— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “bruce silliman”
> While I’m not the brightest light in the universe. Your kidding arent you?
Now if you do carry two 125′ ropes (I’ve never seen anyone carry even one at this length)
Hey Homer I just had a mind flash. You could just use a 70M rope instead of 2 125 foot pieces? I have seen this done. Makes perfect sense to me and I am one of the brightest lights.
Live and hopefully learn. Ski
Listserve.w
Koen wrote:
>> People using a biner block as a way to go faster should think twice. >> Each knot done & undone wastes time and is an open invitation to >> Murphy. KISS KISS KISS, I never stop repeating that when teaching a >> course.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:00 PM, desertres wrote:
> I’ll take your word on it that KISS works in Europe. But over here in > the states, Ive seen a different style where canyoneers are > challenged not to rely on KISS, but learn and practice a variety of > ways to deal with obstacles before them from approach to descent. I > dont know but it doesnt appear to me that canyoneering is all that > easy & simple over here. With a canyoneer taking 1 or 2 courses over > here, over days, not sure its so simple.
Yeah Koen, over here we take our ropes single from the time we’re babies. We don’t need your stinking KISS. We have so many ways to deal with obstacles over here in the West that we don’t need to keep it simple unlike you euros who just slide down a rope into water. Those effete cheese-eating euros just can’t handle the complexity of our sandstone canyons and our manly men can understand advanced techniques with little or no training. KISS is for sissies.
For those of you who are humor-challenged this post is satire. Oh, the irony.
-Bill
desertres
> People using a biner block as a way to go faster should think twice. > Each knot done & undone wastes time and is an open invitation to > Murphy. KISS KISS KISS, I never stop repeating that when teaching a > course.
I’ll take your word on it that KISS works in Europe. But over here in the states, Ive seen a different style where canyoneers are challenged not to rely on KISS, but learn and practice a variety of ways to deal with obstacles before them from approach to descent. I dont know but it doesnt appear to me that canyoneering is all that easy & simple over here. With a canyoneer taking 1 or 2 courses over here, over days, not sure its so simple.
I know a dozen euro sites can be easily referenced showing 4SuperCXX canyons and made to look easy or should be easy, but over here there is a philosphy of 2 is 1 and 1 is none, which means just because double rap looks simpler doesnt mean its better(or faster). So when a person is ascending a double rope on a figure 8 ,which you promote, theres a chance they are not going to find it simpler or better than ascending the rope single strand.
And it still seems incredulous that there is this view that a double rap is faster…..2 people can rap at the same time on a single strand system….but why is speed even determining which way to setup? I do know one thing, in a speed contest, while a double rapper is still looking to see if the rope touches bottom, Im already at the bottom.
OK, contigency….again, I know Im in the minority minority, but I dont see the figure 8 as anything special and potentially dangerous. Even against the clove hitch(on a bight) biner block, which I think outperforms the figure 8 in that there is little slack and is a safer pulldown….
And if you want to go fast, the fastest way to negotiate rappels where > there’s no danger from water is to pull the length of the rappel > through the anchor out of a floating rope bag and chuck the bag down > straight after it. Rappel double strand. If there’s a current below, > it’s best to rappel down with the bag or the current might pull more > rope out then necessary. A bit slower (seconds lost > clipping/unclipping the rope bag to your harness and getting the rope > out during rappel is slower then when the rope is already hanging > free), but worth the while if there’s a rope mess swirling in that > pothole below. > No knots, less room for mistakes, no time loss whatsoever: rope > management at it’s bare minimum.
BUT: use where appropriate, not always. There are a lot of situations > where a contigency mode is better suited for safety (waterflow, > unknown rappel height, severe friction…). > A biner block is a badly executed contingency mode, it serves no > additional purpose (on the contrary, it’s much more limited, too > limited) and is most likely slower to execute than a contingency mode > on a fig 8.
Koen >
Christian
Good to see that the group is starting to represent us Vegas folk more.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “ryanfosterlee” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “ryanfosterlee” wrote:
Logical conclusion? That some folks desire/need for contrived
> difficulty is based on that canyoneer’s motivation for > descending
> a canyon. A motivation based on challenge rather than access to
> cool places. How do you enjoy the visual beauty of Imlay or > Heaps
> when you’re doing it in a sleep deprived mode and by headlamp? > As …
Ryan in Vegas – lurker no more (for now)…
> Therein lies folly, in guessing at other people’s motivations, and
casting aspersions on it.
Tom… your backhanded comments are always so polite…LOL… and > just so you understand my tone, I take your comments in good > faith… But where do I return my new Kolob pack?? Kidding of > course… First off, my post was not intended to cast aspersion, but > reading it again I can see how you might take it that way… The > examples I used could be taken as negative or value laden but that > was not my intent – i was was trying to illustrate that when doing a > canyon by headlight, you are most likely not doing it to take in the > beauty of the canyon… Agree? I also don’t think that doing canyons > for the “challenge” is a negative thing… I am not trying to equate > moral high ground for either position – just trying to illustrate > that there is a spectrum of motivations as to why people descend – > in fact, depending on the trip or companions your motivations will > change – some trips may be for access to cool places while others > are more for the challenge and some can be both. I guess there is > always risk in making generalizations but i digress…
As for my comments about bolts… It just seems like the debates > over bolts – which i am sick of reading about… comes from the fact > that we think we are all “under the same tent” when it comes to why > we love this sport – and instead of embracing these differences > through seeking to understand our different motivations, we instead > try to assign a moral value to positions… me calling BS on the > bolting issue was my rant at people i think, in my opinion are > hiding behind the environmental issue, instead of saying what they > really think… you can’t say it’s about the “wildness” you are > trying to preserve when there are countless and nasty pull scars > caused by rope alone, no one has any moral highground on this issue > (if such a thing even exists) unless you leave absolutely nothing > behind, anything after that is just a by-product of your skill > level – the higher your skill, the less you leave behind… and from > what i have read so far on this board – those who complain about > bolts are telling less skilled folks they don’t have a right to > descend said – kind of like a fly fisherman telling a bait fisher > they don’t have a right to fish… but I digress…
> Therein also lies folly, in invalidating other people’s > experiences,
because their motivations or experience (might) be different than
yours.
Absolutely not… I don’t see how my comments make you think that… > I am only trying to illustrate the different motivations – not that > one is right or that one is not a valid or worthy pursuit… We each > have different assumptions, assumptions about bolts, gear, safety, > risk, reward, fun, etc… those differences cause conflict… So we > should trying understand each other’s assumptions rather than argue > whose is “right.”
> People may do canyons for different reasons, and have different
experiences – even perhaps motivations or experiences that are not > of
interest to you. Do you claim that your experience or motivation > is
morally superior to theirs?
> Again, absolutely not – I thought i made that clear when I closed my > last post… How can anybody say there is moral high ground in this > sport? When did canyoneering become a religeon? Thats why all > our “ethical” conversations are so fruitless – I guess they do help > one decide who you want to share the experience with though… by > finding partners who share the same views… I don’t like golfing > with hacks who ignore the rules and etiquette… so why should I > like canyoneering with someone who thinks I am a hack, unless they > are interested in helping me learn how not to be a hack… But that > doesn’t mean I dislike golfing hacks or that they shouldn’t be > golfing, just that I don’t want to do it with them… That doesn’t > invalidate their experience does it? They have just as much fun, but > I prefer it if they are in the group BEHIND me…LOL
And Tom, I hope this doesn’t sound disingenuine, but i would be > interested to know why you stacked Imlay and Heaps if it wasn’t > primarily for the “challenge” or feeling of accomplishment of doing > what has not been done… because while i have many theories, i > also believe in testing them frequently…
Ryan
> Tom
>
hank moon
am using the black and white aurgument to say that no one really has the right to define moral high ground when we all make unsightly impacts
Besides, “moral high ground” is an entirely subjective concept.
ryanfosterlee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Listserve.w” wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:39 AM, ryanfosterlee wrote:
> As for my comments about bolts… It just seems like the debates
over bolts – which i am sick of reading about… comes from the fact
that we think we are all “under the same tent” when it comes to why
we love this sport – and instead of embracing these differences
through seeking to understand our different motivations, we instead
try to assign a moral value to positions… me calling BS on the
bolting issue was my rant at people i think, in my opinion are
hiding behind the environmental issue, instead of saying what they
really think… you can’t say it’s about the “wildness” you are
trying to preserve when there are countless and nasty pull scars
caused by rope alone, no one has any moral highground on this issue
(if such a thing even exists) unless you leave absolutely nothing
behind, anything after that is just a by-product of your skill
level – the higher your skill, the less you leave behind… and from
what i have read so far on this board – those who complain about
bolts are telling less skilled folks they don’t have a right to
descend said – kind of like a fly fisherman telling a bait fisher
they don’t have a right to fish… but I digress…
Ohh boy. Yes, people who ghost canyons can take the moral high > ground by your standards (and mine too).
And perhaps you need to understand the various choices made in > setting and using anchors before you confuse rope pull scars with the > no bolt crowd.
I get the difference… just saying that anything less than a complete ghost means you are making some kind of human impact on the canyon – and that everyone has a different tolerance for what is an “acceptable impact.” To use my fishing example – A fly fisherman should not tell a bait fisherman that they shouldn’t bait fish – there is no morality as to how a fish should be caught – no right or wrong to it – except within the person who is fishing… In my mind – the fly fisherman is more sporting, and his appraoch requires more skill and ability – but both are having fun… Is there value in telling the bait fisherman that their approach is “wrong?” My opinion is no, instead – be willing to teach the bait fisherman or share your reasons for using a fly – and perhaps they will change their approach… assuming folks would want to take a more skilled approach, but some just don’t care. A well placed bolt can be more enviromentaly friendly preventing a tree from dying, or rope scars like on the last rap in pine creek where the old natural anchor caused scaring and ropes getting stuck… Or in Spry – by staying in the watercourse and using the choke stone rap instead of the tree on the upper left with all the wash board of rope scars… just saying that we all make impact concessions to gain access to these areas – so none of have the moral high ground when it comes to the bolt/no bolt aurgument – but we should all be making our best effort to make as little impact as possible – I am just not willing to take the “abstinence” approach when it comes to access… who has the right to tell someone to skip a canyon if they can’t do it boltless? If you can do it by ghosting – do you have that right? How many people on here are willing to trespass to do eye of the needle or Kolob when there is bad info from the water district… Push come to shove we all want access…
I personally see many rope scars from bolted > anchors. Not so many with more natural anchoring. Now this is due > both to people who set natural anchors tend to be more sensitive to > rope pull friction, lesser traffic in naturally anchored canyons, my > personal experience in places and the kinds of rock in the places I > tend to canyoneer in and many other factors but to confuse the two > is, well, just confused and muddies whatever point you were trying > to make.
Frankly there isn’t much overlap between the two except that novice > bolters having only one tool in their arsenal often tend to put the > bolts in the wrong place (wrong defined by my standards, like placed > for easy access from above and not for easy pull without rock > damage). But really, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree on > this one.
I’d like to see virtually all anchors extended over the lip to avoid > rope scars as much as possible but fat chance getting that one > adopted. Most anchor extensions I see don’t last long as the skill > to start over the edge is not widely used (sometimes called a rodeo > start). They can be installed, but are soon removed. This is a > situation where lack of skills is directly responsible for damage. > Frankly I can claim the high ground on this one. People should learn > the skills to pass as lightly as reasonably possible. That includes > taking the minimal amount of time to learn how to start over a lip. > That is completely unnecessary damage as is found in spades in Spry > and Pine Creek in Zion for example.
Less damage is better than more damage. This is a continuum where > there are black and white and a whole lot of shades of grey. You > only appear to see black and white.
I see and prefer the complexity of gray…. but am using the black and white aurgument to say that no one really has the right to define moral high ground when we all make unsightly impacts… many people think they are granted that right by skill and experience, when really it only grants persuasion…
What is this “hiding behind the environmental issue” you bring up? > Who’s hiding behind it and not saying what they really think?
Canyoneers who tell other canyoneers they should stay out of a canyon until they can do it bolt free (mainly) and then say it is to preserve the nature of the canyon…
When people stop permanently modifying the rock with hammers and > drills where it is not necessary then I’ll probably stop objecting.
Hmmmm… need to think about that….
> I’m just asking that any changes necessary in the canyons to allow > our passage be as minimal and temporary as reasonably possible so > people in the future can descend without the scars of our passage.
I would agree with that…. without reservation….
Ryan
-Bill >
Listserve.w
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:39 AM, ryanfosterlee wrote:
> As for my comments about bolts… It just seems like the debates > over bolts – which i am sick of reading about… comes from the fact > that we think we are all “under the same tent” when it comes to why > we love this sport – and instead of embracing these differences > through seeking to understand our different motivations, we instead > try to assign a moral value to positions… me calling BS on the > bolting issue was my rant at people i think, in my opinion are > hiding behind the environmental issue, instead of saying what they > really think… you can’t say it’s about the “wildness” you are > trying to preserve when there are countless and nasty pull scars > caused by rope alone, no one has any moral highground on this issue > (if such a thing even exists) unless you leave absolutely nothing > behind, anything after that is just a by-product of your skill > level – the higher your skill, the less you leave behind… and from > what i have read so far on this board – those who complain about > bolts are telling less skilled folks they don’t have a right to > descend said – kind of like a fly fisherman telling a bait fisher > they don’t have a right to fish… but I digress…
Ohh boy. Yes, people who ghost canyons can take the moral high ground by your standards (and mine too).
And perhaps you need to understand the various choices made in setting and using anchors before you confuse rope pull scars with the no bolt crowd. I personally see many rope scars from bolted anchors. Not so many with more natural anchoring. Now this is due both to people who set natural anchors tend to be more sensitive to rope pull friction, lesser traffic in naturally anchored canyons, my personal experience in places and the kinds of rock in the places I tend to canyoneer in and many other factors but to confuse the two is, well, just confused and muddies whatever point you were trying to make.
Frankly there isn’t much overlap between the two except that novice bolters having only one tool in their arsenal often tend to put the bolts in the wrong place (wrong defined by my standards, like placed for easy access from above and not for easy pull without rock damage). But really, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree on this one.
I’d like to see virtually all anchors extended over the lip to avoid rope scars as much as possible but fat chance getting that one adopted. Most anchor extensions I see don’t last long as the skill to start over the edge is not widely used (sometimes called a rodeo start). They can be installed, but are soon removed. This is a situation where lack of skills is directly responsible for damage. Frankly I can claim the high ground on this one. People should learn the skills to pass as lightly as reasonably possible. That includes taking the minimal amount of time to learn how to start over a lip. That is completely unnecessary damage as is found in spades in Spry and Pine Creek in Zion for example.
Less damage is better than more damage. This is a continuum where there are black and white and a whole lot of shades of grey. You only appear to see black and white.
What is this “hiding behind the environmental issue” you bring up? Who’s hiding behind it and not saying what they really think?
When people stop permanently modifying the rock with hammers and drills where it is not necessary then I’ll probably stop objecting. I’m just asking that any changes necessary in the canyons to allow our passage be as minimal and temporary as reasonably possible so people in the future can descend without the scars of our passage.
-Bill
hank moon
Dude, you so wild! Thanks for coming out of lurkdom.
On 7/9/07, ryanfosterlee ryanfosterlee@yahoo.com> wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , “Listserve.w” >
wrote:
On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, ryanfosterlee wrote:
> As for
> bolts, folks can say they don’t want them because it ruins the
> visual integrity of the canyon – but I call BS… I think they > don’t
> want to the difficulty of the canyon downgraded because THEY > THINK
> it makes their own descent less meaningful…
A blanket statement against people who don’t like bolts. You > really
think that this is about ego? Guess I missed the part where > people
were using hammers and drills to pound steel into the rock, I’m
pretty sure that’s not in my head. I guess that makes my descent
less meaningful. OK. Canyoneering as a competitive sport. Yeah.
It does make the canyon less wild, which is one of the things I > do
seek out when I’m in the WILDerness.
Perhaps some of us prefer the canyons left as much as possible as
they are and change naturally, rather than contrived with > permanent
anchors. Maybe for some of us part of the beauty of these places > is
their wildness, not their permanent installations of anchors. > And
yes, along with wildness often comes a landscape not arrayed for > our
easy passage. A world where we adapt to the challenges we face
without hammering them into submission. Challenge has been part > of
the wilderness from the beginning. Wilderness is a place where it > is
wild, it isn’t domesticated for our enjoyment.
-Bill
Yes it was a broad generalization… so if the shoe fits, it fits.. > if it doesn’t I can agree that there are canyoneers who have a wild > disdain for the unsightly pieces of metal in the canyon. Therefore, > there must also be a group with wild disdain for rope scars and > would prefer you not use a rope, but they are a very small minority > who get no play on this message board (sarcasm)… And then there > are those who disdain footprints… but now i wildly digress…
>
ryanfosterlee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Listserve.w” wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, ryanfosterlee wrote:
> As for
bolts, folks can say they don’t want them because it ruins the
visual integrity of the canyon – but I call BS… I think they don’t
want to the difficulty of the canyon downgraded because THEY THINK
it makes their own descent less meaningful…
A blanket statement against people who don’t like bolts. You really > think that this is about ego? Guess I missed the part where people > were using hammers and drills to pound steel into the rock, I’m > pretty sure that’s not in my head. I guess that makes my descent > less meaningful. OK. Canyoneering as a competitive sport. Yeah.
It does make the canyon less wild, which is one of the things I do > seek out when I’m in the WILDerness.
Perhaps some of us prefer the canyons left as much as possible as > they are and change naturally, rather than contrived with permanent > anchors. Maybe for some of us part of the beauty of these places is > their wildness, not their permanent installations of anchors. And > yes, along with wildness often comes a landscape not arrayed for our > easy passage. A world where we adapt to the challenges we face > without hammering them into submission. Challenge has been part of > the wilderness from the beginning. Wilderness is a place where it is > wild, it isn’t domesticated for our enjoyment.
-Bill >
Yes it was a broad generalization… so if the shoe fits, it fits.. if it doesn’t I can agree that there are canyoneers who have a wild disdain for the unsightly pieces of metal in the canyon. Therefore, there must also be a group with wild disdain for rope scars and would prefer you not use a rope, but they are a very small minority who get no play on this message board (sarcasm)… And then there are those who disdain footprints… but now i wildly digress…
ryanfosterlee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “ryanfosterlee” Therein also lies folly, in invalidating other people’s experiences, > because their motivations or experience (might) be different than > yours.
Absolutely not… I don’t see how my comments make you think that… I am only trying to illustrate the different motivations – not that one is right or that one is not a valid or worthy pursuit… We each have different assumptions, assumptions about bolts, gear, safety, risk, reward, fun, etc… those differences cause conflict… So we should trying understand each other’s assumptions rather than argue whose is “right.”
> People may do canyons for different reasons, and have different > experiences – even perhaps motivations or experiences that are not of > interest to you. Do you claim that your experience or motivation is > morally superior to theirs? > Again, absolutely not – I thought i made that clear when I closed my last post… How can anybody say there is moral high ground in this sport? When did canyoneering become a religeon? Thats why all our “ethical” conversations are so fruitless – I guess they do help one decide who you want to share the experience with though… by finding partners who share the same views… I don’t like golfing with hacks who ignore the rules and etiquette… so why should I like canyoneering with someone who thinks I am a hack, unless they are interested in helping me learn how not to be a hack… But that doesn’t mean I dislike golfing hacks or that they shouldn’t be golfing, just that I don’t want to do it with them… That doesn’t invalidate their experience does it? They have just as much fun, but I prefer it if they are in the group BEHIND me…LOL
And Tom, I hope this doesn’t sound disingenuine, but i would be interested to know why you stacked Imlay and Heaps if it wasn’t primarily for the “challenge” or feeling of accomplishment of doing what has not been done… because while i have many theories, i also believe in testing them frequently…
Ryan
> Tom >
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Bo” wrote:
– Less force on a pair of anchors (weight using a biner block is on one side of a fixed anchor).
> This one I don’t get Hank? 1/2 KN +1/2 KN=1KN???? Either way the rope is > set up the anchor (s) see 1KN?
My, uhh, I mean Hank’s thought on this was that if you have a horizontially oriented pair of fixed anchors, and you run your rope through them, then block one side, the weight tends to be only on one side of these two anchors, rather than spread out between the two of them. For anchors that are equalized and end up in a single rappel ring, then, that wouldn’t be the case.
Most anchors out there seem to be two independant anchors with redundant and separate rings or rapides (in the U.S. for climbing especially). In Europe it seems more common that two anchors are connected into a single point. I think a number of the rap anchors in Zion end in single rings too. Mixed bag.
I block of a set of anchors quite often (usually vertically oriented with a separate ring/link at the end of each anchor). Seems like my weight is always on the one with the block (usually a knot). Makes, ahem, rappelling with a heavy drill from a gri gri especially easy…and easy to retrieve the rope when the work is done.
Cheers, Bo.
-Brian in SLC
Bo
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “hank moon” onkaluna@ wrote:
> For a standard rappelling situation, double rope rappels provide a > higher margin of safety.
I agree with you on this one Hank.
– Less chance of shredding a single rope (over an edge, etc).
Very true.
– Less force on a pair of anchors (weight using a biner block is on > one side of a fixed anchor).
This one I don’t get Hank? 1/2 KN +1/2 KN=1KN???? Either way the rope is set up the anchor (s) see 1KN? >
Bo
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “JoeB” wrote:
> Do you claim that your experience or motivation is
morally superior to theirs?
You’re being ironic, right Tom? Let’s not start another round of > arguments. *sigh* > I didn’t MEAN to be ironic, but I can see how you might take it that way. Ryan had an interesting post, and seemed to be saying, in the first part, that “other canyon experiences”, (ie other than a relaxed manner with plenty of time to enjoy the canyon aesthetics) were not as valid as the experience he has.
Later in the post, he moved quite a ways back from that position. Thank you Ryan for de-lurking in a difficult environment.
I hope you don’t feel that *I* have a specific experience and style that I consider *more valid*. I’m a big tent guy, and celebrate the diversity of the canyoneering community, the diversity of the canyon experience, and the diversity of style. Viva personal choice!
I advocate for bolt-free areas and for people having good “natural anchor skills”, with the understanding that not all natural anchors are very natural. (See “When the Neo sock is on the other foot”). I hope this is not taken as elitest, but I can see how it can be. Some irony in that.
Tom
JoeB
> Do you claim that your experience or motivation is > morally superior to theirs?
You’re being ironic, right Tom? Let’s not start another round of arguments. *sigh*
Listserve.w
On Jul 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, ryanfosterlee wrote:
> As for > bolts, folks can say they don’t want them because it ruins the > visual integrity of the canyon – but I call BS… I think they don’t > want to the difficulty of the canyon downgraded because THEY THINK > it makes their own descent less meaningful…
A blanket statement against people who don’t like bolts. You really think that this is about ego? Guess I missed the part where people were using hammers and drills to pound steel into the rock, I’m pretty sure that’s not in my head. I guess that makes my descent less meaningful. OK. Canyoneering as a competitive sport. Yeah.
It does make the canyon less wild, which is one of the things I do seek out when I’m in the WILDerness.
Perhaps some of us prefer the canyons left as much as possible as they are and change naturally, rather than contrived with permanent anchors. Maybe for some of us part of the beauty of these places is their wildness, not their permanent installations of anchors. And yes, along with wildness often comes a landscape not arrayed for our easy passage. A world where we adapt to the challenges we face without hammering them into submission. Challenge has been part of the wilderness from the beginning. Wilderness is a place where it is wild, it isn’t domesticated for our enjoyment.
-Bill
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
> Can anyone explain any reason for using anything but double rope > technique in Mystery or Pine Creek?
Cheers,
-Brian in SLC > Personal choice?
Tom in MtC
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “ryanfosterlee” wrote:
Logical conclusion? That some folks desire/need for contrived > difficulty is based on that canyoneer’s motivation for descending > a canyon. A motivation based on challenge rather than access to > cool places. How do you enjoy the visual beauty of Imlay or Heaps > when you’re doing it in a sleep deprived mode and by headlamp? As …
Ryan in Vegas – lurker no more (for now)… >
Therein lies folly, in guessing at other people’s motivations, and casting aspersions on it.
Therein also lies folly, in invalidating other people’s experiences, because their motivations or experience (might) be different than yours.
People may do canyons for different reasons, and have different experiences – even perhaps motivations or experiences that are not of interest to you. Do you claim that your experience or motivation is morally superior to theirs?
Tom
ryanfosterlee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
> Then you got these same “experts” who are romanticizing and > popularizing unnatural anchor techniques, speed descents of multiple > canyons in a day, and removing anchors forcing use of less safe > anchors. What is the logical conclusion of the canyon jihad? What > is the logical conclusion of playing the no bolt game?
Logical conclusion? That some folks desire/need for contrived difficulty is based on that canyoneer’s motivation for descending a canyon. A motivation based on challenge rather than access to cool places. How do you enjoy the visual beauty of Imlay or Heaps when you’re doing it in a sleep deprived mode and by headlamp? As for bolts, folks can say they don’t want them because it ruins the visual integrity of the canyon – but I call BS… I think they don’t want to the difficulty of the canyon downgraded because THEY THINK it makes their own descent less meaningful… The same angst a handicapped golfer feels when they hear a hacker say they shot the same score they did, but knowing that golfer didn’t count all their strokes (because they are a hack) – they think it degrades their score/accomplishment… If your motivation is the challenge of the descent, but you have already done it several times – how do you make it harder? More meaningful? You add to the degree of difficulty by stacking trips, and keeping score – like Kelsey and his damned trip times… Damn that was a painful lesson to learn when I first used his book… My best friend and Canyon mate is a more competitive type than myself and I can tell he is always disappointed when our trip time is not closer to the shorter side of Tom’s estimate, whereas I am thinking “what’s the rush… I have been planning on getting out here since winter, so what’s the rush to get back to Springdale???” But hey, don’t get me wrong, if that is how you roll…. good for you, but let’s remember that when we are talking tactics and strategies for descending canyons, that we each have different motivations which in turn lead us to different techniques and styles… that there are many ways to skin a cat/canyon, and we had better know which techniques best fits that approach and level of experience…
Ryan in Vegas – lurker no more (for now)…
Koen
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
I think using a biner block/pull cord should be an exception and not > the rule when it comes to rappelling.
Why?
etc. etc. etc. etc
Weird, this could have been me who wrote that, except the English was better . Well put Bryan, I agree along the whole line.
People using a biner block as a way to go faster should think twice. Each knot done & undone wastes time and is an open invitation to Murphy. KISS KISS KISS, I never stop repeating that when teaching a course.
And if you want to go fast, the fastest way to negotiate rappels where there’s no danger from water is to pull the length of the rappel through the anchor out of a floating rope bag and chuck the bag down straight after it. Rappel double strand. If there’s a current below, it’s best to rappel down with the bag or the current might pull more rope out then necessary. A bit slower (seconds lost clipping/unclipping the rope bag to your harness and getting the rope out during rappel is slower then when the rope is already hanging free), but worth the while if there’s a rope mess swirling in that pothole below. No knots, less room for mistakes, no time loss whatsoever: rope management at it’s bare minimum.
BUT: use where appropriate, not always. There are a lot of situations where a contigency mode is better suited for safety (waterflow, unknown rappel height, severe friction…). A biner block is a badly executed contingency mode, it serves no additional purpose (on the contrary, it’s much more limited, too limited) and is most likely slower to execute than a contingency mode on a fig 8.
Koen
gootwan
I can.
My brother and I just recently did Pine Creek. It was our first time through. At each station I let out what I thought was the right amount of rope and blocked the rope with a Figure 8 contingency (safetied of course). He rapped first while I kept the rope bag up top with me. If I deployed enough rope all is well. If I didn’t I could lower him easily off the Fig. 8. If, for some reason he gets stuck I can descend to aid him with the rope I have at the top (I realize this is rare but still…). When he’s down safely I can clean the block and rap double or if the pull is clean rap single off the block, with the rope bag.
I prefer rapping single line because I find it easier to lock it off (w/ATC) and ascend, if needed. I also find it smoother on descent. In other words, it feels safer. But, if concerned about the pull I go double… I think I did it twice in Pine?
If we didn’t descend Pine in a safe, efficient manner, under the circumstances, I’m open to hear about it. I’d rather do it right than do it “my way”.
Jordan
> Can anyone explain any reason for using anything but double rope > technique in Mystery or Pine Creek?
Cheers,
-Brian in SLC >