Climber takes a whip, has a close call....and, a newish belayer

AndrewArroz wrote: Got it. So, since a FF2 is a fall on the anchor, I'm guessing a FF1.8 is something like Jesus nut put in but then run out considerably and fallen upon? 30 feet of rope out with a 30 foot fall (15 feet above last piece)?

Actually that would be a factor 1 fall. Fall factor is length of fall divided by length of rope available to absorb the fall. Factor 2 falls are impossible, though, unless you are belaying directly off the anchor instead of your harness. This is because you are tied in with some length of dynamic rope which can stretch in addition the the rope tied to the climber. Still, you're gonna have a bad time, so don't do that.

Billcoe wrote:Set that shit up for toprope. Maybe it's the rock? Maybe the Black Cliffs are just total bullshit and you all have a bunch of columns that move when stressed but otherwise seem solid? It's not that you have so many climbers running around over there, its a low population state. Lets see, recently: Skully (not a new climber or inexperienced by any stretch) rips a bunch of pieces and seriously breaks his neck, gets a tracheotomy and barely lives -http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2802557&tn=0&mr=0%3C/a%3E%20target= AND ANOTHER SKULLY LINK Paul Hutton rips 4 pieces and ledged out - https://www.mountainproject.com/v/ledge-fall-at-black-cliffs-/112149168__2 And then this one. Yeah, what would be wrong with getting these all set up for toproping those columns? Knock and shovel the loose crap off the top, put in a climber trail along the top with some easy access bolts here or there so you can clip off to get to the edge safely and call it a day. People could still lead if they wanted to.

I remember that rescue. Was it ever actually stated what route he was on, and that gear actually ripped? Or just "I heard"? From the news coverage, he looked to be pretty close to a 4-5th class bit that is sometimes used to access the top. Unless they parked him there waiting for the high angle guys.

I hope the rest was a troll.

Best, Helen

eli poss wrote: Factor 2 falls are impossible, though, unless you are belaying directly off the anchor instead of your harness. This is because you are tied in with some length of dynamic rope which can stretch in addition the the rope tied to the climber. Still, you're gonna have a bad time, so don't do that.

What?

eli poss wrote:Factor 2 falls are impossible, though, unless you are belaying directly off the anchor instead of your harness. This is because you are tied in with some length of dynamic rope which can stretch in addition the the rope tied to the climber. Still, you're gonna have a bad time, so don't do that.

Yeah, don't do that.

publications.americanalpine…

Highlights the importance of getting that first bomber piece of gear right off the belay.

eli poss wrote: Actually that would be a factor 1 fall. Fall factor is length of fall divided by length of rope available to absorb the fall. Factor 2 falls are impossible, though, unless you are belaying directly off the anchor instead of your harness. This is because you are tied in with some length of dynamic rope which can stretch in addition the the rope tied to the climber. Still, you're gonna have a bad time, so don't do that.

So how would that work in this fall? Given 40' fall, and, say, me 7-8 feet off the ground? I know it's not high, but I have no idea how the math would work when a piece (or pieces) rip. I assume it would get higher?

Old lady H wrote: So how would that work in this fall? Given 40' fall, and, say, me 7-8 feet off the ground? I know it's not high, but I have no idea how the math would work when a piece (or pieces) rip. I assume it would get higher?

Becomes a lot more complicated. Initially, its a theoretical fall factor which assumes a bunch of stuff anyhow.

Dynamic system. Peak load was no doubt reduced a bunch when he loaded that first piece.

Actually, according to the calculator HERE it would be a Fall Factor of 1.5 to have 30 feet of rope out and fall 30 feet (from 15 feet above the last piece.

eli poss wrote: Actually that would be a factor 1 fall. Fall factor is length of fall divided by length of rope available to absorb the fall. Factor 2 falls are impossible, though, unless you are belaying directly off the anchor instead of your harness. This is because you are tied in with some length of dynamic rope which can stretch in addition the the rope tied to the climber. Still, you're gonna have a bad time, so don't do that.

HERE

AndrewArroz wrote:Actually, according to the calculator HERE it would be a Fall Factor of 1.5 to have 30 feet of rope out and fall 30 feet (from 15 feet above the last piece. HERE

1 The calculator is wrong.
2 Any calculator available on the web is wrong in that they oversimplify the math, removing variables of rope properties that could be difficult to find the values for. If you really want to do the calculations, dig up Rgolds formula, it's been posted on here. But unless you're really good at math and/or really patient, you're gonna have a bad time.

Old lady H wrote: So how would that work in this fall? Given 40' fall, and, say, me 7-8 feet off the ground? I know it's not high, but I have no idea how the math would work when a piece (or pieces) rip. I assume it would get higher?

The laymen can barely do the math for a normal lead fall, much less ripping gear, so don't even bother with the math on this one. Even if you could do the math, it still wouldn't be the real force because you have to used to elongation values provided by a rope manufacturer which are only true for an unused rope. Each time a rope is weighted, it's ability to stretch is decreased by an amount proportional to the load.

IIRC, increasing the fall length (such as popping gear) essentially moves the fall factor closer to 1. So if you're looking at a high factor fall, it decreases FF, but in your scenario it increases FF. Your vertical displacement dissipates energy, but doesn't affect the FF because FF only looks specifically at the rope's ability to dissipate energy.

Popping gear, however, might have the potential to decrease it peak force because the load on the rope is released when the gear pops until the next piece catches the fall. In this split second, in theory, the rope regains it's elasticity allowing it to fully stretch as if it is a new fall when the next piece of gear catches.

Wasn't a troll. Is toproping something not accepted in Idaho? Cause those are just a bunch of shitty little cliffs and I don't see the glory in decking from a lead fall when you can get a great pump toproping. Skully was evidently leading some route, I don't know which one and it doesn't matter does it? He got messed up bad, but I'm pretty sure at least one piece pulled.

Any of you Idaho folks know the route, etc of that story?

I can't wait for this thread to dissolve... let's make it sooner than later?

I'd like to implement a character limit on all posts by the OP. I for one will no longer be paying attention to any of her meaningless rants.

The only thing more dramatic than the title, is the initial post... And possibly a Kardashian girl. Coincidentally, the content is garbage.

dahigdon wrote:I can't wait for this thread to dissolve... let's make it sooner than later? I'd like to implement a character limit on all posts by the OP. I for one will no longer be paying attention to any of her meaningless rants. The only thing more dramatic than the title, is the initial post... And possibly a Kardashian girl. Coincidentally, the content is garbage.

Remember rule 1? It's on top of the textbox any time you post something on here. Let me remind you:

Guideline #1: don't be a jerk

eli poss wrote: Remember rule 1? It's on top of the textbox any time you post something on here. Let me remind you: Guideline #1: don't be a jerk

Sorry man.. the OP is clearly looking for some attention.

^^^^^

True dat.

Since internet forums are the best places to change people's minds, I'll add my thoughts on belay gloves:

Thought they were a good idea at first but soon didn't like the feeling of less grip. Still use them if it's cold or if I am lowering from above. Belayers significantly lighter than I am seem to like them when lowering me.

I had mine on a multi-pitch today but only used them when lowering one of my partners to retrieve a piece of dropped gear.

Fall factor is such simple math my dog can do it.

Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and it is all for you, what is you food factor? 3/1= 3. Yum. Lots of drool.

Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and your brother, Shoten is here and you have to share, what is your food factor? Huh? 3/2=1.5. Less drool.

Fall factor is not theoretical at all. It is a very simple formula to give the leader an idea of the potential forces in any given lead fall. It does not tell the actual forces. The actual force varies greatly based on many factors, including and especially, the leaders' body weight.

Now back to the exhilarating thread where "badass" climber places shitty gear and falls on a 5.7.

Edit for the less creative and literal meaning challenged.. This is a joke to demonstrate how is easy the math is. These are not fall factor calculations.

More to come..,

Greg D wrote:Fall factor is such simple math my dog can do it. Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and it is all for you, what is you food factor? 3/1= 3. Yum. Lots of droole. Baker, if I have 3 cans of food and your brother, Shoten is here and you have to share, what is your food factor? Huh? 3/2=1.5. Less droole. Now back to the exhilarating thread where "badass" climber places shitty gear and falls on a 5.7. More to come..,

You may want to look at how you are calculating fall factor. The highest possible fall factor is 2.

3ft of rope out with 1ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 2ft fallen) equals 0.66 fall factor.

3ft of rope out with 2ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 4ft fallen) equals 1.33 fall factor

3ft of rope out with 3ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 6ft fallen) equals 2.0 fall factor.

Simple formula (given real world you can do running belay etc so 2x last gear isn't perfect but good enough, also last piece of gear normally is going to be the belay device not a bolt or cam or nut)

(distance from last gear * 2) / total rope out = fall factor

Now, high fall factors, high fall forces, gloves, et al, and the relevancy. All this talk about high forces, rope slippage, gloves, etc by Joe (Healyj) and Rich (rgold) is very valuable information and I will always read your posts. Can I use your first names? Your input is great as always.

The fall being discussed was not a high fall force situation. In a single pitch situation, one can never achieve even fall factor 1. A .7 or .8 is about the max possible while still keeping your leader off the deck. So, this was not a high fall factor or a high load to catch. The fact that the belayer was unanchored mitigates the load on the belay even further. And lighter weight belayers (relative to the leader's weight) further diminishes the belayer's required brake strength.

More later.

ViperScale wrote: You may want to look at how you are calculating fall factor. The highest possible fall factor is 2. 3ft of rope out with 1ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 2ft fallen) equals 0.66 fall factor. 3ft of rope out with 2ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 4ft fallen) equals 1.33 fall factor 3ft of rope out with 3ft past the last piece of gear (x2 = 6ft fallen) equals 2.0 fall factor. Simple formula (given real world you can do running belay etc so 2x last gear isn't perfect but good enough, also last piece of gear normally is going to be the belay device not a bolt or cam or nut) (distance from last gear * 2) / total rope out = fall factor

You are joking, right?

I know exactly how to calculate fall factors, not to mention complex formulas.

The point I was trying to make: fall factors are stupid simple to calculate. One number divided by another. I was calculating drool factor, not fall factor.

Please delete your post so I can delete mine. Just cluttering up a cluttered thread. There is a 150 character limit. Exhausting.

The drool factor was awesome though.

Billcoe wrote:Wasn't a troll. Is toproping something not accepted in Idaho? Cause those are just a bunch of shitty little cliffs and I don't see the glory in decking from a lead fall when you can get a great pump toproping. Skully was evidently leading some route, I don't know which one and it doesn't matter does it? He got messed up bad, but I'm pretty sure at least one piece pulled. Any of you Idaho folks know the route, etc of that story?

Well, sorry. I'll answer, then, respectfully, as best I can.

Short answer: climbers can access the top, there are a few bolts up there, but it's a bit of a hike up, and you need to know what you're doing. That's exactly what my climbing partner did when I first climbed, in that profile pic on stems and jammies.

A great many routes would be impossible to set a top rope from the top, because of topography.

Long answer;

I've actually met one of the earliest of the FA's of the black cliffs, and, one of the first areas he and the others worked was car body canyon, where Skully had the accident.

From "Boise Climbs", by Sandi Epeldi:

"All of these ascents were done strictly 'ground up'...On lead without any 'hangdogging', top roped rehearsal, fixed gear, precleaning or even chalk. If the rope was weighted, the climber would climb back down, pullout his gear and start over from the bottom."

This, beginning in 1972.

Bob told me they considered the black cliffs practice for the real thing. That, being FA technical routes on mountains like Borah (which he's been up 30 times, every season).

When anchors went in, he said, it was disappointing because "the most interesting part was often getting over the top". His idea of interesting is way, way out of my league.

We hiked, and talked, and I learned a great deal about our local climbing history. At the time, he was hiking a lot to "get his ski legs back", as he also pioneered BC ski routes, and still does all this stuff all the time.

So, yes, a long answer, but that is a good part of it. Respect.

Rock quality, for a two mile stretch there are hundreds of routes. Not much has changed, on the south facing side, most everything is solid and stable. Stems and Jammies goes back at least into the early 90's.

The cliffs are along the gateway highway to the Idaho mountains, and are a mix of ownership, BLM being one of them.

It's a short scramble up a slope to get to them, and, it is barely noticeable that there are even climbers up there. Given the rich Idaho history (the Oregon trail goes right through), the rich climbing history, the location, the multiple agencies that have ownership, and, that the top is a mix of private land and a Wildlife Management Area, what you are suggesting, might be fine elsewhere, but not optimal for our "shitty little cliffs".

I don't know where you are located, or if you have heard the history of City of Rocks, but that's another little bit of rockpile in Idaho that had access restricted by feds...Just...Cuz.

More than a few spots need careful treatment.

As for my question about Skully, thanks for your reply. If he was on a route, then the photo I saw must be after he was moved part way, for some reason.

Best, Helen