Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
First Rope
Follow topic:
FourT6and2 wrote: Seems like they don't really list the exact specs of their ropes. Just generic ranges. They list the static elongation as "less than 10%," for example. Not really helpful lol. And the impact force of the Glider 10.2mm is listed as "less than 11.9kN." Wow. That's high. I'm working on a short comparison list of my top picks as well. Appreciate the help!Yea, their website could use some work. Maxim is just a very small division of New England Ropes. NE Ropes makes hundreds of different ropes for a wide range of applications. Anyway, the actual specs can be found on the last page of this: neropes.com/Resources/Climb… |
FourT6and2 wrote: Seems like they don't really list the exact specs of their ropes. Just generic ranges. They list the static elongation as "less than 10%," for example. Not really helpful lol. And the impact force of the Glider 10.2mm is listed as "less than 11.9kN." Wow. That's high. I'm working on a short comparison list of my top picks as well. Appreciate the help!http://www.mec.ca/shop/climbing-dynamic-ropes-maxim/50001+51233+4294966703/?h=10+50001+50635+51233 ;) |
|
Ok, so here's my "short" list. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but that's what I do haha: |
|
For a first rope get something cheap. You'll beat on it, and by the time you need to replace it you'll have a better idea of what you need. |
Gavin W wrote:For a first rope get something cheap. You'll beat on it, and by the time you need to replace it you'll have a better idea of what you need. Here's a good, cheap rope: lacordee.com/en/climbing/te…I can't seem to find any Tendon ropes for sale in the US. The US website isn't even really set up. BTW, everyone keeps linking me to Canadian pages lol. I'm thinking because y'all saw "CA" in one of my posts. But I meant California... :) Buying a rope from another country is fine and all, but I don't want to have to import taxes and fees and whatnot. Seems like Tendon is hard to come by in the US. |
|
Here's a cheap rope for you. 60 meters, 10.2, $105 + tax: |
|
Just buy a 9.8 70m and be done with it. Ropes are not THAT expensive. |
|
I have a whole bunch of tendon smarts, ambitions and mammuts |
FourT6and2 wrote:couple things I notice are: Metolius' rope has the highest fall rating, the second lightest g/m, right in the middle with impact force, and a low static elongation but a fairly high dynamic elongation as well.I wouldn't be concerned with the UIAA falls held. It's really a meaningless number. If anything, I would argue a higher falls held rating, when comparing two ropes of the same diameter, is actually worse. I say that because typically the UIAA falls held value parallels the proportion of sheath specification for a given rope diameter. The lower the amount of sheath in the rope, the higher the UIAA falls held value should be. Likewise, ropes with really thick sheath but less core material should hold fewer UIAA falls. What that essentially means is the rope has a lot of core material, and thus can handle many factor 1.78 falls, but less sheath material, which means the rope wont handle abrasion and wear as well. In other words, you're trading something that very much has practical application (sheath wear resistance) for something that has no practical application in 99.99% of climbing applications (multiple, closely-timed factor 1.78 falls). Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this topic. My ultimate suggestion is still going to be to find the cheapest rope possible that does not have a ridiculous static elongation value. Once you get more into climbing and you get a chance to use many ropes from different climbers, you can reevaluate again when the time comes to replace it. |
20 kN wrote: I wouldn't be concerned with the UIAA falls held. It's really a meaningless number. If anything, I would argue a higher falls held rating, when comparing two ropes of the same diameter, is actually worse. I say that because typically the UIAA falls held value parallels the proportion of sheath specification for a given rope diameter. The lower the amount of sheath in the rope, the higher the UIAA falls held value should be. Likewise, ropes with really thick sheath but less core material should hold fewer UIAA falls. What that essentially means is the rope has a lot of core material, and thus can handle many factor 1.78 falls, but less sheath material, which means the rope wont handle abrasion and wear as well. In other words, you're trading something that very much has practical application (sheath wear resistance) for something that has no practical application in 99.99% of climbing applications (multiple, closely-timed factor 1.78 falls). Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this topic. My ultimate suggestion is still going to be to find the cheapest rope possible that does not have a ridiculous static elongation value. Once you get more into climbing and you get a chance to use many ropes from different climbers, you can reevaluate again when the time comes to replace it.Cost isn't really an issue to me. That's one "spec" I'm ignoring. I'll get the rope that's right. Not the one that's cheapest. These ropes are all like $200. Spread that over however long the rope will last (1 year? 2 years?), and it's pennies. But I guess that depends on how often I use it and in what conditions. Either way... Here's what I've narrowed it down to: Mammut Gravity Classic 10.2 Blue Water Eliminator 10.2 Sterling Marathon Pro 10.1 If fall rating doesn't mean anything then I actually ignored some viable options I shouldn't have. I was under the impression fall rating was an indicator of how strong a rope was. But it makes sense that, given the same diameter, a thicker core and a thinner sheath would make the difference. So it's a trade off between durability and safety. And like I said above... when it comes to life and limb... why would you put your wallet first? A rope wears out, buy a new rope. Your spine breaks... or you break a leg or something... the last thing you're gonna be thinking about is that $200 you saved 8 months ago. Anyway, I think the Mammut Gravity Classic 10.2 is the best option based on the info y'all have given me (they also have similar 9.8mm ropes): Static elongation: 6.8% Dynamica elongation: 31% Impact: 8.9 kN Weight: 70 g/m Sheat proportion: 39% UIAA-falls: 9–10 And it's $180 for the 70 meter. |
|
stephdavis.co/blog/straight…
First question might be why we have multiple ropes of the same diameter that outwardly seem “the same”—what’s the difference? The answer would be that we try to look at who is using our ropes—a beginner climber who is toproping a lot vs. a sport climber who is falling a lot on very overhanging routes vs. a trad climber who is climbing lots of granite cracks vs an ice climber—and design ropes that will give them the highest level of utility combined with light weight and durability. Since each of the above mentioned climbers tend to ask different things of their ropes, and hence they may need very different propoerties in order to stand up to one form of abuse vs another. For instance, a sport climber who is projecting hard routes is taking a zillion falls that are all relatively short—that puts a huge amount of stress on one very small section of rope, and the rope simply loses its elastic properties there and goes flat. Contrast that to the trad climber who is falling much, much less, but is usually on terrain that is less than vertical—this subjects the rope much more to abrasion of the sheath. Then there’s the ice and alpine climber who virtually never falls, but is routinely dragging the rope over sharp edges, blocky terrain, getting it wet and drying it, etc. If we build all of our ropes to make the sport climber happy—i.e. they hold a ton of test falls for their diameter—because we need to give up some elements of the rope in order to build a rope that can hold all those falls we might disappoint the other climbers who don’t need a rope to hold so many falls, they need different things from their ropes. One of the big differences between ropes will be how climbers wear it out—if they wear it out from falling a lot, or if they wear it out from abrasion on rough rock. Although there are other elements in play that we can use to affect these properties, one of the differences in construction we use that reflects these design priorities is the relative thicknesses of the core vs the sheath—we can make two 10mm ropes, one having a thin core and thick sheath, and the other having a thick core and thin sheath. All other things being equal, the rope with the thick core and thin sheath will hold more falls before going flat, but wear faster from abrasion; and vice versa. For instance, our Genesis 8.5mm half ropes are designed for ice and alpine climbing. Climbers rarely fall in these situations but they do subject their ropes to incredible abrasion and they need them to be very cut-resistant. With these ropes we consider a high number of test falls held to be of relatively less importance, so we sacrifice the falls-held rating—which reflects to a large degree how long a rope will last under repeated hard falls—in order to build a rope that will be ultra-durable under very harsh abrasion conditions and will be more difficult to scrape through to the core. We do this in part by altering the tension the rope is braided under, the pattern of the braid, chemical treatments that are thermally applied during the heat-treating process, etc—but we also use a relatively thin core and a very thick sheath, because that helps the rope to be as durable as possible under these types of situations. Some of our ultra-thin single ropes like the Serenity 8.9mm have a relatively thin sheath because even with all the tricks we can muster we still need a certain amount of core in order to pass the UIAA test for a single rope—in this case we use a thinner sheath to achieve a very low weight and thin diameter, but we do thins knowing that this is a very specialized rope that is only appropriate under very specific circumstances. In these cases they are used by very experienced climbers for hard sport climbs or alpine routes where they are willing to sacrifice a level of abrasion resistance in exchange for lighter weight—this is why we recommend that people do not use any of these very thin single ropes for workout climbing or toproping. People also need to recognize that even though these are single ropes, and even though the diameter is larger than our Genesis half ropes, under conditions where the main danger is cutting or abrasion the thicker rope might actually be LESS durable and have a lower safety margin. People who are comparing two ropes of similar diameters can usually see this in the test results—Mammut publishes the % of each ropes weight that is sheath so that people can judge for themselves what rope they will be happiest with. If you fall a lot, choose a rope with a high fall rating; if you don’t fall that much then choose a ropes with a thicker sheath (and if the manufacturer doesn’t publish that info call them and ask for it!). If you climb both abrasive rock and you fall alot, then think about how you wore out your last rope—if it went flat 10 or 15 feet from the ends, then get the rope with the high fall rating for the size and if the rope just fuzzed up to the point it felt sketchy or fat or lost its dry treatment, then concentrate on a rope with a thick sheath and a compact weave. fcuckang zombay elephant and the UIAA ....dey dun knoe shiet ;) |
FourT6and2 wrote: Cost isn't really an issue to me. That's one "spec" I'm ignoring. I'll get the rope that's right. Not the one that's cheapest. These ropes are all like $200. Spread that over however long the rope will last (1 year? 2 years?), and it's pennies. But I guess that depends on how often I use it and in what conditions. Either way... Here's what I've narrowed it down to: Mammut Gravity Classic 10.2 Blue Water Eliminator 10.2 Sterling Marathon Pro 10.1 If fall rating doesn't mean anything then I actually ignored some viable options I shouldn't have. I was under the impression fall rating was an indicator of how strong a rope was. But it makes sense that, given the same diameter, a thicker core and a thinner sheath would make the difference. So it's a trade off between durability and safety. And like I said above... when it comes to life and limb... why would you put your wallet first? A rope wears out, buy a new rope. Your spine breaks... or you break a leg or something... the last thing you're gonna be thinking about is that $200 you saved 8 months ago. Anyway, I think the Mammut Gravity Classic 10.2 is the best option based on the info y'all have given me (they also have similar 9.8mm ropes): Static elongation: 6.8% Dynamica elongation: 31% Impact: 8.9 kN Weight: 70 g/m Sheat proportion: 39% UIAA-falls: 9–10 And it's $180 for the 70 meter.if yr a toppu roperu tofu guy ... just get a mammut or maxim and call it a day thats all there is to it ;) |
|
Great article i always pass friends looking to pick up a rope: |
bearbreeder wrote: If you fall a lot, choose a rope with a high fall rating; if you don’t fall that much then choose a ropes with a thicker sheath (and if the manufacturer doesn’t publish that info call them and ask for it!).I get where he is going, I just dont agree that it really matters (for sport climbing). By his own admission, rope failure from excess falls is extremely unlikely (pretty much unheard of actually). I have whipped on the same bolt nearly 15 times in a row trying to work the hell out of a move before. The 15th fall was not any worse than the 1st fall because my belayer provided a soft catch every time. Was the peak impact force on the last fall higher than the first? Probably, but I couldent tell and the bolt rated for 25kN surely dident care. Regardless if you whip a ton or you never whip, regardless if you climb on plastic or razor-sharp quartzite, a rope with more sheath material will wear better than one with less, assuming equivalent diameter. Accordingly, my personal preference has always been to look for ropes with thicker sheaths regardless if I am using it for alpine or projecting a sport climb. Now, if we are talking about whipping on a trad climb where impact force does play a more important role, then things change. With regard to the chart, the chart is pretty ominous. It claims it measures energy absorption capacity, but the study does not elaborate on what that actually means as it pertains to taking whips. I used to have a 9.5mm rope that had 400 or so lead falls and some 1000+ pitches of climbing on it. It was so used I had to cut the ends off of it twice. Anyway, before retirement it still held lead falls just fine, except it stretched a lot more than when new. Did it have a higher impact force than when new? Without a doubt. Was it only capable of displacing 5% of the energy in my fall? Without a doubt, no. I would be dead if that was the case. |
20 kN wrote: I get where he is going, I just dont agree that it really matters (for sport climbing). By his own admission, rope failure from excess falls is extremely unlikely (pretty much unheard of actually). I have whipped on the same bolt nearly 15 times in a row trying to work the hell out of a move before. The 15th fall was not any worse than the 1st fall because my belayer provided a soft catch every time. Was the peak impact force on the last fall higher than the first? Probably, but I couldent tell and the bolt rated for 25kN surely dident care. Regardless if you whip a ton or you never whip, regardless if you climb on plastic or razor-sharp quartzite, a rope with more sheath material will wear better than one with less, assuming equivalent diameter. Accordingly, my personal preference has always been to look for ropes with thicker sheaths regardless if I am using it for alpine or projecting a sport climb. Now, if we are talking about whipping on a trad climb where impact force does play a more important role, then things change. With regard to the chart, the chart is pretty ominous. It claims it measures energy absorption capacity, but the study does not elaborate on what that actually means as it pertains to taking whips. I used to have a 9.5mm rope that had 400 or so lead falls and some 1000+ pitches of climbing on it. It was so used I had to cut the ends off of it twice. Anyway, before retirement it still held lead falls just fine, except it stretched a lot more than when new. Did it have a higher impact force than when new? Without a doubt. Was it only capable of displacing 5% of the energy in my fall? Without a doubt, no. I would be dead if that was the case.1. read it again ... you fall alot, then think about how you wore out your last rope—if it went flat 10 or 15 feet from the ends, then get the rope with the high fall rating for the size 2. your belayer cant always give a dynamic belay ... or theres some climbs where the drag will be enough there your belayer barely feels the catch, in which case the only thing lowering the impact force is the rope 3. whippers and even basic use wear out the core ... at a certain point the core will be so worn or damaged you need to retire the rope ... the UIAA chart shows that lower falls rated ropes deteriorate faster than higher fall ropes ... which makes absolute sense as you have less core material all other things being equal now whether all this matters is up to you ... but the fall rating does reflect the amount and strength of the core, as mammut and the UIAA says ropes in good condition dont break ... but ropes DO go from good to "bad" condition, or at least sections of em ... which is why we chop and retire em and not just because of sheath damage, but also the core everything rope is a tradeoff ... to say that the fall rating, and thus the core strength relative to everything else, doesnt matter is simply not true ... otherwise we wouldnt even bother testing it or even having minimum of 5 falls .... 80% sheath ropes here we come !!! ;) |
|
Ok it took a while to actually find these ropes in stock somewhere but I think any of these three will work. |
FourT6and2 wrote:Ok it took a while to actually find these ropes in stock somewhere but I think any of these three will work. Mammut Gravity Classic 10.2 Mammut Eternity Classic 9.8 Mammut Eternity Dry 9.8 (the dry version of this one actually has a denser core—weighs more—and has a higher fall rating. It has the same sheath percentage, so you're not giving up durability compared to the Classic. It also has less elongation than the classic) Any reason I should go with the 10.2 Gravity over the Eternity 9.8?to be blunt ... its pretty irrelevant for your purposes youve gotten a ton of good advice in this thread just make a decision thats all there is to it ;) |
bearbreeder wrote: to be blunt ... its pretty irrelevant for your purposes youve gotten a ton of good advice in this thread just make a decision thats all there is to it ;)Cool cool, thanks! |
|
I went with the Mammot Gravity Classic 10.2. It's heavy, but should last a long time. |
