60 meter rope vs 70 meter rope

Hey everyone, I was looking at buying a rope for outdoor climbing, and wanted to know if people preferred the 60m rope or 70m rope. I'm here in Southern California, so most of the crag routs are less than 60ft but I wana do more multi pitch stuff. So if you had any recommendations or what's your favorite rope and should I go with the 60m or 70m. Thanks. 

Get a 70. For most multis, a 60 would be fine. But a 70 is needed more and more for single-pitch cragging.

70, many newer routes are put up using a 70.  You will come up short using a 60.  

A 70 will lost longer too especially if taking a lot of falls. You can cut the ends off of a 70 and it will still be over 60m. 

70's are ubiquitous for cragging at this point. 60, 50, and even 40m ropes have their place as the routes get longer and closer to or above treeline, but for what you've described a 70 is what you need. 

NateCwrote:

70's are ubiquitous for cragging at this point. 60, 50, and even 40m ropes have their place as the routes get longer and closer to or above treeline, but for what you've described a 70 is what you need. 

Whats your reasoning for shorter ropes on longer alpine climbs?  Less rope drag using shorter pitches?   I always like using a 70 or even an 80 on long alpine routes to link pitches.

The amount of extra weight and time spent managing the rope (pulling the extra up to the belay or pulling through the anchor, flaking, coiling, dealing with twists) adds up the more length you have.

All that energy and time is spent not climbing so you get less pitches in per day.

Get a skinny 9.1mm to 9.4mm x 60m for your first rope so it’s easy to do a lot of climbing

And get a thicker 9.4mm to 10mm x 70m as your second so it really lasts a long time, and as they say, if you trim the end it’s still a 60m.

Or get the 70 first. It doesn’t really matter. You’ll be able to climb those longer pitches and still get down so go do those when you’re ready. 

My first rope was a “skinny” 9.5 x 60 and I was pretty happy about that choice.

Edit: to Nate and Kevin above, I agree with Kevin shorter ropes on alpine climbs in certain situations. Ridge climbs like this one come to mind where the rope in use between partners may be as short as a few feet while moving together or a lot of the time will be 10-40 feet apart for example. Another example would be simul climbs where I usually don’t want to be more than 100-120 ft between my partner. I tie in somewhere along the rope and put the rest of the rope in my backpack. 

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

Whats your reasoning for shorter ropes on longer alpine climbs?  Less rope drag using shorter pitches?   I always like using a 70 or even an 80 on long alpine routes to link pitches.

I'll say up front that nothing is a rule and there's lots of arguments to make either way so take this with consideration and some thought, but not as dogma...

Some reasons off the top of my head: 

• Shorter ropes are lighter. More weight means moving slower.
• Less rope makes for less rope drag on routes that are often lower angle and more wandering than rock walls.
• They allow for easier simul-climbing. If you're already wearing a big pack, having 40-60m of rope coiled over your shoulder or strapped to your pack slows you down and adds an amount of risk to your climbing that can be minimal or really dangerous (it just depends on the situation.)
• Less rope means less rack per pitch. If you're linking with really long ropes, you need a bigger rack to protect the longer pitches. More rack means more weight. More weight means moving slower.
• Communication is easier with less rope between you. From 70-80m away, with the wind blowing blowing the rope so you can't feel tugs and cannot hear your partner is a real problem. 

I hear you about linking pitches, but my experiences have been that it's often been better on vertical rock routes but much less ideal in true alpine terrain. I've found that I can lead and have a partner follow two 40m pitches in relatively the same or less time than leading a giant 80m pitch in alpine terrain. Especially if the second pitch in that link is harder technical terrain because now I'm dealing with added rope weight, rope drag, and rack weight in the second half of that linked pitch. 

Again, it's always situational but shorter ropes can really have their advantages. I confidently can say that I haven't taken longer 60m on an alpine climb in many years now and have not regretted it on any occasion. 

Get a 70m. 

If you ever find yourself traveling a bit north, you'll be glad you have it. 

NateCwrote:

I've found that I can lead and have a partner follow two 40m pitches in relatively the same or less time than leading a giant 80m pitch in alpine terrain. 

I agree with all of Nate C's post, but this here is especially savvy. I am not saying everyone else is wrong,  we all have to pick our poison. But I wanted to show my support for the less popular opinion,  because Nate has some good stuff figured out. 

70  

Second the shorter rope notion.  If it's easy enough terrain to link pitches, then the second should be able to simulclimb a few yards off the belay.  Pitches that are too long require more heavy gear and generate more drag.

NateCwrote:

I hear you about linking pitches, but my experiences have been that it's often been better on vertical rock routes but much less ideal in true alpine terrain. I've found that I can lead and have a partner follow two 40m pitches in relatively the same or less time than leading a giant 80m pitch in alpine terrain. Especially if the second pitch in that link is harder technical terrain because now I'm dealing with added rope weight, rope drag, and rack weight in the second half of that linked pitch.

Another vote in support of Nate's perspective here.  I'm not sure what types of routes Kevin is thinking about when he talks about linking into 80m pitches, but I have never owned or used a rope that long, nor have I felt the need, in a variety of alpine climbing areas.

If the climbing is hard, leading 80m requires a truly massive rack or running it out on hard climbing (scary).  If the climbing is easy, 80m of it will probably cause lots of rope drag and communication errors, and good belay stances are usually abundant in easier terrain.

Gonna add my voice to the chorus. ~9mm x 60m skinny for alpine climbing and multipitch. ~9.5mm x 70m for cragging. 

NateCwrote:

II've found that I can lead and have a partner follow two 40m pitches in relatively the same or less time than leading a giant 80m pitch in alpine terrain. 

This also can be true on TRADitional multi pitch rock climbs. 

There are people talking about alpine routes and simulclimbing on here. OP, if I read correctly, is just looking for regular sport/trad rock routes, and just starting.

For that, I’d say go 70m. Yes it’s a bit heavier and more hassle to pull through/coil etc, but 70m is the most common for single pitch route development*, and even routes where 60m can work, often it’s nice to have the extra length for belaying in a better location. The extra hassle isn’t an huge issue for single pitch anyway.  And like others said, if you thrash it, you can trim the ends and still have something useful. Of course, it would be nicer to have a short and a long rope, so you have the perfect set up, but if you want just one rope, you have to compromise.

So I would say: first rope: 70m fairly solid. You can use it everywhere, then later add  60m lightweight for multipitch.

*except for very hard routes, which can need very long ropes

I have a few 60's and a 70. I never find myself thinking "the 70 is too much of a pain", but have definitely had some "shenanigans to prevent running out rope" with the 60's. If you have 1 rope, just grab a 70 if there's any routes at your normal crags that recommend it. 

I also don't necessarily agree with 60's being better for multis as there's plenty that respond well to pitch linking if you have a 70. 

Tjaard Breeuwerwrote:

There are people talking about alpine routes and simulclimbing on here. OP, if I read correctly, is just looking for regular sport/trad rock routes, and just starting.

For that, I’d say go 70m. Yes it’s a bit heavier and more hassle to pull through/coil etc, but 70m is the most common for single pitch route development*, and even routes where 60m can work, often it’s nice to have the extra length for belaying in a better location. The extra hassle isn’t an huge issue for single pitch anyway.  And like others said, if you thrash it, you can trim the ends and still have something useful. Of course, it would be nicer to have a short and a long rope, so you have the perfect set up, but if you want just one rope, you have to compromise.

So I would say: first rope: 70m fairly solid. You can use it everywhere, then later add  60m lightweight for multipitch.

*except for very hard routes, which can need very long ropes

The original post was answered thoroughly in the first 4 answers. In online discussion forums, the conversation often evolves.  Someone asked an additional question that steered the topic in a new and thoughtful direction. 

The OP got plenty of specific feedback on his original question, and hopefully learned somethings as his climbing develops so that he has an idea about what rope lengths to consider in the future. 

Yeah well EVERY advantage gained in"alpine" is also gained in ROCK climbing. Edit: Sorry to you all, I was wrong to make the blanket statement, which is now deleted. 

Of course there is a place for all of it. If people wanted to do a real service to less experienced/learning trad climbers, they would set up beginner/moderate routes for 40m ropes. Guide services could do this. Short pitches make for better guiding. Unless you are guiding say RNWF Half Dome in a day, maybe. 

Most moderate routes in Yosemite climb very efficiently with a 40. All do so with a 50. Especially if original belay stations are utilized. 

 There are legitimate arguments regarding rappel descents. The trend to establish rappel routes for a single 70 kinda sets things up for a pair of 40m half ropes. The rope handling advantage of a single rope is lost, but all the other advantages of shorter ropes are retained. Plus you gain a couple things leading with 2 half ropes.

Eric Craigwrote:

"Simul" climbing is in most cases overrated as having any real value.

Simul climbing is an extremely useful tool and is undeniably necessary for climbing many long alpine routes efficiently.  There is of course lots of nuance of how and when to apply it, but calling it "overrated as having any real value" seems silly.

Kyle Tarrywrote:

Simul climbing is an extremely useful tool and is undeniably necessary for climbing many long alpine routes efficiently.  There is of course lots of nuance of how and when to apply it, but calling it "overrated as having any real value" seems silly.

Oh I am fully aware of the nuances involved in simul climbing. I don't make statements that I don't know to be fact. People who don't want explore what I present here are free to make that choice. Perhaps a few will ponder some ideas presented here, by myself, and others. Making things simpler and easier has real rewards. Climbing harder and faster can be two of them. Maybe even safer too.