Petzl says simul-climbing is more sketchy than I thought

My takeaway: if the follower has 1 meter of slack in the system and falls that there’s a decent chance the rope will get core shot.

I knew this was a risk but didn’t realize how little slack it actually takes to core shot the rope.

Has anyone taken big follower whips on micros? Thoughts? 

Notice that the fall factor is 1.  The graphic shows the climber falling from a point starting at the micro-trax.  That's a fairly severe fall when the anchor is static.

Jordan nailed his response, but I'll add to it. The subject of this post, simul-climbing, is not represented in this test. The worst fall depicted in the linked article is a 2m fall, using 2m of rope, which is a pretty serious fall factor 1. A scenario more realistic to the simul-climbing situation would be the follower falling 1m with 30-60m of rope absorbing the impact, a more mild fall factor of 0.03 or less, which would impact a micro-traxion placed in the system far less. This means that the information in the article is not very relevant to simul-climbing.

John Hegyes wrote:

Jordan nailed his response, but I'll add to it. The subject of this post, simul-climbing, is not represented in this test. The worst fall depicted in the linked article is a 2m fall, using a 2m rope, which is a pretty serious fall factor 1. A scenario more realistic to the simul-climbing situation would be the follower falling 1m with 30-60m of rope absorbing the impact, a more mild fall factor of 0.03 or less, which would impact a micro-traxion placed in the system far less. This means that the information in the article is not very relevant to simul-climbing.

Agreed. Theres either a lead fall, which doesn't initiate the trax, or aTR fall that does. Those are not depicted in this article.

Is a micro trax still the preferred progress capture for simulclimbing? Or is there another advice with a lower chance of damaging the rope (e.g., WC rope man)?

Drew Scott wrote:

Is a micro trax still the preferred progress capture for simulclimbing? Or is there another advice with a lower chance of damaging the rope (e.g., WC rope man)?

I prefer the CT Roll'N'Lock

All of this creative simu-climbing stuff using gear as it was not intended is just an accident waiting to happen. Probably already has.

Don't fall simul-climbing. Lord only knows what will happen.

A V wrote:

Jason Wells and Tim Klein - RIP

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought their accident was due to a fall with lack of adequate protection not a failure of a rope grab or any fancy equipment.

John Hegyes wrote:

The subject of this post, simul-climbing, is not represented in this test.

I disagree. The information in the article is very relevant to simul-climbing, as well as other applications with a Traxion where a fall may happen (TRS or guiding using a Traxion).

A scenario more realistic to the simul-climbing situation would be the follower falling 1m with 30-60m of rope absorbing the impact, a more mild fall factor of 0.03 or less, which would impact a micro-traxion placed in the system far less. This means that the information in the article is not very relevant to simul-climbing.

Essentially the Traxion marks the boundary between live and dead rope. The live rope is the rope between climber and Traxion. If you are properly protecting a route, then those distance are never large. The dead rope plays no role in absorbing initial impact force (which Petzl are warning us to keep low) so the dead rope can be 2m or 70m. It doesn't matter. Slack management is what matters, and during a fall, the amount of slack and the amount of live rope.
Analog principles apply to TRS and guiding with a Trax.

Edit: Once it becomes available, I will try and compare the Camp Turbolock and the Traxion. The Turbolock's cam looks larger, and its frame very strong.

Noel Z wrote:

I disagree. The information in the article is very relevant to simul-climbing, as well as other applications with a Traxion where a fall may happen (TRS or guiding using a Traxion).

Essentially the Traxion marks the boundary between live and dead rope. The live rope is the rope between climber and Traxion. The dead rope plays no role in absorbing initial impact force (which Petzl are warning us to keep low) so the dead rope can be 2m or 70m. It doesn't matter. Slack management is what matters, and during a fall, the amount of slack and the amount of live rope.
Analog principles apply to TRS and guiding with a Trax.

So you're saying that if I have 1m of slack in an overall distance of 50M between my (the follower) and the Traxion, that is the same as falling with solely 2m of rope, slack, while next to the Traxion?

Ben Podborski wrote:

So you're saying that if I have 1m of slack in an overall distance of 50M between my (the follower) and the Traxion, that is the same as falling with solely 2m of rope, slack, while next to the Traxion?

He's saying that he's talking out of his ass. 

Ben Podborski wrote:

So you're saying that if I have 1m of slack in an overall distance of 50M between my (the follower) and the Traxion, that is the same as falling with solely 2m of rope, slack, while next to the Traxion?

No, I'm not saying your two scenarios are the same. No way. Anything like a 1m of slack on 50m meters of rope is unproblematic (apart from hitting a ledge or the deck due to rope stretch, which is a different matter). In simul-climbing the leader will never climb 50m before placing a Traxion.
What I'm saying (or rather, how I interpret what Petzl is saying) is that if you fall close the Traxion then you must be very careful of slack. They provide numbers as a guide. The closer you are to the Traxion, the more careful you need to watch your slack because there will be little live rope to absorb impact force. The live/dead rope distinction is important. If there is no slack, then closeness to the Traxion is not a problem. It's slack, relative to distance (because distance is the amount of live rope).
While following during a simul-climb the risk of this situation occurring arises repeatedly, by repeatedly I mean the same number as the number of Traxions the leader places.

This article from Petzl would be worth reading if you don’t have a grasp on how fall factor and impact force are related.  

Petzl fall factor and impact force 

The original diagram and testing only applies to simul climbing when the follower is taking factor 1 falls.  The likelihood of that happening should be very low in most simul climbing scenarios and is only possible as the follower gets close to the micro.  If you are the follower and you see the micro coming up, have a difficult move just before getting to it and ALSO have let slack build up in the system you need to STOP and wait till the rope become tight again.  The only way a follower will take a factor 1 fall is if they put themselves in that situation.  Just don’t do that.  

 Edit to add:

AV-  I did get the impression you were placing some blame on a progress capture device.  And totally agree that simul climbing for sure can add risk.  Like many techniques it should be applied in the correct situation and the climbers should be aware of the risks.  For some people the reward of simul climbing is worth the risk.  For others it isn’t.  I’ve done lots of it and will continue to do so for certain objectives but will also say no in other scenarios.

It's natural and appropriate for engineers to test the worst-case scenario, the one involving slack in the rope as the second arrives at the anchor.  It's not at all hard to create this situation when simuling, although it is avoidable if the second can pause to let the slack get taken up.  The take-away is to try to keep slack out of the line in general, but especially as the anchor is approached, and if that can't be done then think no-fall zone (which should be the mindset for simulclimbing anyway,,,).  

Too bad Petzl didn't also test some of the more likely cases involving smaller fall factors.

You can easily use a second Petzl product (possibly their best) to manage slack on the follower side; a Grigri!

Ben Podborski wrote:

You can easily use a second Petzl product (possibly their best) to manage slack on the follower side; a Grigri!

This is a dependable option for the second to manage slack. Any experience out there for a lighter version- ie: if the second has a microtraxion on their harness? 

Greg R wrote:

This is a dependable option for the second to manage slack. Any experience out there for a lighter version- ie: if the second has a microtraxion on their harness? 

The nice thing about the grigri on the harness is that you can then pay that slack back to the system one handed much easier. 

Andrew Boechler wrote:

The nice thing about the grigri on the harness is that you can then pay that slack back to the system one handed much easier. 

Idk abou that, try lead belaying with a grigri one handed (granted I still use the original grigri)

John Hegyes wrote:

Jordan nailed his response, but I'll add to it. The subject of this post, simul-climbing, is not represented in this test. The worst fall depicted in the linked article is a 2m fall, using 2m of rope, which is a pretty serious fall factor 1. A scenario more realistic to the simul-climbing situation would be the follower falling 1m with 30-60m of rope absorbing the impact, a more mild fall factor of 0.03 or less, which would impact a micro-traxion placed in the system far less. This means that the information in the article is not very relevant to simul-climbing.

Thanks for everyone’s thoughtful responses! This post def cleared things up for me, idk why I didn’t realized this at first. 

Ben Podborski wrote:

You can easily use a second Petzl product (possibly their best) to manage slack on the follower side; a Grigri!

Thanks for reminding me of this! Honestly, I had started to forget to do this. On my very first simul-climb the more experienced leader had GriGri on his harness too. He told me to attach mine also just in case we needed to make adjustments or pitch out a harder than expected section.