much for your help Harunpfster Boondoggle!  Your sage advice is very much needed here!

Yea, I think the free body diagrams were key....FFS?

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

Yea, I think the free body diagrams were key....FFS?

No, they were not.  You are certainly correct.  And may I might add that you express yourself elegantly, good sir.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

No dude, you have got it exactly backwards. It has nothing to do with any "worth" of individuals. 

But it has everything to do with the worth of one's posts. They aren't the same.

You get slack for being young and really enthusiastic, and you know a few technical tidbits that you can regurgitate.

If you had really climbed something significant you would know exactly what people like me are talking about.

After you have really climbed something, you would come back to a thread like this and say: "You were right. I get it now...."

This might be the most condescending thing I've ever read, which I find rather surprising, as when I met the Harumpfster in person, he seemed like quite a nice guy.  At the risk of lapsing into condescension myself, perhaps a short break from these sorts of threads might not be a terrible idea?  Then again, nothing I've ever climbed would even approach "significant", so maybe I'm overstepping some unwritten rule by posting here...

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

And there you have it. A 21yo that hasn't climbed or done anything in life who thinks someone/anyone should care what he perceives.

I couldn't sum up what is wrong with this site any better.

I generally value your contributions, Tut, and certainly respect your experience. But you seem to have a real hard-on for putting down Eli just because he's young and super-stoked. Which strikes me as a peculiar thing coming from and old guy who climbed El Cap at 17-years-old. Maybe you were hazed really hard back then and it's just part of your ritual? 

Señor Arroz wrote:

I generally value your contributions, Tut, and certainly respect your experience. But you seem to have a real hard-on for putting down Eli just because he's young and super-stoked. Which strikes me as a peculiar thing coming from and old guy who climbed El Cap at 17-years-old. Maybe you were hazed really hard back then and it's just part of your ritual? 

No dude. In fact I show amazing restraint with young eli precisely because he is young and super stoked.

I assume he is just super into climbing and wants to share what he has just learned.

But he doesn't have any experience to know that you don't wholeheartedly endorse things like ie lowering off tied in with just a clove that is shit poasting that could get someone killed.

People (esp young ones) don't like being told they don't actually know anything, that they are just regurgitating what they have been taught. Its not condescension, it is plain straight dope.

Actually knowing something means having real experience with the thing and that you understand deeply basic principles like you don't tie into the rope with any knot that you wouldn't lead on (let alone recommend it publicly with authority).

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

No dude. In fact I show amazing restraint with young eli precisely because he is young and super stoked.

I assume he is just super into climbing and wants to share what he has just learned.

But he doesn't have any experience to know that you don't wholeheartedly endorse things like ie lowering off tied in with just a clove that is shit poasting that could get someone killed.

People (esp young ones) don't like being told they don't actually know anything, that they are just regurgitating what they have been taught. Its not condescension, it is plain straight dope.

Actually knowing something means having real experience with the thing and that you understand deeply basic principles like you don't tie into the rope with any knot that you wouldn't lead on.

Got it. Fair enough.

FrankPS wrote:

Oh, look, Tut...

I was assuming that's Tut as well.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:
The point is to recognize that climbing is not a "thinking man's" sport. It is a "doing man's" sport.

Marc801 C wrote: 

Yet it was Pat Ament who once described climbing as "[physical] chess problems in the air".

I beg to differ.. it IS a thinking mans sport. there a million decisions that go into a trad lead. How to place the pro, how to equalize, how to pro for the second. Then there is the physical dynamics of doing the climb itself. Its problem solving with your body. In my experience the majority of climbers I know are left brained/technically oriented. Yeah you got a do it.. its not an arm chair sport. But it requires thought and preparation. If I wanted a sport that required no "thought" and all "doing", I would go a fitness barn and run on the treadmill. I climb (trad) because I want to be outside using my brain.

Harumpfster Boondoggle wrote:

No dude. In fact I show amazing restraint with young eli precisely because he is young and super stoked.

I assume he is just super into climbing and wants to share what he has just learned.

But he doesn't have any experience to know that you don't wholeheartedly endorse things like ie lowering off tied in with just a clove that is shit poasting that could get someone killed.

People (esp young ones) don't like being told they don't actually know anything, that they are just regurgitating what they have been taught. Its not condescension, it is plain straight dope.

Actually knowing something means having real experience with the thing and that you understand deeply basic principles like you don't tie into the rope with any knot that you wouldn't lead on (let alone recommend it publicly with authority).

Sir, Eli is actively pursuing ideas and knowledge. What are you "teaching" him by the above? Perhaps how not to teach, eh? Give him the info. If his ideas are bad, he needs to know the specifics, otherwise, he won't have that info to pass on later, when he does have more mileage on rock. The "why" of the thing is also important.

So, here's my totally noob contribution, a pic of a nut. This was placed to ONLY hold the rope up, emulating a climber, as I was messing around with my bad ideas on how to anchor myself as a belayer. But, it did have my full weight yanking vigorously on it (feet off the ground) as I was tightening everything up as much as possible.

Rgold, is this the "angled out" you meant, pages/days ago? That, is not something I have seen in the books either, oddly enough. Once stated, it seems like a "yeah, duh". Humph.



Best, OLH

That's the basic idea.  How much outward rotation to use and where the best placement is would be a matter for on-the-site inspection.  From just the looks of the photo, which can be worthless, I'd have used the constriction above the current placement, as it looks as if you can to some extent "drop the nut down" from the pod to the narrow part and so get a keyholed effect that would also be more stable than the pictured placement.

If a seriously multirectional placement is called for, the crack below presents options for upward directionals.

rgold wrote: That's the basic idea.  How much outward rotation to use and where the best placement is would be a matter for on-the-site inspection.  From just the looks of the photo, which can be worthless, I'd have used the constriction above the current placement, as it looks as if you can to some extent "drop the nut down" from the pod to the narrow part and so get a keyholed effect that would also be more stable than the pictured placement.

If a seriously multirectional placement is called for, the crack below presents options for upward directionals.

Yes good spot for a directional if the route above calls for one... Also. if that were placed on lead I would put a runner (quick draw) on it, or at least a second biner. that way the runner does the moving around instead of the wire. Too much jiggling of the wire may cause the nut to wiggle out of its bomber slot...You just cant count on the rope always running where you want it to. I've seen falls higher up that could cause that to pop out if the force on the rope is in the right direction... but we all new that already  

Old lady H wrote:

Sir, Eli is actively pursuing ideas and knowledge. What are you "teaching" him by the above? Perhaps how not to teach, eh? Give him the info. If his ideas are bad, he needs to know the specifics, otherwise, he won't have that info to pass on later, when the does have more mileage on rock. The "why" of the thing is also important.

Great point, Helen. I think a lot of Tut's possible contributions of wisdom get lost in the cranky old man act. Hard for people to absorb new knowledge while they're feeling attacked. 

rgold wrote: That's the basic idea.  How much outward rotation to use and where the best placement is would be a matter for on-the-site inspection.  From just the looks of the photo, which can be worthless, I'd have used the constriction above the current placement, as it looks as if you can to some extent "drop the nut down" from the pod to the narrow part and so get a keyholed effect that would also be more stable than the pictured placement.

If a seriously multirectional placement is called for, the crack below presents options for upward directionals.

I wasn't soloing up just for that....it's as high as I could reach, lol! Yes, I was eyeballing that one up higher. 

I do anticipate placing some upward only ones, down the road, below my belay device, but in front of me, for the rare times my climber and I do decide we'd like me to anchor (for big weight differences). And, if I've already done that, why not try some opposing pieces, just for practice?

Who knows, I may be a traddie yet. That's certainly what is trapped in the old lady body, the back country adventure climber. Ah well.

Best, OLH

O.K. After 7 pages!!!!!!!!!!!!  A one word answer to the op's question, YES.  On a personal note a lot goes into keeping the lead G rated.  Are there enough placements, are they good placements to hold any potenial fall, and a ton of other factors.  The more you climb and place nuts the more info you will have in your bag of tricks to safely lead on nuts only.  There will be times you may wish to back off a climb because you did not have sufficient gear to lead the climb safely.  Personally I learned a lot from following other folks and cleaning their gear.  There is a crack where I live that I lead on nuts only all the time because it is just fun to do it that way and there is 13 placements on that one binner.  Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

r m wrote: It's safe if you pick your routes. Some climbs climbs are fine without any cams, some climbs are all cams.

Solo aid top roping is the best practice I've ever had.

If the goal is to save money, I've spent far more in injury rehab than I have on cams - and I've only had the most minor climbing induced injury. I cringe to think of the damage even a low ground fall could do...

I don't understand why a ground fall is relevant here   .  We place gear to protect ourselves, whether it be a nut, cam, threaded sling or whatever.  I think the comments about "what do you think they did before cams" and also the comment about using opposing nuts (to save them lifting up an out) are far more relevant.  I feel if people felt nuts were a problem they'd just climb entirely with cams.  I'll almost always think about placing a nut before I think about a cam, but maybe it's because of the geography of where I climb (Mount Arapiles/ The Grampians in Aust)...

Stoppers and nuts have a nasty way of popping out as you climb above them.
I use nuts last, cams first.

Alexander The Grape wrote: Stoppers and nuts have a nasty way of popping out as you climb above them.
I use nuts last, cams first.

If this is happening with any frequency at all then you're either placing or slinging them wrong or both.

Alexander The Grape wrote: Stoppers and nuts have a nasty way of popping out as you climb above them.
I use nuts last, cams first.

I find often if that happens it's because I haven't extended the placement or seated the nut properly.  I guess you're right in that that doesn't occur with cams. I guess with nuts there's more room for error. However it's nice to do a climb using only nuts where they're all good and all remain as placed. It does feel very 'pure' to climb a route like that... 

Alexander The Grape wrote: Stoppers and nuts have a nasty way of popping out as you climb above them.
I use nuts last, cams first.

Sounds like you're gonna get some flak for that (with reasons I'd say). 

Cams can have a nasty way of walking in/out of the crack. Bolts have a habit of being hard to inspect.

All placements types have their advantages & drawback and using them properly is about taking that into account...