RRC Archives

hmmm, i guess you are right about that concern

Rap v.s. lowering argument coming this way? 'Cause it's been so long.

Toad wrote:Rap v.s. lowering argument coming this way? 'Cause it's been so long.

Please let's keep this thread reasonably on track.

Rick

there's a boring suggestion...staying on topic.

If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.

That wasn't a very nice thing to say, Andrew.

pigsteak wrote:actually, tom's scenario is 90% of the falls taken around here. most folks see the bolt at their waist or knees, freak out and yell "take". this results in a hard short fall onto the bolt, or a nylon burn from grabbing the runner.

Good point.

We don't want to hurt anyone in tests, so we've kept the fall factors reasonable. In the six tests conducted last Friday, the forces on the bolt were recorded accurately. The forces on the falling climbers, via their harnesses, were about 65% of the forces on the bolts. The 65/35 distribution between climber and belayer is estimated until testing is done with the load cell located between the belayer's harness and the belay device.)

One important point to note here is that the force on the arresting bolt is not in direct linear proportion to the fall factor. In this thread, we're focusing on forces applied to bolts.

Rick

you could always just take some weight (~170 lbs), haul it up, and drop it instead of using a person.

yeah, but dead weight doesn't scream the way live weight does before it becomes, er, dead.

pigsteak wrote:yeah, but dead weight doesn't scream the way live weight does before it becomes, er, dead.

I would prefer a dead weight from the safety angle, but we don't have a good location where a heavy mass can easily be hauled up to. It is much easier when the mass can haul itself up the wall.

R