Which brand of rope do you prefer?
Mammut used to be the best but their quality seems to be diminishing while their prices stay high. I have a petzl rope now. It was fairly cheap and very nice while new...but I see the sheath is starting to get nasty earlier than I'd hoped. I dont't think I've ever owned a sterling...but I guess I should try one since most of you like them.
Ha ha, I was thinking about pointing just that out last night, but I was feeling too lazy to reply.ahab wrote:pkananen wrote:Redpoint, have you ever considered becoming a technical writer? Seems like a potential good fit for you.Redpoint wrote:You might be thinking that I just cut and pasted that crap, but I respect Mammut so much I typed a lot of that stuff right out of their pamphlet that comes with their ropes.
I have read a bunch of bad reviews about the Zephyr just for the reason of sheath wear.
I almost bought a Nomad, but also found way too many reviews that claimed the sheath wears out way faster than it should. Also someone said they used it in a Gri, and immediately went to using a ATC with it vowing never to go back to the Gri with that rope. But then again another person on the net was saying that 9.8 was acceptable in a Gri, and that he used his Nomad with it without a problem. A few other people claimed that using a Gri with it would not be a good idea. Someone said sticking with something between 10.2 and 10.8 would be a much safer idea when using the Gri, since 10 and 11 are the limits, he figured you might as well avoid them.
I have a few friends who swear that Sterling ropes last a long time, and I have read countless reviews on them that say they stay stretchy longer than most other ropes do. Since my Supersafe was rated at 11 falls I figured it would last just as long as a Sterling anyhow, and even have better sheath protection. I did read more than a few reviews about a couple models of Sterlings ropes having premature sheathe wear, but honestly they were mostly about the sheath ripping apart, and so I would assume user error - it got on a sharp edge. If you do get a Sterling, research the model you are going to get and find as many reviews as possible, you might end up changing your mind and choosing a different model Sterling that has been given better reviews. Rockclimbing.com has some reviews. You can always just type the 'rope name' then 'reviews' in google, and you'll find plenty. REI.com has lots of reviews, and EMS.com also has some reviews.
Mammut claims your rope should last this long:
Never used -- 10 years maximum
Rarely Used: twice per year -- up to 7 years
Occasionally used: once per month -- up to 5 years
Regularly used: several times per month -- up to 3 years
Frequently used: each week -- up to 1 year
Constantly used: almost daily -- less than 1 year
I read from either that pamphlet, or one of my rock climbing books, or both, that ropes used for commercial purposes should be monitored using a log book. For instance if you ended up using it 48 times at the end of one year, that would be considered Frequently used, and the rope should be retired.
Last edited by Redpoint on Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
It is possible for a rope to go flat the first day of use if you took too many high fall factors on it, and didn't do the following:ReachHigh wrote:I had a bad sterling rope that went flat very quickly, apparently they had several batches of ropes that did this but made it though quality control.
- Got great dynamic belays.
- Switch ends of the rope to let the side you fell on rest and recover.
- Mammut said as an alternative to that, you could just go indirect in to a bolt for a few minutes to let the rope recover. Working routes and repeatingly falling on the same move without letting the rope recover is really hard on a rope and not a good idea if you want it to stay stretchy.
When your friends yell "get back on and quit hangdogging" it can actually be some good advise for as far as letting the rope recover is concerned, unless you soon fell on it again without letting it recover.
Here is Mammuts opinion of how bad a fall factor of 1 is:
"A longer fall with a fall factor of 1, which is not gently braked, can clearly reduce a rope's safety reserve. Even then it might still hold simple sport-climbing falls, but can, however break with edge loading, even over a less sharp edge, when compared with a new rope. Under no circumstances should it be used in alpine terrain or in climbing areas with rough edges. Safety oriented climbers will replace a rope after such a heavy fall."
It's reasons like that, that I would almost always want a dynamic belay, unless I was high up with a ledge under me that posed a large threat. It also makes me think that if your belay partner is anchored, it shouldn't be so tight as to not ever let him off the ground, I would want at least 3 feet of slack in the anchor to make sure I can get a good dynamic belay.
It's also things like fall factors and noobs not knowing what it is, that makes me weary of climbing on their ropes, you just don't know what they have been through, and neither do they "what's a fall factor?".
If you trad climb and don't know what a fall factor is, then I find this ridiculous considering you don't even know why you are supposed to protect early on the second or higher pitch, and so it's my guess that someone who didn't know what a fall factor is would not even do this. My book says: "Think of your belayer, protect early." I'm sure the book was referring to your fall factor of 2 getting you both killed by ripping your anchors out of the wall. But not falling on top of your belayer would be an added bonus.
Here is a diagram made in Paintbrush by request:
NOTE: The fall rating of a rope(for instance the Mammut Supersafe is 11) was tested with a %100 static belay with a fall factor of 1.75. This is not to say when you should stop using the rope, only when the rope ended up braking. And remember after a rope has gone through a fall factor of 1, it will make your rope break much more easily if you fall on an edge that isn't even really sharp. A fall factor of two is the highest fall factor possible, and you would have to be on a multipitch for it to even be possible. Fall factors of 1 are pretty rare, and in most cases you would just end up hitting the ground, but not if it was say 0.8
Mammuts definition of a fall factor:
"The measurement for the hardness of a fall. It is calculated by dividing the distance of the fall, by the length of rope which has been paid out. Falls over factor 1, with a fall distance of 5-7 meters, are rated as hard falls. Fall factor 2 (falling from the belay is the MCA (maximum credible accident) when climbing, with brutal loading placed on both the climber and the belayer. Therefore, a piece of protection should be placed as soon as possible after the belay stance. Fall factors greater than 2 are possible when climbing when climbing via ferratas (fall distance of a number of meters, on to a meter long braking cord). Therefore, it is essential to use a dynamic braking device."
The via ferrata advice could also be used when multipitch climbing; since the belayer might not have a ledge to stand on, he might have to go indirect to the wall, not allowing him to add slack to his anchor for a normal hopping dynamic belay. So what you should do is use a dynamic braking device, such as a ATC, the original model can only hold 600 pounds before the rope slips, and so this means only 600 pounds can ever be seen by the belayer, and make sure to wear gloves for when the rope slips through your hand. Well now I know why trad climbers are always using a dynamic belay device and not a Gri.
During a fall factor of 2, if the belayer was indirect to the wall without any slack in his anchor, he shouldn't feel a thing theoretically, all of the force would be pulling on the anchors not the belayer, so Mammuts statement of "brutal loading placed on both the climber and the belayer" is not always the case, it could be on the climber and the anchors, as long as you are hanging off of the anchors that is.
Another tip from Mammut concerning sheath wear:
"Rappelling, or lowering, damages the rope more than leading, and seconding without loading the rope. For reference: rappelling reduces the lifespan of a rope by a factor of two to three compared with normal climbing. Lowering and top roping accelerates aging by a factor of five to ten. Friction causes the small fibers in the sheath to break causing it to become rougher or fuzzy. This can make handling more difficult and increase water absorption by the rope. If the sheath is so thin that it tears in places, or allows the core to appear, the rope should be replaced.
TIP: The wear from abrasion in a slingshot top rope can be reduced by using two carabiners. If the anchor is set back from the edge, it should be extended by using long lengths of static rope or webbing so that the rope doesn't run over the edge of the rock."
And I used to think top roping was better for your rope than leading since you don't generate high fall factors, well that is still true for as far as it remaining stretchy, but not even close to being true when sheath wear is concerned. It also shows that after the person cleans, it is much better on your rope to repel down. As far as people not repelling after cleaning and wearing out the chain links, that is what your rope gets. Now I don't have a problem with people being lowered off of a repel ring, they are made for that, but still it is going to wear out your sheath faster than repelling, but it's your rope.
If it's not your rope, you should respect your climbing partners also. Heck even if it's just someone who let you on their route, please respect their rope. I had a climbing partner speed repel(heats up your ATC to the point where it can burn the rope) on someone else's rope that he didn't even know. They let him climb on the route they had already set their top rope on, and even if you don't know the person it is no excuse to abuse their rope. I lost all respect for this person, and I don't want to climb with him ever again in fear of what he might do to my brand new rope that I paid a lot of money for.
Last edited by Redpoint on Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:35 am, edited 7 times in total.
-
Myke Dronez
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:52 am
maybe he was meant to be born 1000 years ago so he could have been a scribe thenahab wrote:pkananen wrote:Redpoint, have you ever considered becoming a technical writer? Seems like a potential good fit for you.Redpoint wrote:You might be thinking that I just cut and pasted that crap, but I respect Mammut so much I typed a lot of that stuff right out of their pamphlet that comes with their ropes.
-
kidney_dave
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:07 pm
Redpoint: In your first depiction it is fall factor 1/3 at most and this is fairly normal.
(Fall factor) = (length of fall)/ (length of rope paid out)
Likewise the second picture from the left is fall factor = 1/2 at most (if there is no more movement in the system after all the action has occurred, the fall factor is less than 1/2).
The third picture from the left is labeled correctly. fall factor = 2 <minus the amount of static elongation in the line due to the climber's weight>
The fourth picture is labeled correctly also. Since the rope did not experience the fall, the fall factor must be 0.
(Fall factor) = (length of fall)/ (length of rope paid out)
Likewise the second picture from the left is fall factor = 1/2 at most (if there is no more movement in the system after all the action has occurred, the fall factor is less than 1/2).
The third picture from the left is labeled correctly. fall factor = 2 <minus the amount of static elongation in the line due to the climber's weight>
The fourth picture is labeled correctly also. Since the rope did not experience the fall, the fall factor must be 0.