RRC Archives

yo SCIN,
why does your set of lettered "rules" make more sense than mine?
why can't the pig get no love?
go to remember dawg, these "cats", they ain't into this climbing in the same vibe as you and I. Jumping, for these chumps, is more fun than the route.

I would like to see the data just to see how the forces change with distance fallen and amount of rope out. Didn't one of the mags do force testing last year? With all things equal, wasn't the most force imparted with short 3-8 foot falls where there is very little rope out, as when at the first or second bolt? And for all those who want to fight, wanting to see the science is not a sign of disrepect nor an invitation to argue.

error

I think I know what Rick is going for when he asks folks to not whip purposely from anchors at MV.
Perhaps long falls do place a bit more stress on a bolt. If folks take repeated falls on any one bolt, it stands to reason that the bolt would wear a little faster.
I have to agree with Wes (who started this) that while I am no engineer and have a huge amount of respect for the data Rick has collected, in my experience long falls are innocuous as far as making me be concerned about anchor failure.
(This could be my ignorance about bolts and the rock they are in speaking and the next time I fall 15 feet the anchor fails).
That said, what I think Rick is going for here is the mind set of taking the big purposeless and innane big falls. Basically it is needlessly risky and invites catastorphic mistake.
Not to drum up old bitch sessions (not like this isn't one), but this needless risk taking was my objection to Spence putting Andrew's whip of all whips in his film, and Andrew taking it in the first place. Like I and others told Andrew, "Dude, get wise. You don't get to take ground scraping falls too many times before your calculations fail and you deck."
If Rick discourages this behaviour at his cliff, it introduces a bit of redundancy in his safety plan. Less people taking needless whips and the probability of someone getting dropped goes down.
Makes sense to me.

pigsteak wrote:yo SCIN,
why does your set of lettered "rules" make more sense than mine?
why can't the pig get no love?
go to remember dawg, these "cats", they ain't into this climbing in the same vibe as you and I. Jumping, for these chumps, is more fun than the route.

Wow, I didn't know old guys could tawk like dat.

I just want to say, for the record, as far as I know, I have followed (and will continue to follow) each and every rule of muir valley. I have signed a waiver, I have always parked at the top and walked down, my dogs are always and at all times on thier leashes while in muir valley. I have never put up an unapporved route, nor belayed or helped anyone to do so. What about you all? Have you followed all the rules?

I have been open and public, and maybe even a bit harsh in speaking my mind about things I don't agree with though. I have questioned things I don't understand. I make no apologies for that, or for who I am. I might not be the best behaived person here sometimes, but I have never suggested that anyone break any of the muir rules, and I have probably followed them closer then most people have.

If Rick says no whippers, I don't have a problem with that. If he says no whippers because of something that I don't agree with, then I will question the reasoning, not the action. If, for example, he says you have to use a gri-gri at all times while at muir, I will, but I might question why.

I don't think apologies are necessary. That is what the bbs is best used for- airing discussions and disputes. Of course we all know where these lead sometimes (all too often)- bitching and griping. Non the less a good exercise in public voice.

Regarding Saxman,

I'm not sure if shorter falls apply a greater force on bolts as opposed to longer falls. However, I am confindent in saying that shorter falls apply a greater force on the rope connected to the climber. Therefore, a victory whip, although not permitted, would be safer "on the rope" than taking an accidental 3 foot fall.

PeterM wrote:Regarding Saxman,

I'm not sure if shorter falls apply a greater force on bolts as opposed to longer falls. However, I am confindent in saying that shorter falls apply a greater force on the rope connected to the climber. Therefore, a victory whip, although not permitted, would be safer "on the rope" than taking an accidental 3 foot fall.

Technically, the anchor would take much more force on higher "fall factor" falls. "victory" whips on the over engineered bolts used for climbing are very unlikely to do much of anything. The yearly freeze/thaw cycle does signifigantly more damage to them then just about any fall.

That said, the obvious reason for the rule seems to be to reduce his overall liability. In a sane society he wouldn't be held responsable for anyones folly, waiver or not. But here, today, in the USA if someone falls and is paraylized or killed they (or there family if they sucked dirt) can certainly bring suit against him and at the very least he will have to spend money to defend himself.

Climbing is usually pretty safe (in the grand scheme of things) but when you start doing things like this then in brings it into the realm of base jumping and bungee jumping which are pretty darn unsafe.

Did you know the two most dangerous sports are Cave Diving and Base jumping? Now the only thing we need is a cliff with a water-filled cave at the bottom we can base jump into. Base Diving!

Ben

Must...not...comment....must keep....thoughts......to.......myself.