Rope Width Vs Weight

Ryan Watts wrote: Could also be that there are people who make enough money that the extra $50 or $100 or whatever for a skinny rope doesn't really matter.

Skinny ropes aren't necessarily more expensive. I recently got a 70 meter Mammut 9.6 for $112, with free shipping. It is a great rope model, that I've had before. My last one lasted for a long time. This was just an online clearance, not a prodeal.

Sure, a 10.5 might last a little bit longer, but probably not by much. Rope longevity has a lot more to do with the quality of construction, and a bit of luck, than it does with diameter. There are a lot of upsides to skinny ropes (not just weight), and you really don't save that much money in the long run by buying a fat rope.

Caveat: paying full retail $300 for the latest and greatest 8.9 mm rope (which will probably not last as long) is a different story.

JCM wrote: Skinny ropes aren't necessarily more expensive. I recently got a 70 meter Mammut 9.6 for $112, with free shipping. It is a great rope model, that I've had before. My last one lasted for a long time. This was just an online clearance, not a prodeal. Sure, a 10.5 might last a little bit longer, but probably not by much. Rope longevity has a lot more to do with the quality of construction, and a bit of luck, than it does with diameter. There are a lot of upsides to skinny ropes (not just weight), and you really don't save that much money in the long run by buying a fat rope. Caveat: paying full retail $300 for the latest and greatest 8.9 mm rope (which will probably not last as long) is a different story.

Your mammut climax 9.6mm weights 64 gm (the same as beal 10.2mm)

A beal tiger 10mm weights 61 gm

It just goes to show you the variabilty in diameter

Which is the "skinny" rope since the beal 10mm is lighter?

Hmmmm

;)

bearbreeder wrote: Your mammut climax 9.6mm weights 64 gm (the same as beal 10.2mm) A beal tiger 10mm weights 61 gm It just goes to show you the variabilty in diameter Which is the "skinny" rope since the beal 10mm is lighter? Hmmmm ;)

True, it isn't the lightest rope. If I wanted something super light to carry into the backcountry, I would have gotten something else. For that, I often use my 8.5. I got the 9.6 for sport climbing because it is very durable, yet handles like a skinny rope, and feeds much more nicely through a Gri-Gri than your standard 10 mm. It also ties into small and tidy knots, again due tot he lower diameter. I will admit, though, that the diameter feel more like a 9.7 or so. However, it doesn't seem to "fuzz out" and get thicker with use, so after two years of use it still handle nicely.

As I said above, I think that the handling characteristics of a lower diameter rope are more noticeable in everyday cragging than the weight factor. Easier feeding through a Gri-Gri or Reverso, tidy clove hitches, etc.

Depends on what you're doing. If all you do is road side cragging then it's not a huge difference. It moves thru the belay device easier, is easier to clip, but yeah, the differences aren't that noticeable. Not everyone just goes roadside cragging all the time though.

What about alpine climbing. It's not just the lighter rope. Lighter ropes are also smaller. Then I can take a smaller pack which is also lighter. With a lighter pack I can take lighter duty boots. If I can move faster now there is a good chance I can complete a bigger objective in one day instead of staying overnight. So I think getting light gear has a cascading effect on the packing overall.

I'm with OP. I could take a 1.8#crap before climbing If I were so inclined. The weight starts out at hardly any appreciable difference. It's only when your climbing a full rope length of dead vertical that you feel 1.8#s extra. Most trad climbs aren't so steep, so the rope is resting on rock, making the difference even less appreciable. You weight shavers are a strange breed and your math/logic seems fuzzy. +1 to OP

Jmezeis has some valid points but I don't see the cascading rope size savings transforming my choice of alpine boot. "Will you carry a 60# pack or a 58.2# pack? You should buy both of these pairs of boots, that way you'll have exactly what you need." The space savings would likely only permit for a few extra power bars, or if you had to bag it out, you'd have room for that 1.8# frozen poo

WillamR wrote: The rope drag is actually a really good point. I climb on either a 9.8 or 8.6 half ropes and I find the half ropes can end up with more drag if you misjudge the pitch. They're also heavier than a single anyway, but they also have an inherently softer catch

I would be interested in reading a study where they tested rope diameter vs. rope drag. It makes sense, but id like to see it quantified. I feel like it'd be easy enough to test, yet just difficult enough that I'll wait for someone else to do it.

Here you go Nerdsters: jrre.org/att_frict.pdf

Now come up with an estimate on friction forces on 50' of climbing with 6 biners causing 10 degrees of angle change between draw.

bearbreeder wrote: Which is the "skinny" rope since the beal 10mm is lighter?

Mammut ropes have much tighter weave than Beal on average.

Maurice Chaunders wrote:Most easy trad climbs aren't so steep

Fixed that for ya.

MC Poopypants wrote:But 99% of the time for 99% of climbers it's only an idea.

I strive to be the 1%.

Seriously though, I've never declined using a lighter rope or any lighter gear in general as long it's still appropriate. Lighter stuff make climbing more enjoyable for me. As much as people want to wax poetically about the epic approach with heavy packs, my attraction to climbing is mostly about the movement over rock. When you actually spend that much time & money on your hobby, what's an extra few bucks? Besides, people spending shit tons of money on gear they don't need actually makes it more affordable for the rest of us.

I believe 9.7 to 9.9 mm is the "sweet spot" these days for rope.
Look for one in that range that has a "density" of 60 or 61 gram/m.
Skinnier ropes can feel like they slip more through a belay device, whether it is an ATC or a Gri Gri.
A skinnier rope tend to create less rope drag and is easier to clip due to the smaller diameter. I feel like this matters more than the 1 pound weight difference over the entire 60m or 70m length of the rope.

WillamR wrote: Over 120 feet the difference in weight barring rope drag is only 1 lb. I'd be impressed if anyone is sensitive enough to really notice that weight in a test-retest situation. There's no evidence behind that, but it would make for an interesting test.

Actually the math on it is not that simple. Say for 100 feet of rope the weight difference is ~1 lb. It means, once you climb close to 100 feet of the climb and above, every time you make a clip you are pulling an extra 1 lb. of rope.