Climbing Myths Busted

geir.com/mythbuster.html 

Nice read

Awesome,,I'm gonna take my old gen.1 Reverso to the range too, and see if I can plug a few holes in it with my .45 or .357 too. Nice tests, fun read!!

I clicked on this thread with the intention of posting that exact same link. Great read put together by a great guide/teacher. Thanks Geir.

Russ Walling wrote:Hey Geir, Question about this segment: Jeff Fassett and I conducted a simple test using a dynamometer attached to a bolted anchor. If you were using the Dyno in the set-up pic, how did you adjust for the needle jump when a dynamic load is applied to that device?

I am interested in the answer to that. I am not sure one can. Analog dial dynos are not designed for dynamic loading (as many say right on them). I use a digital dyno that scans at about 560 Hz., and I find it to be more accurate than analog dynos for quick, dynamic loading, or at least in the limited testing I conducted comparing the two. That said, still interesting stuff, even though I think this is the fourth time it has been linked on MP.

Sweet info, thanks for sharing

Cool read with good myths, thanks!

Number 2 grates on me a bit.

The article is busting myths ... usually done by pull testing or at least a bit of scientific process.

But instead they "bust" the myth of non-lockers being safe with the statement, "While the chances of the rope coming unclipped are low, I strongly discourage this practice. Any time a person's life is dependant upon one carabiner, it's best to use a locking carabiner."

Does that mean that they use lockers for the first draw on a sport climb? After all, the person's life would be dependent on that lowest non-locker.

Not at all saying that non-lockers are okay in this situation (different topic), just that the Geir Hundal "mythbusting" should stick to testing and science, not dogma.

That didn't take long.

cerickson wrote:Number 2 grates on me a bit. The article is busting myths ... usually done by pull testing or at least a bit of scientific process. But instead they "bust" the myth of non-lockers being safe with the statement, "While the chances of the rope coming unclipped are low, I strongly discourage this practice. Any time a person's life is dependant upon one carabiner, it's best to use a locking carabiner." ...just that the Geir Hundal "mythbusting" should stick to testing and science, not dogma.

I kind of agree with you here. Several entries on the list don't really address actual "myths", but instead just come across as statements of what the author thinks are best practices.

I was annoyed by their "Myth 7", where they reiterate the popular idea that it is unsafe to use a Gri Gri to belay on a gear route. I disagree with this assertion, and think that instead of "busting" a myth here they are in fact perpetuating one. I've got a whole rant as to why I think this is the case, but I'll spare the details for now.

Gri gri is fine. What do you think people use to belay on long aid routes? Common now....try using ATC at the Valley for 3 hrs at a time while eating , peeing and rearranging your stuff, huh?

or arguing with your 4th split personality

vivica jones wrote:Gri gri is fine. What do you think people use to belay on long aid routes? Common now....try using ATC at the Valley for 3 hrs at a time while eating , peeing and rearranging your stuff, huh?

Well, that's one part of it. The bigger part, though, is that I think that people (at least, those who know how to give a proper soft catch) have an easier time giving a softer catch with a Gri Gri. With an ATC, the impulse when you see the climber taking a fall is to tighten up and clamp down. This is good, since you certainly need to clamp down to stop the fall, but is can lead to a hard catch as the belayer closes thier body in to stop the fall. With a Gri Gri, it is much easier to have an open, loose posture, and focus of giving the soft catch jump, since your attention does not have to be devoted to locking down. Of course, proponents of the ATC talk about rope slippage, letting soem rope run, etc, but this is, in practice, not something that is implemented effectively. You usually see hard catches when people use ATCs. In practice, soft catches come from movement of the belayer's body (and this is easier to do with a Gri Gir), rather than from rope slippage. Rant complete.

JCM wrote: Well, that's one part of it. The bigger part, though, is that I think that people (at least, those who know how to give a proper soft catch) have an easier time giving a softer catch with a Gri Gri. With an ATC, the impulse when you see the climber taking a fall is to tighten up and clamp down. This is good, since you certainly need to clamp down to stop the fall, but is can lead to a hard catch as the belayer closes thier body in to stop the fall. With a Gri Gri, it is much easier to have an open, loose posture, and focus of giving the soft catch jump, since your attention does not have to be devoted to locking down. Of course, proponents of the ATC talk about rope slippage, letting soem rope run, etc, but this is, in practice, not something that is implemented effectively. You usually see hard catches when people use ATCs. In practice, soft catches come from movement of the belayer's body (and this is easier to do with a Gri Gir), rather than from rope slippage. Rant complete.

Now that I thought of it ...gri does slip a little. I remember that when I was doing solo tr on it. Good point.

20 kN wrote: I am interested in the answer to that. I am not sure one can. Analog dial dynos are not designed for dynamic loading (as many say right on them). I use a digital dyno that scans at about 560 Hz., and I find it to be much accurate than analog dynos for quick, dynamic loading, or at least in the limited testing I conducted comparing the two. That said, still interesting stuff, even though I think this is the fourth time it has been linked on MP.

Hey Russ and 20kN, I had no way to correct for the quick dynamic loading when making measurements for this piece. (The myth I am referring to is #6 for anyone who is curious).

Subjectively the intensity of the impact I felt was enormously different between the falls on the daisy chain vs falls on the rope, so I am confident the relative difference in these measurements is real.

I'd really like to see the same test repeated with a digital dyno to get more precise numbers. If you guys do any tests along these lines definitely let me know what you come up with.

20kN - I've seen a couple of the pieces that you have posted up and they have been great. Nice work!

JCM - I've received a number of emails over the years about the GriGri piece, many of which made arguments similar to yours. My stance has changed somewhat: on multipitch free climbs with solid gear I don't mind being belayed with a GriGri. However, if I know the gear is very sketchy then I prefer an ATC. I should probably rewrite that piece to more accurately reflect what I think these days. Thanks.

Geir wrote: If you guys do any tests along these lines definitely let me know what you come up with. 20kN - I've seen a couple of the pieces that you have posted up and they have been great. Nice work!

Thanks. I plan to conduct a formal(ish) study on this topic, hopefully for the 2014 ITRS. It has been on my to-do list for awhile, but an injury slowed me down.

Our little intrepid band of climbers here in Kyrgyzstan is slowly moving away from using the daisy chain in favour of the clove hitch and this article may help make that transition happen faster. I think in some instances the daisy chain is great when you have a climb with an anchor that is difficult to tie a clove hitch to due to a precarious body position or really heinous holds. In this case it is great to be able to quickly clip in with your daisy and relax while you clove hitch in, but in general, the clove hitch really is all you need.

Yo , Mutton! I did my short of gri tr solo have you? I lead trad all the time (3 times a week) I climb at the gyms wherever I go. What do you do? Complain?

Geir wrote: JCM - I've received a number of emails over the years about the GriGri piece, many of which made arguments similar to yours. My stance has changed somewhat: on multipitch free climbs with solid gear I don't mind being belayed with a GriGri. However, if I know the gear is very sketchy then I prefer an ATC. I should probably rewrite that piece to more accurately reflect what I think these days. Thanks.

It should reflect that the counter-balance situation already helps, as well as the practiced ability to make a soft catch.
Also, Eli wrote something on belayer positioning down from the anchor, but don't recall the article in question.

The clove issue, I believe came about from its use with static lines, whereas dynamics won't have that issue. However, statics have been improved upon over the years, so they may not be a problem any longer.

I still can't get people to accept what affects metals, but whatever. Mountaineering & technical systems by psuedo-science will always be around. But, I will disagree in the title wording of that section as carabiners are usually the weakest part of the system. The important thing is to recognize gear history and be proactive in replacement -- Malcolm stated something about replacing dyneema slings more periodically as the fibers break down from use & knotting; so I see that advice as a good idea.

I'm not too keen on ropes and sharpies, they do make special sharpies without contaminants for rope use (TEC). The argument in that section implies a problem by relying on evidence of absence. What I've seen are problems over the course of time and repeated applications that have contaminants.

What diameter rope was used on the GriGri test?

If anyone is curious for more information about sharpie rope marking, here's a good page from Bluewater Ropes:

bluewaterropes.com/home/FAQ…

If a rope manufacturer is willing to recommend that people use a particular marker (in this case a Sharpie "rub-a-dub" laundry marker), then that's good enough for me. No way in hell would their lawyers let them write that if there was any chance of damage.