Mountain Project Logo

best example of what happens when you dont extend the pieces under a roof

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
JSH wrote:In still #2 above, it appears to me that he's got a 'biner clipped to a 'biner. You can even see it a bit in still #1.
really ... care to circle it in the photo?

both the red and orange cams are clearly clipped from cam slings to biners then rope

Stone Nude wrote: Never, but you really do try to be exhaustively complete. You should change that to: "In order to simply exhaust every possible avenue of thought on the subject in 10,000 words or less..." Ah, mountainproject. Where even the thoroughness of others can be annoying.
Ah, mountainproject. Where folks that dont know any better resort to trolls !!!
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911
Stone Nude wrote: Never, but you really do try to be exhaustively complete. You should change that to: "In order to simply exhaust every possible avenue of thought on the subject in 10,000 words or less..." Ah, mountainproject. Where even the thoroughness of others can be annoying.
Wait, are you saying that repeating yourself over and over doesn't make the world a better place to live?

Dustin Hoffman was great in rain man.
SRB25 · · Woodside, ca · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 5

In that case nudy wins!

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
Miike wrote: Wait, are you saying that repeating yourself over and over doesn't make the world a better place to live? Dustin Hoffman was great in rain man.
Wait, are you saying that trolling threads over and over doesn't make the world a better place to live? Or at least MP a better place?

Which is of course what happens when someone like you cant comment properly on the original topic .. they resort to trolls
bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065
Stone Nude wrote:Oh, Christ, be able to laugh at yourself, bear. You are about as thrifty with words as McDonald's is health food, I was taking the piss, not trying to invalidate what you're saying. You care, you're consistent, you obviously climb a lot, I give you respect for giving a shit. Me? I've been out today replacing anchors on climbs from the 70s with a lingering fever still making me fuzzy. I'm a sarcastic prat, but just because I don't get as sucked into the minutia of these Internet videos doesn't make me a troll. Even if it's posted four times, click much, SRB25? My point is that I'm not some nameless faceless retard bait Trollanor, I'm a conscientious member of the climbing community that can find humor in stepping on a nail, which can be an advantage when you mathletes start getting all tetchy with each other. As Carlin said, "Relax. Have some dip". I feel like Greg nailed it first go, I agreed with him, said so, then gave you a nudge as an afterthought because I thought it was funny. If you think I'm not funny, fine. If you think that humor has no place in a technical discussion, fine. If you prefer the color purple to blue, fine. Just don't pretend you're not wordy as a motherfucker and therefore open to a little razzing, I speak from personal experience here, chum. I'm switching to hat wearing and clipping direct as a result of this thread, it was nice knowing you.
no worries

thats a pretty wordy essay there chum !!!

at least a large fries at McDickes, though yr not supersized yet ...
bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

hey its MP ...

where nothing else matters except for a daily dose of snarkyness

accidents, "safety", technical discussions ... we dont want none of that stinking stuff !!!

shame on me to have forgot and expected otherwise ...

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

Nude, great addition. Hardest I've laughed in a long time at MoPro. Bear, take a chill pill. Your contributions are much appreciated by the community, including myself. I love you like a brother even though we've never met. Your cut and paste techniques are out of this world unbelievable oh my God on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Effectively communicating serious points also includes a bit of humor here and there just to lighten up the subject. You can make it a little more palatable just by throwing in a joke once or twice.

Understanding (a)effective rope length versus actual rope length and (b)when to extend gear are both very important points to make. Unfortunately you chose a poor video to demonstrate it. Carry-on bro and keep up the good work. No hard feelings.

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

greg ...

im not always successful but i try to avoid humor when other folks take ground falls in videos ... thats my personal view ... notice the lack of the winky faces im famous for in this thread

other folks might feel its the perfect time for such "humorous activities" ... their choice

as the the video being "suitable" ... IMO it is very suitable as you clearly see the lower cam shifting sharply back and forth before and in the fall, you dont get many videos capturing this type of failure of good quality ... but thats my opinion

it actually looks like that the accident report i posted last page is for the video ... and it looks like this is a climb in squamish ...

ill give it a whirl once it dries out and see whats up there

SRB25 · · Woodside, ca · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 5

Nudy, you really DO sit at your electronic devices ready for action...we've all been wondering.

Shouldnt you be "out socializing with the opposite sex?"
How are your sniffles btw? Bearbreeders Sudafed list perhaps?

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

Bear. Peace on. Thanks for the great contributions. Can't wait for a beer with nude... maybe you too someday.

Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422

Which is why I pointed specifically to the incoherence of your post. There's nothing incoherent about it. You can watch, read and listen to all manner of info from all kinds of sources, but until you take it apart and understand it inside and out for yourself, make it your own, and incorporate it into what you do on lead it's all here say and blind faith - both of which can kill you. Or maybe ground falls are just so common now folks are immune and think they can just fake their way up shit without consequences. In one's [day] dreams maybe, but that's not on the reality of the sharp end.

Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 422
Tim Lutz wrote:Can MP start a 'crusty ol timer rambling opinioned yer gunna die' thread?
Well, yeah sure, but when folks who, after forty years, are still leading .10-11r/x and have a few thousand pitches in of multipitch, free, lead rope-soloing on .10s you might want to consider a few of the takeaways when they're proffered.

As more concrete example of what I'm talking about, consider alpine self-arrests or self-rescuing. You can watch all the youtube vids you want, talk with the 'pros' and people who have 'been there', but unless you go out and practice it until you yourself have it down cold, you're dreaming. Sure, pull up that self-arrest vid or story when you're sliding towards an edge or crevasse and report back how that goes for you.
yesrodcire · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 5

Nah that looks exactly like it is clipped to the sling, not another biner.

MojoMonkey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 66
JSH wrote: Draw is red 'biners with a red sling. Top red 'biner is clipped to a silver 'biner, which has its gate facing right. Circles next to 'biners, arrow pointing out top of sling. The first still looks like it -could- be a Metolius cam with a sling on the end of the cam. But: it's relatively rare -not- to have a 'biner between the cam itself and that length of sling. And, the rest of the cams on him are a) Black Diamond, and b) clipped to silver 'biners.
No, watch the video in high resolution. It is a red metolius cam clipped directly to the rope.
Tom Sherman · · Austin, TX · Joined Feb 2013 · Points: 433

Hey sorry to keep this argumentalysis going, but what I am taking away from this is to think about how the loading off two pieces placed very closely together work in a system. Disclaimer, I am a first year trad climber and just looking to learn.

While I understand extension under a roof to reduce friction, and walking from a poor rope path, sharp bend etc. the failure appears to be a reincarnation of the problems that exist in the American Death Triangle. The way this setup loaded in a fall was to pull the pieces into each other, which without even beginning to think about multi-directional-loading-force multiplication-physics-whatever, clearly rotated the pieces into an undesirable position. I mean it looks like those pieces rotated 45-60 degrees into each other.

So while preaching extension under roof, I am seeing the takeaway as caution in using two pieces in proximity to each other on the interior of a sharp bend in the ropes path. The same thing could happen if a route traversed say right, the climber placed two pieces and traversed back left. If he fell after one more piece placed, the rope path would be similar to the one shown here except horizontal. And even if the pro was placed in consideration of a horizontal pull, the failure mechanism would be the rope (the sharp bend) pulling the pieces into each other and rotating into failure.

So maybe I'm just fully wrapping my head around what everyone else is already saying, and I just didn't read that through others' postings. But this was what I took from this video. It seems the climbers' self-analysis was the most on-target with what precisely happened. Very glad to have seen this. Thank you for posting up!

Again I am not arguing, that extension would have completely solved this, in this scenario, but think of the deeper takeaway. If I am right about the bend pulling the pieces into each other as fail mechanism. One could imagine the geometry of a setup, where multiple pieces on the interior of a bend, could be extended, yet the geometry of the extension could lead to the same 'pulling the pieces into each other' under loading. If anyone is not convinced I can draw a diagram and show exactly what I am talking about.

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883
Tom Sherman wrote:Hey sorry to keep this argumentalysis going, but what I am taking away from this is to think about how the loading off two pieces placed very closely together work in a system. Disclaimer, I am a first year trad climber and just looking to learn. While I understand extension under a roof to reduce friction, and walking from a poor rope path, sharp bend etc. the failure appears to be a reincarnation of the problems that exist in the American Death Triangle. The way this setup loaded in a fall was to pull the pieces into each other, which without even beginning to think about multi-directional-loading-force multiplication-physics-whatever, clearly rotated the pieces into an undesirable position. I mean it looks like those pieces rotated 45-60 degrees into each other. So while preaching extension under roof, I am seeing the takeaway as caution in using two pieces in proximity to each other on the interior of a sharp bend in the ropes path. The same thing could happen if a route traversed say right, the climber placed two pieces and traversed back left. If he fell after one more piece placed, the rope path would be similar to the one shown here except horizontal. And even if the pro was placed in consideration of a horizontal pull, the failure mechanism would be the rope (the sharp bend) pulling the pieces into each other and rotating into failure. So maybe I'm just fully wrapping my head around what everyone else is already saying, and I just didn't read that through others' postings. But this was what I took from this video. It seems the climbers' self-analysis was the most on-target with what precisely happened. Very glad to have seen this. Thank you for posting up! Again I am not arguing, that extension would have completely solved this, in this scenario, but think of the deeper takeaway. If I am right about the bend pulling the pieces into each other as fail mechanism. One could imagine the geometry of a setup, where multiple pieces on the interior of a bend, could be extended, yet the geometry of the extension could lead to the same 'pulling the pieces into each other' under loading. If anyone is not convinced I can draw a diagram and show exactly what I am talking about.
That's not exactly what's going on here. For example if the climber generates 1000 pounds of force and the two pieces share the load as you suspect then even with some Degree of vector multiplication they are sharing the load so if any force multiplication turns the load into 1500 for example, The two pieces would receive about 750 each. But in this example it is the angle between the two pieces that would be significant. In this case the angle is relatively small maybe it approaches close to 90° at one point briefly. Keep in mind that it's 120° between two pieces that would cause 1000 pound load to give 1000 pound load to each piece. So in this case the actual load on the top piece would not be any greater than if the other piece did not exist at all.

If you watch the video again you will see the top piece takes most of the load initially then when it blows the entire load goes to the second piece. When the top piece is loaded the climber strand is near vertical and the strand going to the second piece is at around 30° or so relative to the climber strand. So the vector forces on this top piece are small because the angle between those two strands is small.

no drawing necessary for me. But thanks for asking.
Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

The concept you are talking about is valuable to understand though. For example a horizontal crack with two pieces side-by-side. If when they are loaded the angle between them becomes quite obtuse say greater than 90° there will be some multiplication concerns. At 120° between the two pieces 1000 pound load would put 1000 pounds to each piece.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526
Tom Sherman wrote: The way this setup loaded in a fall was to pull the pieces into each other...I mean it looks like those pieces rotated 45-60 degrees into each other.
I don't think so. It doesn't appear to me that the top piece rotates to a significant degree. The bottom piece rotates up and then back down. An appropriate-length sling on the bottom piece would have kept this from happening, but as I've said twice now, in addition to slinging the bottom piece, it would have been a good idea to place a directional to hold the bottom piece down and/or there ought to have been other pieces between the leader and the ground.

Tom Sherman wrote: One could imagine the geometry of a setup, where multiple pieces on the interior of a bend could be extended, yet the geometry of the extension could lead to the same 'pulling the pieces into each other' under loading.
Yes, this can happen, usually with two pieces straight up in the same roof crack or two pieces in a horizontal crack. The best strategy, especially if it seems as if they would actually collide, is to physically connect them. The rope then goes through one carabiner, not two, and the pieces can be placed in directions that are optimal for resisting their load directions, which in this set-up are known ahead of time. An additional benefit is this set-up resists rotating forces that could unseat cams or nuts. Of course, if your placement skills are not up to the task and one of the pieces pulls, you'll still rotate the other piece under load, with unpredictable results.
rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

I don't think it is worth worrying about the "death triangle" effect, which I think is overhyped anyway even in the case of the death triangle. What matters is the loading directions, not because of the vector arithmetic that gives total loading, but rather because of the possibly unanticipated directions of pull on the gear.

If you have two pieces placed straight up in a roof crack and the rope clipped to them with slings of the same length that don't allow the rope-side biners to collide, then the load on the leader's side piece is going to be about 1.2 T where T is whatever tension is developed in catching the leader. (This is assuming the now-standard carabiner efficiency of 67% and is a result of nothing more than the Pythagorean Theorem). If only the leader's-side piece was catching the fall, you'd expect about 1.67 T on it and so the roof crack "death triangle" is better from the loading perspective than just a single piece---as long as your pieces can withstand the imposed directions of pull.

So worry about the load directions, not the loads.

Edit: it should be mentioned that, with the rope making two 90 degree bends, the system friction, while beneficial for the belayer, is going to make the effective fall factor higher and in that way increase the load to the leader's piece; how much is very hard to say. I still think the conclusion above is the appropriate one.

rgold · · Poughkeepsie, NY · Joined Feb 2008 · Points: 526

Wow, can Cliff bars can negate the effects of a complete breakdown of climbing technique?

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "best example of what happens when you dont exte…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.