RRC Archives

the little pictures are funny though.

I would like to know how many climbers died or maimed in car wrecks coming and going from climbing destinations compared to those who died or was maimed actually climbing.

Fall factor and impact force are different things. Any fall that is twice the length of the rope is a factor 2 fall no matter what the force imparted.

ReachHigh wrote:I would like to know how many climbers died or maimed in car wrecks coming and going from climbing destinations compared to those who died or was maimed actually climbing.

I did read that there is more injuries reported with gymnastics, football, and backpacking then rock climbing. It's just the injuries with rock climbing were often more severe: broken bones, deaths, and stuff like that. The same article also stated driving to the crag is more dangerous than climbing there. I here the driving comparison too often, and I am guessing most of the time it is bullcrap. Concearning flying is safer than driving, I believe that though.

Redpoint wrote:You gave me an epiphany: if every book and pamphlet I ever read concerning fall factors say that 2 is the greatest fall factor, than that must mean the fall factor is factored before the rope stretches.

_____ OR, it means that fall factor does not include rope stretch. Fall factor is used along with other input to calculate the severity of a fall on the system (the maximum impact force). It is only a rough approximation to say that fall factor measures the severity of a fall. The issue is more complex, as I have alluded to in previous posts.

Saxman wrote:Fall factor and impact force are different things. Any fall that is twice the length of the rope is a factor 2 fall no matter what the force imparted.

That is why I will take the 6 inch fall factor = 2, instead of the 40 ft fall factor =2. Thanks Bram, I think we are getting somewhere.

Redpoint wrote:You gave me an epiphany: if every book and pamphlet I ever read concerning fall factors say that 2 is the greatest fall factor, than that must mean the fall factor is factored before the rope stretches.

This along with the picture above convinces me that you need to asking instead of answering questions.

caribe wrote:

Redpoint wrote:You gave me an epiphany: if every book and pamphlet I ever read concerning fall factors say that 2 is the greatest fall factor, than that must mean the fall factor is factored before the rope stretches.

This along with the picture above convinces me that you need to asking instead of answering questions.

What picture above, The via ferrata one? That wasn't me, just an example of what I was talking about when I was referring to the biner sliding up and down the wire.

Well Caribe, you weren't able to solve the puzzle about whether rope stretch was factored in to a fall factor. You just went on about impact force, which is like I said before Saxman just now did, another subject:

"I was only talking about fall factors, not impact forces, that is sort of changing the subject, but I think it's still on topic since fall factors and impact forces go hand in hand."

Changing the subject because it is a different subject than fall factors.

In fact I think Saxman was talking to you, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I stated "that is sort of changing the subject". You also couldn't recognize a fall factor of 1 when you saw it, and so I think you need to be asking the questions instead of answering them.

At least ynp1 finally pointed out the math that solves the case about whether a fall factor includes rope stretch or not, it's not as far as all of the diagrams and examples I have ever seen or read. Now I think that got us somewhere more than anything as far as answering the fall factors including rope stretch or not dilemma. I can't believe not one article I read on fall factors mentioned whether rope stretch was included or not, usually anything I read about rock climbing is extremely thorough.

Maybe the reason it has never been addressed in anything I have read is because even the experts don't know whether to include rope stretch in to a fall factor or not. Still isn't the total distance of the fall going to include rope stretch? Well then how come the fall factor scenario and examples never include rope stretch? Well I think the answer is because a fall factor is just a rough estimate of what the fall factor was.

Redpoint: I give up. You need to study calculus and then physics and then read. After that you will realize what you don't know and we might be able to have a conversation. As of right now you know everything about impact forces on dampened harmonic systems and you really don't need me or anyone else.

caribe wrote:Redpoint: I give up. You need to study calculus and then physics and then read. After that you will realize what you don't know and we might be able to have a conversation. As of right now you know everything about impact forces on dampened harmonic systems and you really don't need me or anyone else.

My bad, I didn't mean to come off as a jerk, but you did put me down about the reading and not answering part, and even you tried to answer the fall factor including stretch or not question without much success, so you are just as guilty as I am.

I'm honestly not trying to come off as a know it all, I was just trying to solve the riddle about whether a fall factor included rope stretch, or how it possibly wouldn't include it if the length of the fall seems like it would have to include rope stretch anyhow. It really didn't make any sense to me. And all this talk about impact forces wasn't helping solve the riddle.

I am referring to the example in my book, and other examples I have seen in other books, my book says if the person is 3 feet above his last bolt, and then fell he would be 3 feet below the bolt, but that just isn't the case, with rope stretch you would fall more than 3 feet below the bolt.

I enjoyed all of the links you posted, and I'm glad you did. In fact I was thinking about buying that rope from you, some friends and I were all talking about dropping Ellison's.