Falling on a roof

Hi all,

The other day I was working a route on a roof and fell while trying to pull a feet-first move. I had clipped the first draw on the roof, but when I fell, I swung back to the wall and because I was climbing feet first, I hit the rock head first. My belayer weighs 50 lbs less than me so it was a pretty soft catch and I didn't seriously hurt anything (just a bump and a headache), but I was hoping you all could help me figure out how to avoid the situation in the future. I know I hadn't backstepped the rope, I just couldn't twist around in time to hit the wall with my feet. Is this an unavoidable risk when pulling a feet-first move or is there a safe way to fall?

Thanks!

Helmet would lessen the pain.

if youre not above it, and its possible, stick clip the next bolt. or place some other form of pro that will change the direction of the fall.

Or put a longer runner on the first bolt, which would give you potentially more time to fall/correct.

Was your belayer keeping you very close? If so that can cause you to swing back into the wall. In some cases and including this one a little bit of extra slack may help you to fall more vertically and less swing into the wall.

Oh and Ditch that use of the word backsteeping. It is totally wrong.

Greg D wrote: Oh and Ditch that use of the word backsteeping. It is totally wrong.

Ha! Flashback humor.

You got spiked, which can happen on just about any overhanging rock, more likely on roofs, when there's not enough slack out.

Unless there's some reason not to, your belayer should have given you more slack. This allows the energy to be absorbed by the rope in a straight-down fall, instead of being converted into horizontal motion by a short pendulum-arm.

And I second the motion: that is not a backstep. That was just discussed in another Forum post.

More slack does NOT equal a soft catch. Perpetuating this myth is irresponsible.

Eric Engberg wrote:More slack does NOT equal a soft catch. Perpetuating this myth is irresponsible.

But it does limit the tendency to pendulum by forcing the rope stretch, rather than the climber's horizontal motion, to soak up the energy of the fall. It might not actually be a softer catch, but the gravitational force vector and the fall-arrest force vector are closer to parallel (technically anti-parallel), so the abrupt stop feels more like just slowing down, rather than being jerked to one side.

my thinking is more slack= longer pendulum arm which creates more momentum meaning a harder hit... i wouldn't just leave a bunch of slack in the system.

Further, the amount of rope out in the system would have to be considerable to absorb shock with pure ropestretch, if thats what you guys are talking about?

Much better to give a dynamic belay. There are some edge cases where extra slack is appropriate - like when the climber is above a roof.

thecmacattack wrote:my thinking is more slack= longer pendulum arm which creates more momentum meaning a harder hit... i wouldn't just leave a bunch of slack in the system. Further, the amount of rope out in the system would have to be considerable to absorb shock with pure ropestretch, if thats what you guys are talking about?

Well, there are two things going on here. The component of the fall that's parallel to the rope when the rope catches will be consumed by rope stretch. But the component that's perpendicular will drive the pendulum action.

You can actually test this with a shoe-string and a weight if you don't believe it. If the weight is the same distance from the anchor when you release it in both cases, it will swing much more violently when there isn't a lot of slack in the system.

If the main concern is careening wildly into the rock (and not overall softness of catch), then more slack is definitely the safer option.

climbing.com/skill/essentia…

Don’t feed out extra slack. This results in a harder catch because it increases the fall factor. If a climber takes a 10-foot fall with 20 feet of rope in the system, the fall factor is 0.5. If the belayer includes an extra five feet of slack (15-foot fall, 25 feet of rope in the system), the fall factor increases to 0.6, resulting in a harder catch (increased maximum force). Only give extra slack to make sure the climber clears an obstacle.

Mike13 wrote:The point is that the climbers fall will have a higher vertical component and less horizontal swing. Imagine you have just clipped on a horozantal roof and move just a foot or two past your clip with very little rope out and fall. Very short but very harsh fall right? Now imagine you have an extra 10 ft of slack in the rope (possibly excessive i know) and assume that you dont hit anything with that much rope out and that there is plenty of rope out that the extra slack is minor when compared to the fall factor. This means a much longer but less harsh fall. Make sense?

That directly contradicts the climbing mag post i just cited.

you dont see how it contradicts? or you just dont agree with the article?

Seriously, do the experiment, you'll see the point we're trying to make.

You swing less with more slack out, so all else being equal, more slack is better than less slack, if the point is to minimize injuries incurred while swinging.

I'm going to concede the point because i dont know enough about the physics other than what the article says. Maybe someone else can weigh in with a final word.

i can certainly see how you wouldn't want to be jerked, which would be the case in a "low-slack" system. (meaning you would want more slack)

but i can also see how the factor of the fall might be reduced if you aren't free-falling for quite as long, in the case of a "high-slack" system. (meaning you would want less slack)

Long sling and helmet seem like good ideas to me. The sling is the place to put all this slack everyone keeps talking about, not the rope. The sling is determining how much you get pulled into the wall.

thecmacattack wrote:you dont see how it contradicts? or you just dont agree with the article?

I haven't read the article, nor do I care to, but you are wrong. Yes more slack increases the fall factor and the force on the rope/pro, No having more slack does not increase the horizontal velocity of swinging into the rock, it decreases it which is the important factor in this case.

The disconnect here is that you're talking about two separate things.

For a climber a given distance above the last piece of pro, more slack necessarily increases the fall factor. I don't think anyone is really disputing this.

If the last placement is under a roof and there is a horizontal component to the run of the rope between the last placement and the climber, more slack necessarily decreases the amount of swing in the fall. The amount of slack out is anti-correlated with the likelihood of the climber smashing his/her face into the lip of the roof in this case.

There is some happy medium where the increased fall factor is an acceptable trade-off for the leader not swinging face-first into the rock at 0.3x the speed of sound.

Edit: as Optimistic said, "slack" here can be in the form of a long runner that reduces the swing of the leader.

kennoyce wrote: I haven't read the article, nor do I care to, but you are wrong. Yes more slack increases the fall factor and the force on the rope/pro, No having more slack does not increase the horizontal velocity of swinging into the rock, it decreases it which is the important factor in this case.

I'm wrong, and you're reiterating MY point..
Make sure you keep that helmet on lol

Hamilton Kibbe wrote:The disconnect here is that you're talking about two separate things. For a climber a given distance above the last piece of pro, more slack necessarily increases the fall factor. I don't think anyone is really disputing this. If the last placement is under a roof and there is a horizontal component to the run of the rope between the last placement and the climber, more slack necessarily decreases the amount of swing in the fall. The amount of slack out is anti-correlated with the likelihood of the climber smashing his/her face into the lip of the roof in this case. There is some happy medium where the increased fall factor is an acceptable trade-off for the leader not swinging face-first into the rock at 0.3x the speed of sound.

i see the disconnect now