Data for all the climbing nerds

Climbers, in general, are pretty data-driven and like cold hard facts. There are some things about climbing that their just isn't research for, but there are hundreds and hundreds of papers and tests that have been done on your favorite climbing myth, theory, idea. For example, the best knot for rappelling or should we build an anchor one way vs another, inset mtn project fame thread here ect. 

What if I told you people test theses idea and get data to prove that one way might be better than another way. All of this data in available at http://sarrr.weebly.com/subject-bibliographies.html the list is extensive and there is hundreds of hr of papers, videos, and research to comb through so you can make an educated decision on what is best for you / what you believe.

I love watching the videos and reading the research I hope you guys enjoy the link and if you find something cool post it here. This isn't the page for debating what is correct, right, better but more just a collection of what I think is rad educational shit.

Below are just a few of the video that I think cool and informative. 

I think one potential problems is that the videos (and maybe written information) could lack the appropriate context to convey meaning.  There is the need for explanation, background, context, etc.   For instance, the ice screw video above.   What the hell is that, why does the carabiner break?  How was the screw placed?  What does that tell me?   I am confused and scared by that video.  

Your intentions are spot on, but it may end up being irresponsible to post these tidbits "alone" without the corresponding explanation.

Russ Keane wrote:What the hell is that, why does the carabiner break?

Microfractures kick in at 19kN

How was the screw placed? 

Quite well, obviously

What does that tell me? 

World is a scary place

I am confused and scared by that video.  

Hug someone you love, and spend less time on the internet

There is the context for each video I just posted the video without context because I was hoping people would actually comb through the research and see what they are testing. There are hundreds of videos on the http://sarrr.weebly.com/subject-bibliographies.html page. Plus videos are wildly more entertaining than the research papers. 

 For the ice screw pull videos, their are 5 videos total I think maybe 6 the context for each test is posted here https://ravenrescue.com/blog/ice-screw-pull-tests-march-2013 

Amarius, you can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.   I was providing some feedback about the videos being difficult to comprehend for the layperson.   Are the context to the videos posted with the videos?  I still don't see how it works.   It's an awesome site, sorry for the tone of negativity:  I thought some user experience feedback would be helpful but apparently amarius can't take a discussion on a discussion board.

Videos like this are absolutely meaningless without context, and (most) people aren't going to go digging through research papers looking for it. If every video linked directly to the relevant study I would probably click through, but I am not going to go digging around in hopes that I just happen upon the study that correlates with each video.

If you watch the first video, failure initiates just under 7000 lbf, not 5360 lbf (watch the slowmo). Writing down numbers of a screen from a YouTube video is a horrible way to record data. How is this useful information - was the strength of quad anchors clipped to good bolts in question? All I get from this is "manufacturers aren't lying about the strength ratings of their products". My takeway from video 1 and video 3 is that 8 mm cord for anchor building is massive overkill.

In video 2 the link you provided helps with context - it would be even better if they had it with the youtube videos. They do a good job of laying out their experimental variables and the results are interesting! It would be neat to see if the relationship between breaking strength and ice quality could be quantified to some degree.

Kirtis Courkamp wrote:

 I was hoping people would actually comb through the research and see what they are testing. 

Hope is a very dangerous thing.

The most interesting thing I saw in that quad-pull test was how the right tail of the double-fisherman's knot seems to almost get pulled into the knot...I often see these knots tied with very short tails, like 1", and think that they're vulnerable to pulling through...of course it depends on how well the knot is dressed before the pull-test starts too....hmmm....

[edit]...I'm mentioning this because I've followed most of the threads about the value of a pre-tied cordalette vs. an open cordelette (where you tie it off each time you use it instead of keeping it permanently tied in a loop with a double or triple fisherman's) vs. just using the rope or slings at an anchor and skipping the cordalette. If you pre-tie the cordalette and never untie the knot, I'm expecting the knot will become fairly welded over time, but if you tie it each time you use the cordalette, then tail length could be an issue, especially if it's dark or you're tired, etc. I was thinking about this the other day when I rigged a 3-point anchor with a closed cordalette where the pieces were far apart, and the masterpoint wasn't as far from the pieces as I would have liked (causing the arm angles to be more than I would've liked). I thought about untying the loop but the knot was so welded I ended up adding a sling to extend one arm and re-tying the masterpoint. [/edit]

Thanks for this resource. Although it's kind of dangerous for geeks like me, I can kill an hour looking at this stuff without even realizing it.

I'd agree that these videos by themselves with no context provide nothing of value other than watching someone break some stuff. They dont teach us any lesson other than that climbing gear will fail if you use the gear as an anchor point for your hydraulics system.

Alexander Blum wrote:

Videos like this are absolutely meaningless without context, and (most) people aren't going to go digging through research papers looking for it. If every video linked directly to the relevant study I would probably click through, but I am not going to go digging around in hopes that I just happen upon the study that correlates with each video.

If you watch the first video, failure initiates just under 7000 lbf, not 5360 lbf (watch the slowmo). Writing down numbers of a screen from a YouTube video is a horrible way to record data. How is this useful information - was the strength of quad anchors clipped to good bolts in question? All I get from this is "manufacturers aren't lying about the strength ratings of their products". My takeway from video 1 and video 3 is that 8 mm cord for anchor building is massive overkill.

In video 2 the link you provided helps with context - it would be even better if they had it with the youtube videos. They do a good job of laying out their experimental variables and the results are interesting! It would be neat to see if the relationship between breaking strength and ice quality could be quantified to some degree.

Ah, perspective.

With some experience you can look at these vids from a multitude of perspectives.

1. Gear is strong, no worries.

2. Or, damn, hoomans would be breaking long before any of this shit.

3. Or also, ur gonna be ripping out gear/bolts with hidden issues either from climber error or placement error or corrosion weakening before your connection to them fails.

Summary: 

(broken record alert) These last two are why you want to ideally tie into the anchor with the rope. To minimize the stress on the hoomans and gear, imo.

This thread is a great example of why we can't have nice things on the internet.