Multi-Pitch: Pitch Length Choice for Efficient Movement

All,

When we do the Bastille Crack, my partner and I combine the first two pitches into one. We know the gear selection well, so the size of our rack is reasonable for us.

I got to thinking about selecting pitch length when you have a choice, and whether there is an "optimal" length for a pitch in a multi-pitch climb. Now, if you know you're traveling easy ground (for the leader), and you know your partner well (you're not taking a newbie up who requires constant voice communication) then it likely makes sense to run long pitches. On "easy" ground, you're likely stretching out your protection so your rack won't weigh you down.

So, let's assume the following:

1. The terrain is moderately challenging for you and your partner
2. You've never climbed the route before (or don't have it wired), so you can't perfectly gauge the pro you'll need
3. You're inclined to place a lot of gear (or not ... major branch in our decision tree, I think)
4. You have choices for belay spots
5. The route doesn't "force" short pitches (it doesn't zig zag and there aren't a lot of roofs)

I'm coming to the opinion that in general, getting greedy about long pitches might actually slow you down - that there's an optimal pitch length, that is in part determined by the above considerations as well as others.

Depending on the circumstances, I think real long pitches would dictate a much larger rack which can't have a positive effect on your climbing efficiency as well as managing and sorting the gear at belays.

Now, there are surely exceptions to this, like a long climb that you split into short pitches, but which has varying protection requirements by pitch - that wide crack on the 4th pitch that "eats" #4 Camalots. Another exception of course would be dessert climbing with long, parallel cracks.

I'm curious as to everyone's' thoughts on this issue.

Cheers,
Thom

Jed Pointer wrote:The optimal pitch length is a full rope - always, in every case. Whether you have the skill and strength to make that happen with the rack you've got is another story.

Tell that to the Hubers....their Nose speed record was done 90% with 100 foot pitches.

The optimal pitch length is the one that gets you up the route in the shortest ammount of time. It is better to climb two 100 foot pitches in 20 minutes each than take an hour linking the two.

I guess we can agree to disagree. Convenient belay locations requiring minimal gear should also be considered, and most cliffs do not have these at regular 200' intervals. When climbing on the Diamond I will often choose to do two shorter pitches to minimize gear and keep both climbers moving. Nothing like following a 200 foot pitch with numb hands and feet because your partner took an hour running the rope out.

And the number one answer for most climbing questions: It depends.

So many factors. So many different situations. So many different routes. So many different abilities. One of the beauties of climbing is calculating, evaluating, re-evaluating the weather, the route, the abilities, the gear, the risks, your breakfast, your hangover, your food, your water, your time, and on and on and on. Belays take time and a fall with 200 feet of rope between you and your belayer means big air!

Calculate. Evaluate. Make your best judgement and be willing to live with your choice. And remember:

IT DEPENDS!

If the pitch is easy, it is often low angled or heavily featured which often produces a lot of rope drag. It the pitch is difficult, I usually want more protection, so I'm going to run out of options before the end of a full rope length. So for me, "optimal" is probably 140-150 feet maybe. Belay comfort is a major consideration too. I'm not passing up a sweet ledge, to eek out 30 more feet to a poor stance.

i suppose if your goal is to get the route done as fast as you can then do what ever it takes. link pitches, stretch the rope, run it out, dont stop and look around. hell, you could do bastille in 2 pitches.

i like to take my time and smell the roses. when i go fast or go for mileage, i dont remember much of the route. i dont really think about pitch length, but i would rather be less encumbered by a small rack, and hit all the good belay ledges, take the shoes off, have a smoke, shoot the shit, look at the scenery, study other routes, new route potential, etc. i like the process. i only speed things up if i may run out of day light or getting out of a storm.

agree with Old Dude. belay comfort key.
agree with GregD. it depends. in that, it depends on what your goal is for the day.
Kevin brings up a good point. when climbing in cold, it is efficient to break up into short pitches, and lead in blocks. miserable belaying your follower on a 200' pitch and then belaying again leading the next 200' pitch when its below freezing. better have your belay jacket.

Thanks all,

As much as I expected some of the obvious answers (there are only so many ways to do something, and "it depends" is certainly the main rule to go by), a couple of great considerations surfaced.

The temperature consideration was one of them. I always think in terms of weather (storms), but shortening time spent on a belay ledge to keep the belayer warm was something that sat just below the threshold of my awareness at the time of writing. It could likely slip past my focus in borderline weather.

Yes, I like to stop and smell the roses too but of course there are times we know when speed = safety, and this was the thrust of the post.

A bit more background (and related to the "how do you rack your gear" thread): in the "early daze", I owned only 8 cams - a full set of rigid stem Friends.

With my quiver of cams having expanded to 21 (mostly with the addition of smaller sized Metolius TCU's, MasterCams, a couple of C3's and smaller C4'), the bulk on my rack really caught my attention. It was at this point, that the thought of shorter pitches and better tailoring my rack to the climb came into consideration.

Cheers,
Thom

If you are efficient at the transitions, linking pitches is not any faster. Taking things to the ropes end also sets you up for potential epic (communication, rope elongation, self rescue, etc.).
Think about it.

JF

"Optimal pitch length" is only knowable retrospectively. The climber facing unknown territory (no longer an especially common occurrence) has to think in terms of probabilities, and in my experience, it has more often than not turned out to be a mistake, once you are more than half a rope length out, to pass a good stance in order to utilize the full rope length. Having to build an anchor at the end of a rope-stretcher in an uncomfortable spot with a depleted rack can easily use up more time than would have been lost with an easily set up and comfortable intermediate belay. Add to this the fact that as the rack is depleted, creative placements may become mandatory, slowing down the lead, and considering the potential for extreme time-wasting that comes from the lack of communication on long pitches, I think that passing a stance that is comfortable and which has fast simple anchoring potential is a gamble that is not likely to save any time and may turn into a major time-waster. (All this assuming that the ground ahead is unknown and the route is not equipped with bolted belay stances)

Moreover, long leads not only require bigger racks, they also burden the leader with a heavier rope-load to haul up the pitch---a double weight penalty. On the other hand, several of the advantages of shorter leads will be lost if the rack is too skimpy and the leader cannot place protection and build anchors rapidly, not to mention the fact that if a rope-stretcher is required, the leader will be seriously underequipped, which usually means much slower climbing and anchor creation.

So there is no effective concept of optimal pitch length in unknown territory, but there is an optimal strategy, which over the long run should result in the least amount of time wasted, even if in some cases it seems to take longer. I think this optimal strategy dictates stopping at stances that are very easily set up, even if there is still a lot of rope available.

Untie, drop the rack and solo

"OH! That's why I'm having to simulclimb the end of all the new routes I'm trying, I'm still using my old 150 FOOT rope from the 70's"

Jed, you need to consider the constraints to your optimization problem as well. The OP did not state the problem formally. Therefore, we are allowed to interpret it in different ways. Suppose he really meant roped climbing to be a constraint. Then you cannot claim that the fastest way to climb the Rupal Face is to carry 4 km of rope, because speed is constrained by the forces applied to the climber. It's equally obvious that five-meter pitches will make you take forever, because speed is constrained by the time it takes to build and dismantle anchors and do all the stuff we do at belays.

If unroped climbing were an option, one would have to take the possibility of bailing into account. After all, we are only interested in minimum time over the trajectories that reach the top of the route, and many will give up more easily if they are unroped. So, the optimum depends on the difficulty of the climb relative to the ability of the climber.

I agree with you and those who claim that belays take a lot of time. It's no coincidence that the average length of climbing ropes has been increasing for as long as I can remember. (This has been partly driven, in all likelihood, by the decrease in weight of ropes and pro, which shifts the optimum towards longer pitches.) It is also true what has been pointed out about optimal strategies in the presence of uncertainty. Better climbers, on the other hand, will usually be able to run longer pitches, and so on. But in the end, without stating the constraints explicitly, we cannot come to a unique answer.

rgold wrote:"Optimal pitch length" is only knowable retrospectively. The climber facing unknown territory (no longer an especially common occurrence) has to think in terms of probabilities, and in my experience, it has more often than not turned out to be a mistake, once you are more than half a rope length out, to pass a good stance in order to utilize the full rope length. Having to build an anchor at the end of a rope-stretcher in an uncomfortable spot with a depleted rack can easily use up more time than would have been lost with an easily set up and comfortable intermediate belay. Add to this the fact that as the rack is depleted, creative placements may become mandatory, slowing down the lead, and considering the potential for extreme time-wasting that comes from the lack of communication on long pitches, I think that passing a stance that is comfortable and which has fast simple anchoring potential is a gamble that is not likely to save any time and may turn into a major time-waster. (All this assuming that the ground ahead is unknown and the route is not equipped with bolted belay stances) Moreover, long leads not only require bigger racks, they also burden the leader with a heavier rope-load to haul up the pitch---a double weight penalty. On the other hand, several of the advantages of shorter leads will be lost if the rack is too skimpy and the leader cannot place protection and build anchors rapidly, not to mention the fact that if a rope-stretcher is required, the leader will be seriously underequipped, which usually means much slower climbing and anchor creation. So there is no effective concept of optimal pitch length in unknown territory, but there is an optimal strategy, which over the long run should result in the least amount of time wasted, even if in some cases it seems to take longer. I think this optimal strategy dictates stopping at stances that are very easily set up, even if there is still a lot of rope available.

Spot on! Great post!

Jeff

If you are efficient at the transitions and at building anchors then, all other things being equal, it does it fact speed things up a bit to link pitches.

It is great fun to take it slow and enjoy every belay ledge, and when leading at your limit it often helps to break the pitches up properly.

However, when cruising over easier and/or familiar ground I link pitches often, and each time I do that it is just one less anchor to build. And I don't think you'll find many people that say I climb slow.

I even have an 80m rope. As for the extra weight thing, well, it is lighter & less bulky than one of my older 60m 10.5's. So this summer when I head to Tahquitz again & do Whodunit again I will be cruising it in 4 pitches, and next fall I can cruise Coyote Tower in Sedona in 3 pitches.

Also with an 80m I have on a few occasions, in a party of 3, tied into the middle and brought up 2 at once on each end, then rapped off with a single rope.

With all respect to some of the opinions above, I feel the primary disadvantage in linking pitches is that of increased rope stretch for the second. This is something to consider if you decide to stop & belay right before a hard part, then climb for 70 or 80 meters, then belay the second through the hard part with that much stretch.

It seems like everything is a trade-off in climbing. If you are wanting and/or needing to move fast, sometimes it is quicker to belay from each stance & sometimes it is quicker to link 2 or more pitches.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV.

-Mike

Okay, here's my take.

Let's use your first example, the "Bastille." I have, as some suggest, done this in two pitches, ground up the 3rd pitch headwall to the tabel ledge in 1 pitch, and from there to the summit as pitch 2.

I've also done it in three, the first two pitches as one, the headwall pitch and the channel up to the last bellay as pitch 2, and the final say 70ft as pitch 3.

I've also slogged my way up with a new person doing them all in sequence and explaining at bellays.

My preference for some damn reason is two long pitches and one shortie.

Why this choice, a combination of time moving, gear selection weight, communication and distance, cutting down bellay change overs without spending excessive time on one end or another.

Here's one to further the quagmire of discussion, why not do 150ft pitches and then simul climb? My guess is, that at least in Eldo, that would be cause for a masterful comedy of errors resulting in a bad day, knowing that climbers for Outer Space share the same lower pitch space with the Bastille.

Any word from local masters of speed ascents, Satan's Minions?