RRC Archives

GWG wrote:

toad857 wrote:
I think you may have misinterpreted what he was describing... From how I took it, I think he meant that the belayer would allow some extra rope (thus, extra fall time) to buffer the fall against a static catch. A static catch would sling a climber directly into the wall, breaking ankles. And, yes, I agree with you that anchoring into the floor while lead belaying is typically unwise. I've never seen a gym enforce something like that, though.

Sorry if it wasn't clear. Toad857 interpreted my ramblings correctly, the belayer has provided some slack in order to prevent the slingshot effect into the wall. If the climber falls, the belayer either takes a step forward or does the jump thus providing the soft catch. After the catch, they then lower the climber down if they don't want to get back on the wall.

It can look as if it's one motion because the belayer provides the soft catch and then starts to lower almost instantaneously.

What I'm referring to is that for the inexperienced lead belayer who observes this, they may see it as starting to feed the rope during the fall. Couple that with their instinctive reaction to step BACK and not towards the climber, all sorts of possibilities exist. That's the problem!

At the gym that I climb, there are no anchors in the floor.

The bottom line that I'm trying to convey is that with all the new "participants" in this "activity", trying to imitate those around them without understanding what it is they're doing or why can certainly lead to a bad situation.

I agree... I don't like to have a loop of extra rope at all, really. I think it's a bad habit to get into, because it is a passive technique (as opposed to actively watching a climber and adjusting your 'hop' accordingly). Also, when there's a big weight differential (small belayer & heavy climber) you're setting yourself for huge fall time--unless you adjust that damn loop to the climber's weight.

Things accelerate exponentially, and the human mind doesn't typically work that way--we think linearly. (In other words, the first 0.1 second of a fall may only drop a climber a few feet... but an extra 0.1 second tacked on to the end of an accelerating climber's fall can send them an extra 10 feet down. Yikes.)

Things accelerate exponentially.

If a climber falls from 10 feet, you have exactly 0.78 seconds before they collide with the ground.
If a climber falls from 40 feet, you have exactly 1.57 seconds before they collide with the ground.

1.57 seconds--and that's at maximum velocity. In order to totally prevent the climber from touching the ground, factoring in the rope stretch, and the dynamic belay, you have much less than a second to react. Less than one second.... and Bruce Lee does not belay.

So... what I'm trying to say is.... I don't really like to see a big loop of extra rope when I'm, say, 70 feet or less above the ground.

toad857 wrote:Things {fall velocities} accelerate exponentially {quadratically with time}.

+1 Toad & GWG. The best way to belay IMHO is to assume no time to react. Even the 'hop' can be characterized as just loosening up your body and lightly pushing off and going with the flow of the fall. After bolt 3 I usually keep a ~5 inch loop (rope hangs down 5 in.). This allows the climber the ability to go big without feeling me on belay and this translates to about 2 ft. of vertical freedom for the climber. Depending on whether I can see the climber and depending on other conditions, I adjust this slack accordingly. I am not trying to come off as a pro here, but a tight nervous belay is very annoying and can impede the send. IMHO the belayer should keep the climber safe without impeding freedom of motion or the choices of possible moves.

For you folks into Karma....The friend of mine that got dropped dropped a girl just a couple of years ago (she survived with a.....you guessed it! A leg injury).

dustonian wrote:Gri Gris are not designed to be used with ropes under 10mm. This is printed right on the device and appears in all Petzl literature:

http://www.petzl.com/en/outdoor/belay-devices/grigri

Of course, not many sport climbers use ropes above 10mm. This no doubt has made some contribution to the relatively large number of grigri (i.e. belayer) "failures" over the past few years. I hope the grigri2 will address this to some extent.

The best part about it is that the fancy new safe gri-gri belay technique doesn't work at all on 10+mm ropes (maybe on a brand new 10.0).

JR wrote:For you folks into Karma....The friend of mine that got dropped dropped a girl just a couple of years ago (she survived with a.....you guessed it! A leg injury).

I was thinking it came full circle on the spot. She dropped him, he killed her dog. Let that be a lesson to you dog owners. Pay attention when on belay.

Shamis wrote: The best part about it is that the fancy new safe gri-gri belay technique doesn't work at all on 10+mm ropes (maybe on a brand new 10.0).

Keep practicing...

I've been using the approved technique with a well used 10.2 without too much effort for a long time. It helps to make sure that there are no kinks coming up in the next couple of armloads of rope. Any twist will make it nearly impossible to pull slack.

DHB wrote:Exactly. I use my thumb, index and middle to hold the cam, leaving two fingers loosely wrapped around the rope.

Try it without the fingers. Hold the brake end with 4 fingers, and just press down on the cam with your thumb. Since you are pulling rope up with your other hand its enough force to disengage the cam, but in a panic there's no chance of squeezing the device - you'll just end up squeezing the brake end. Takes a little practice, but well worth it imho.

jimmy wrote:

michaelarmand wrote:You still hold the cam down with your thumb while the rope runs between your hand and the device. It may look like you have your brake hand on the rope - but you really don't. The same "death grip" problem can occur with this new method.

When I use this method, I am pinching the device with my index finger and thumb. I still have 3 "braking" fingers wrapped around the rope while feeding out slack. One session of practicing is a step in the right direction, but maybe another few times practicing will yield a better result...

I'm not saying that this technique is wrong in any way - it may be better than how I (and most climbers) feed slack with a gri-gri. I will practice more - but the few "braking" fingers you have available are not holding the rope. If they were, then you would be creating friction as you try to pull an arms length of slack. My view of having your brake hand on the rope requires the thumb and index finger - just like how you use an ATC. If you convince people that they have their hand on the brake in this position, then why not use this position for the whole climb?

Some of you are way too quick to attack someone else's belay technique. If it is such a clear issue why has Petzl actually changed their recommended technique?

michaelarmand wrote:I'm not saying that this technique is wrong in any way - it may be better than how I (and most climbers) feed slack with a gri-gri. I will practice more - but the few "braking" fingers you have available are not holding the rope. If they were, then you would be creating friction as you try to pull an arms length of slack. My view of having your brake hand on the rope requires the thumb and index finger - just like how you use an ATC. If you convince people that they have their hand on the brake in this position, then why not use this position for the whole climb?

Obviously, you are correct - you can't feed out slack if you are holding the rope tightly. But, having the rope running through 3 of your fingers makes it pretty easy to grip down on the brake end when necessary...the rope's already where it needs to be. In order for the whole system to come together in perfect harmony, the belayer must be paying attention to the climber, first and foremost. Unless someone is holding their hands over your eyes, no other distraction warrants losing your attention on your climber.

michaelarmand wrote:Some of you are way too quick to attack someone else's belay technique. If it is such a clear issue why has Petzl actually changed their recommended technique?

I'm not attacking anyone's belaying technique, I'm just saying that it is completely possible to use this method, even if it doesn't seem to be working for you at first.

Petzl never CHANGED their recommended technique...they didn't have a recommended technique before this one.

jimmy wrote:Petzl never CHANGED their recommended technique...they didn't have a recommended technique before this one.

Boy, I don't know, Jimmy. It's tough to have a "classic" technique and a "new" technique without "change". Now that is some change you can believe in!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVchbjVKLE

The video only calls the usage that caused this accident as "improper" usage.