What are some ways to get a >2 factor fall

jacob m swrote:

FF is a simplification of an equation, anything past FF2 violates the assumptions made to simplify the equation, so no you can't mathematically get above FF2. 

You could FF2 and then have the rope slip through the belay device producing a fall length greater than 2 X initial rope length, but again that slippage breaks the assumptions that allow for the very simple fall distance/rope length equation that we use for FF

Via ferreta fall down a cable again can produce a fall length greater than the 2X rope length but again breaks the assumptions to simplify the equation 

Anchor piece ripping causing extension 

Using a screamer in an anchor and having it rip would also produce a fall legnth greater than 2 X rope legnth

No, all of this is wrong.  The fall factor is defined to be the height of the fall (before loading occurs) divided by the length of rope involved in stopping the fall (before loading occurs). There are no simplifying assumptions limiting the fall factor to be 2 or less in the mathematics, and no valid mathematical model has any trouble dealing with fall factors greater than 2. Extra distance fallen or the intervention of slippage through a belay device or the activation of a screamer has no effect on the fall factor (but of course these do have effects on the peak load).

The one thing in the above quoter that is almost right is the via ferrata example. If the via ferrata lanyard was simply a length of dynamic rope, the example would be right, because it should be evident that a fall could be longer than twice the lanyard length as the lanyard attachment rides down the cable. If the lanyard was just a piece of dynamic climbing rope, the fall factor would be (height of fall before loading)/(length of lanyard) and big fall factors would be possible. All that said, via ferrata lanyards incorporate mega-screamers, and the mathematical model that gives rise to fall factors, a model that assumes fall energy is absorbed by an elastic medium, does not apply. (To be absolutely clear: the model doesn't apply because energy absorption isn't elastic, not because the fall factor is greater than 2.)

A fall arrested by a snagged rope might be higher than FF2, depending on where and how the snag happens. If the faller falls some distance and then the rope snags on a flake with the snag point close to the tie-in, a very high fall factor is possible.

Here's a way to get a fall factor bigger than 2 in a not-inconceivable climbing situation.  You have a quickdraw made up of a nylon sling (so that there is something approximately elastic to absorb fall energy).  You clip in direct with this draw, climb above the anchor a move or two so that the draw now stretches straight up from the anchor to the harness, and then fall off,  To simplify the calculation, suppose that the nylon part of the draw is the length of two carabiners.  If C is the carabiner length, your draw has length 4C.  When you fall as described, your fall height is 8C.  But the amount of energy-absorbing nylon available to do the job is 2C.  So H/L = (8C)/(2C)=4.  That's a fall factor of 4.  Good chance one of the carabiners will break.

My partner was three, maybe four pieces up on an aid pitch, and everything zippered.  He crashed into me and the belay, and that's where he stopped.  All sorts of stuff ripped apart in the entanglement.  Gear loops ripped, a gear sling, or part of a gear sling somehow failed, and even where racking loops didn't fail, the carabiner gates opened as all of the gear got twisted up in the impact ...  a whole bunch of gear went sailing down the face.  One, maybe even two pins pulled out of the belay.

I was kind of surprised the whole thing didn't hurt more.

FF = oooof

Ben Podborskiwrote:

Just thought of another one:

A leader on a multipitch is being belayed directly from the anchor from the belayer’s harness on an ATC and has yet to place gear, and the follower forgets to tie in direct; they fall from the belay ledge, holding onto the brake strand, thereby pulling the leader from their position 5m above and directly to past the anchor. The leader takes a 5m 10+m fall on a 0m 5m of rope, and the follower burns their palms off as they fall the full length of the rope downwards catches the fall.

A few changes to this scenario, and it’s a FF2+.

Left undefined is how far the belayer falls off the ledge before his fall is arrested. 

Greg Dwrote:

Umm… no.  What you just described is a less than ff2 through a quad as first piece if belaying off harness. Then, a gear failure after said

Or you meant the belay device is directly on the quad.  Then it could be a ff2 before the gear failure.  But, only if belaying with a gri gri as that is the only device that I know of that can catch a ff2.

Or you meant belaying off the harness while tethered to a quad, rope not clipped through any gear on the quad. Nonetheless, if you have your stopper knots two feet apart on a quad, you’ve got other problems. 

What can I say man, I like my anchors nice and saggy

In Me Myself, And I, Andy Kirkpatrick says he once took a FF2.1 fall while aid climbing solo, which he says is possible if one fucks up in enough ways simultaneously. I wish he went into more detail about that story, sounds really interesting.  

1) Fall directly into anchor, 70 meter rope

2) Anchor fails

3) Both climbers continue roped fall for 700 meters

4) Midpoint of rope catches on nubbin

5) Ignore confounders (wind resistance, other friction, etc.)

6) This is a (roughly) factor 20 fall.

7) Falls of greater than factor 2 are possible, but rare, and not usually survivable.

I gotta go with jacob m s. Fall Factors as used in climbing range from 0 to 2. You folks talking ‘bout Via Ferrata, biner length, moving anchors, etc are stretching it, (pun intended). Good to think about those scenarios though.
From Petzl:

“Theoretical fall factor
The fall factor is often used to quantify the severity of a climbing fall.
It can have a value between 0 and 2 in climbing.”

Ricky Harlinewrote:

In Me Myself, And I, Andy Kirkpatrick says he once took a FF2.1 fall while aid climbing solo, which he says is possible if one fucks up in enough ways simultaneously. I wish he went into more detail about that story, sounds really interesting.  

Probably the only real world FF2, aid solo, back cleaning up a certain distance and then a piece pulls. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

In Me Myself, And I, Andy Kirkpatrick says he once took a FF2.1 fall while aid climbing solo, which he says is possible if one fucks up in enough ways simultaneously. I wish he went into more detail about that story, sounds really interesting.  

Probably the only real world FF2, aid solo, back cleaning up a certain distance and then a piece pulls. 

Balewrote:

I gotta go with jacob m s. Fall Factors as used in climbing range from 0 to 2. You folks talking ‘bout Via Ferrata, biner length, moving anchors, etc are stretching it, (pun intended). Good to think about those scenarios though.
From Petzl:

“Theoretical fall factor
The fall factor is often used to quantify the severity of a climbing fall.
It can have a value between 0 and 2 in climbing.”

It is true that "fall factors as used in climbing range from 0 to 2" most of the time. That isn't what Jacob m. s. says.  He refers to the mathematics involved, suggesting that a fall factor of 2 is some kind of simplification imposed on the calculations.  That assertion is false.  And the Petzl quote is misleading.  In almost any ordinary climbing situation, fall factors will be between 0 and 2.  But higher fall factors are possible in certain extreme circumstances---and these can and do happen in a climbing context.

rgoldwrote:

It is true that "fall factors as used in climbing range from 0 to 2" most of the time. That isn't what Jacob m. s. says.  He refers to the mathematics involved, suggesting that a fall factor of 2 is some kind of simplification imposed on the calculations.  That assertion is false.  And the Petzl quote is misleading.  In almost any ordinary climbing situation, fall factors will be between 0 and 2.  But higher fall factors are possible in certain extreme circumstances---and these can and do happen in a climbing context.

Fair enough. I get that this thread is dealing with exceptional FF numbers, but I guess Jacob and I have the opinion that these circumstances are beyond the scope of fall factor calculations. Strictly mathematically speaking, you cannot fall more than double the amount of rope in the system. (Again, it’s my opinion that FF calculations negate rope stretch, blown anchors, and belayer shenanigans, ie: the stuff in this thread.) 

Not reading other peoples answers...
Something to consider is that fall factor we calculate based on length of fall / length of rope to absorb that fall... but the length of rope that is in the system can not always be effectively used to dissipate the force. Friction through carabiners means that effectively less rope is actually available to dissipate the force... blockages through belay devices, PCDs, constrictions, etc...

* Leader falls, then, their rope is caught between a flake and the wall and hopelessly pinched such that effectively they are falling on a shorter length of rope. This you could get astronomically high FF. IE you could do a 70m FF2 fall... but then right before the rope stretch kicks in to start dissipating force your rope 10m away from your tie in gets stuck in a flake... you just fell like 130m, but then only 10m of rope to absorb the force = FF13. Or leader falls and his rope doesn't catch him, something else does, like a snag to harness belay loop, etc... As the belay loop is not technically "rope" in the system, you could call it an infinite fall factor... though the harness webbing, etc could stretch a small amount in reality. You'd be dead either way.
* What would normally be a FF2, but the belayer manages to take rope in while you are falling.
* What would normally be a FF2, but your PAS clips into the anchor as you fall.
* Simulclimbing party, no PCD, both leader and follower fall at the same time. Follower gets a ton of rope to absorb the force, leader gets pulled into a bolt and much less effective rope to absorb the force... While the whole rope IS in the system, as the follower is stretching it, the leader isn't getting the full benefit of it. Typical fall factor calculation here is effectively useless.
* Same situation, but follower falls considerably before leader, greatly stretching the rope before the leader is pulled off and into a bolt.
* Picture something like the Vertical Limit opening scene. You and your partner are the amateurs. You both fall, somehow are both falling at the same speed and elevation ie were both at 500 ft and fell at the exact same time. Your rope is between you and gets caught in middle by clipping into a cam much further down... Lets say 230ft rope, 300ft fall before the rope starts to stretch. Effectively you are falling on half of the rope and your partner is falling on the other half of the rope... so 300/115 = F2.6

Balewrote:

Fair enough. I get that this thread is dealing with exceptional FF numbers, but I guess Jacob and I have the opinion that these circumstances are beyond the scope of fall factor calculations. Strictly mathematically speaking, you cannot fall more than double the amount of rope in the system. (Again, it’s my opinion that FF calculations negate rope stretch, blown anchors, and belayer shenanigans, ie: the stuff in this thread.) 

Someone has asked how one might get fall factors higher than 2 and your response is that such fall factors are not relevant to climbing.  But you might be confusing "unlikely to happen but still possible" with "beyond the scope of fall factor calculations." Strictly mathematically speaking, you can fall more than the "amount of rope in the system" and I gave an example resulting in FF4. Desert Rock Sports gives some other cases, but I think the one I mentioned is among the most likely. That example is not extremely far-fetched and has happened in real life at least once resulting in a broken carabiner and a ground fall that I think was fatal. The explanation for the broken carabiner is precisely the high load resulting from an elevated fall factor.

You are correct that the fall factor, by itself, doesn't account for all kinds of other energy-absorbing phenomena. If we use fall factor without considering the other sources of energy absorption, we get an overestimate of the peak load, in some cases a very large overestimate, because so many other sources of energy absorption are at work. That said, the fall factor is still the starting point for almost all analyses in which the primary mode of energy absorption is going to be via an elastic medium.

One I haven't seen here yet, provided by a friend. The climber climbs up to a roof, inverts, and sort of leaps straight downward. This increases initial velocity, which increases max velocity, upping the effective fall factor.

I wasn’t aware that material properties of the “rope” (rgold), or initial velocity of the falling climber (j a) were relevant to FF calculations. I thought it was simply distance of fall/ rope in system. Also, when the anchor fails in one of these horrific scenarios, you don’t say, “I took a factor 20”, you say, “man, I factor twoed on the anchor and it blew!” (Well, you probably wouldn’t say anything.)  

Anyhoo, it’s not my intention to argue with the mighty rgold, just giving some opinions. I surrender;) 

Balewrote:

I wasn’t aware that material properties of the “rope” (rgold), or initial velocity of the falling climber (j a) were relevant to FF calculations.

If you take a fall on static material the stretch is extremely minimal and the generated forces can be much higher. So taking a (full length) fall on 1m of rope connected to 1m of dyneema means you are taking a 4m fall, the forces of which are being absorbed by 1m of rope.

That "4m fall" is a proxy for "how fast are you going when you are caught by the rope"■. If I fire a spherical climber downward out of a cannon, their speed when they are caught by the rope may be equivalent to the speed of another luckier(?) climber who simply fell from 1000m. The fall factor in that case is 1000.

There are simplifying assumptions that go into using fall factor, and we are using and abusing those assumptions in this thread. In some systems these assumptions apply really directly though. A via ferrata climber that falls 10m and is caught by 1m of dynamic material really is taking a factor 10 fall. Spiking your leader horrifically while simul climbing will not be fun, but the fall factor will be relatively mild and just doesn't explain the physics of the system.

• i.e. how much energy needs to be dissipated by the rope

Okay, so I went back and reviewed the assumptions and derivations of the FF equation, and I was part wrong, part right. I should have not used the word mathematically, because the equation itself doesn't prevent FF > 2. I should have said the assumptions on the physics for the free body diagram and subsequent exclude almost all scenarios outside of the FF 0-2. The key assumption is that all the energy is absorbed in the stretch of a rope in the linear region. Given that, any energy absorbed by something other than that you either have to assume that energy absorption is negligible and can be ignored, or you need to use a different equation.

Rope slipping through a belay device has energy absorbed in the belay device as friction, A piece pulling out absorbs some energy. A belayer being lifted (soft catch) is a change in the potential energy of the belayer. Breaking a carabiner, or tearing a screamer both have energy expenditure in the deformation of a part of the system. If the rope snags and its sheath were to tear then there is energy absorbed in deforming the rope, and the modulus of the rope almost certainly changes. Bouncing off/sliding down a rock will be an energy expenditure in the friction between you and the rock.

Static elements are outside the linear region so again you can't use the FF equation for them. Falling down a via ferrata cable then catching on a tether probably pushes a length of dynamic rope  outside the linear region.

Admittedly firing somebody down out of a cannon changes the kinetic energy of the climber which is usually derived from mass*gravity*height of fall, but that term doesn't change so the FF equation would hold,..... although it would be highly ridicules. Having a cornice break under you leading to free fall where the rope then snags and you and your partner "catch each other" could produce a very high FF, but fall to far and you would stretch the rope enough that it leaves the linear region; also the example listed the rope cutting into snow which would absorb some of the energy which may or may not be negligible.

Many of scenarios listed above would produce forces in excess of a FF2, but fall outside of the initial assumptions for the FF equation to be valid. The energy absorbed through other means may be negligible in some of the situation and you could reasonably use the FF equation. Whether or not the rope stays in the linear region is also a question mark in my book, I don't know how far you can stretch a rope before it starts to leave that linear region.

This Thread:  Say you watched Wile E. Coyote growing up without saying you watched Wile E. Coyote growing up.

Reading the reference to A6+ triggered me. Okay. It just did. So now we have to think as far outside the box as that rating itself.

Everybody but one so far is factoring in rope-length, but that proves to be irrelevant. My assumptions (considering how important assumptions are for A6+):

* Length of fall itself is irrelevant, as long as terminal velocity is reached (I don't find an F2 fall interesting if it's a two-inch drop onto one-inch of rope).

* Length of rope in the system is irrelevant, because for +F2 falls it's an artificial limitation imposed upon potential glory.

* As a minimum, the leader must be brought to a stop by the system at some point during the fall.

Given those minimal assumptions....

"Fall factor" isn't glorious unless death and destruction are inevitable (which, of course, is the premise of A6 and above ratings). As I said, it's just not interesting to take a short fall onto even shorter rope. We need VELOCITY! We need mayhem! So, we're only interested in scenarios of the sort that was mentioned in a prior post: The pair simul-climbs with no pro; one falls taking the pair off into the abyss; 1000 feet into a 2000-foot fall, the rope catches on an outcrop and amazingly doesn't cut, so each of the pair is subjected to a Factor-HUGE impact. Length of rope is irrelevant in this scenario. Length of fall was sufficient for terminal velocity to be achieved. Glory is assured! And (at a minimum) the leader was stopped by the system.

Ah, but we've only just begun. So, let's bring in the A6 and A6+ assumptions, which involve that if the leader falls, everybody dies.

Given that A6 implies that everybody dies, I'm just not clear how A6+ can ever emerge. But, as I say, this fall factor discussion opened my mind! Once we grant Factor-HUGE falls, the possibilities really open up....

A6 = The leader falls the full length of the rope x 2, the anchor doesn't hold (one of the supposed definitions of A6), the belayer is jerked loose, so both are falling to the ground.

Now, of course, everybody forgets that terra most firma is PART of "the system." Indeed, "the system" has "the ground" in mind the entire time, so we can't suddenly take it out of consideration when contemplating fall factors! So, in the above scenario, all of my assumptions are satisfied, given that terra most firm did bring the leader to a stop. Factor-HUGE+ fall, and assured glory!

But, then, what could A6+ possibly be?

Well, we haven't even begun to consider mayhem and collateral damage yet.

A6+ = Everything from A6, except that the impact of both people plus all of their gear drills everything into the ground 3 feet, which creates a crater throwing debris out into a 50-foot radius, killing a hapless bystander on the trail. Oh my, what's the fall-factor of that sort of mayhem?

And notice how opening the box like this also opens the possibilities of even higher ratings and higher fall factors! I mean, who cares about F2 falls that do no actual DAMAGE, particularly to innocent bystanders?

A6++ = Everything from A6+, except that some of the gear's terminal velocity produces such an impact that it opens a 10-foot deep crater into which everything else quickly follows, thereby deepening the crater by another 3 feet, the totality of which throws out a debris cloud for a 150-foot radius and wiping out an entire Boy Scout troop hiking the nearby trail. How do you even RATE the fall factor us such an epic and glorious event?

I admit that this post sort of went off the rails relative to the intent of the OP. But can I help it if the original question wasn't broad enough? Of course I can't. I'm only interested when the question becomes interesting, the question doesn't become interesting until we're WAY beyond mere F2 falls!

Outside the box, people. WAY outside the box!

I feel like the above post (maybe rant?) would be way cooler if it was a video posted on YouTube.