HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: luong@naxos.inria.fr (Quang-Tuan Luong)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Equipment failure (was Re: Known details of Cathedral accident)
Date: 20 Aug 92 09:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: luong@sophia.inria.fr
Organization: Inria Sofia Antipolis

In article <1992Aug19.200001.13617@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, mlord@bmers63.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) writes:

|> >So question: would YOU call this equipment failure or human error?
|> 
|> Beyond any doubt, I would not hesitate to call it *human error*.

|> Even if an accident such as this involved failed/broken equipment,
|> the real failure is always ourselves for having used/trusted that gear
|> in that particular circumstance (or having failed to retreat if we did
|> not trust the gear) in that particular circumstance.  If we are not
|> comfortable with that level of risk, I feel that we should take up
|> lawn bowling (or poker) and forget about climbing.

Even if a rope breaks (I mean in normal use, not falls likes Kukuchka's one
at Lhotse), you could say it is human failure: after all it was humans who
made the rope ! However, in this case, I think few people would hesitate to
call it equipment failure. As you say nicely, you have always to rely on
equipment, to a certain level. The level that is commonly accepted defines
the limit between equipment failure and human error. For exemple, it is known
that natural pro can pull out or carabiners get open but if they breaks, it is
another thing. Up to now, the only cases of (modern) equipment failure that
I know are in ice-climbing, where I can say that breaking a blade is almost
common (on commited climbs, I always carry a third tool). I have never seen
or head of anything else broken and of bolts beeing pulled out. Is your
experience the same ?

Tuan.
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: More info on Climbing Wall book and Petrogrips
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:57:15 GMT

In article <92227.180832FQV@psuvm.psu.edu> FQV@psuvm.psu.edu (jim bowers) writes:
>Also, I'd like to see you glue holds onto a 45 degree overhang or a horizontal
>roof.

Not to minimize the effort to, and advantages of, drilling holes in
rock, but we just gave the first test (successful) to holds glued on 
an overhang of about 30 degrees.  I suppose I'll have to go measure it
now.  (And give time a chance)

-- 
And if your hand or foot offend you,         Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
  Cut it off, lad, and be whole;
But play the man, stand up and end you,
  When your sickness is your soul.           AE Housman
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Amazon week in CA
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:58:55 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

In article <1992Aug18.081053.58230@cc.usu.edu> sinclair@cc.usu.edu
(Bob Sinclair) writes:
>Eugene writes that five people have died in CA this week
>(Well, one was a hang glider accident)......
>
>Hang gliding *IS* climbing isn't it? As is hiking, ...

>climbers by the time I hear about them. Do hang glider pilots, cavers and
>kayakers have similar problems.

Well, sure.

Well, more than five died in all of CA last week, but five died in the Sierra.
Well, that's not quite true, the hang glider fatality was in the Whites.
Well, this was the way the ranger couched his terms.  Well, he said, "Well"
a lot (hard to do this recursively).

Is hang gliding climbing?  Well, we do have rappelling, and well, we also
have people who climb up things then parapente off.  The flying technique
involving ridge lift involves CLIMBING up in elevation ;^).  If one saw 
a climber take a hang glider out as part of a climb and used it to get down,
I guess it stops being part of the climb, well.  The fellow climber who
taught me Nordic skiing got into hang gliding as part of his climbing.
Unfortunately, Don was killed flying over the Sierra.  They named the
hang gliding meet after him.  Don regarded mountain flying as a mountaineering
activity.  Well. He deserved a note in the r.b. memorial.

One problem is that the Inyo Forest encompasses the White Mountains of CA as
well as the Sierra.  So Larry counted his fatalities for the district.

So hope you are well.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: CMSC28@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Mark Hickey)
Subject: Climbing the walls in Florida
Organization: Motorola
Date: 13 Aug 1992 08:47:20 CDT

Jim,
Thanks for the reply to my call for help from this two-dimensional
paradise.  (I am, however, saving a bundle by not having to buy
any new GoreTex gear!).  I would really appreciate information on
Petrogrips products, and in fact, I think I have a box of 15 of
them at home, but I used to live within driving distance of the
Gunks, so..........
My address is :
                Mark Hickey
                1133 NE 4th Ave
                Boca Raton, FL  33432

Once again, thanks for the info, and I hope to be getting some
(high?) exposure soon.....
                   Mark (What's that stucco wall rated?) Hickey
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Why 5.7 is harder than 5.10 (was ratings)
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 01:37:29 GMT

In article <eric.713584167@milton> eric@milton.u.washington.edu
(Eric Hirst) writes:
>I think many 5.10 climbers mentally lump anything under 5.8 as too easy to
>even think much about.

1) The MAJORITY of people I have met who CLAIMED they could "climb" 5.10
never LED 5.10.  These are people who followed or top-roped it.  Frequently
climbed 1-3 years, some with vast experience on climbing walls and some
outdoor stuff.  As always there is the exception who did a 5.9 for his
first climb and a first ascent 5.10b for a first lead.  A little difference
exists.

2) Many of said people are typically great on face in good conditions,
but have limited experience on cracks, in corners, in mixed (take your choice:
free/aid or rock/ice) conditions, at some elevation above sea-level, or with
a good sized pack.  Counter-force climbing is not intuitive, occasionally
tough on the hands, and not for everybody.

Plus everyone deserves to have an "off day".  Even my partner Erskine 8^)
(I have to admit he had me worried once backing off a 5.7, but that's
okay, I only wish he could place a bolt without breaking off the drill bit.
He even conned me up a 5.9 the other day when I had an off day.)

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
From: eexmsj@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (M.S.Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: glacier goggles with glasses
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:25:14 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

>In article <Bsrn1p.Jrr@news.larc.nasa.gov>, wawood@ab29.larc.nasa.gov (William A. Wood) writes:
>> A question for the climbers with lug-soled boots:
>> What type of eye protection (UV etc.) do most people wear
>> who also wear prescription glasses while on glaciers/snow
>> at moderate altitudes ( <15 000 ft.) ?
>>
>> Are prescription glacier glasses (expensive) the only option?
>
I used to use a pair of ski goggles but hated them so now I just use a bog
standard pair of polarizing clip-on sunglasses which block UV. They cost
me 5 pounds from Boots the Chemist over here. They worked ok for me in the
Alps. Besides, I don't know about the situation with one's eyes but ever
tried getting a sun tan in a greenhouse. As far as I know normal glass blocks
UV fairly well. The glare would be uncomfortable though without any darkening!

Another merit point for my clip-ons:
I was in the Alps with my sunglasses on thinking how spectacular all the
sunsets looked and then realized I had my sun-specs on! So.. I took em off
and held them in front of the lens on my compact. The results were quite good.

Martin.
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: What happened to REI?
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:23:50 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <6590@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com writes:
=>In article <1992Aug17.173719.28331@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel) writes:
=>>
=>>Well, there are people out there who (perish the thought) who
=>>might venture outdoors in a non-stylish mode.
=>>  I count myself as one of them..
=>>Ted....
=>
=> Two or three years ago, REI published a catalog that included a picture of
=> three or four people ostensibly backpacking, except they were dressed for
=> a church picnic. Somehow they had arrived on this ridge without breaking 
=> a sweat.
=>
=>The ridiculous part was that all the waist belts were unfastened, buckles
=>hanging to their knees, so the cute duds could be viewed unimpeded.
=>
=>Made me wonder what kind of person they think their customer is.

Err.. someone who won't order an item by mail order if he hasn't seen
an unobscured photo of it in the catalogue?



-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: mbrodesky@sc9
Subject: Re: Re: Overhangs
Summary: More on Overhangs and the Gunks
Keywords: More fun in the vertical World
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:21:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.205319.16379@nas.nasa.gov>, eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>>be 5.0 to me.  Yep, now you have a new example - overhangs on 5.0.
> 
> This would make me wonder what Chapman Overhang just outside Camp 4 would
> be rated.  Not that you could place pro on it since a fall would take you
> all of six inches or a foot on your back. ;^)

Lets not forget the many 5.2 to 5.4 overhanging routes at the Gunks. Boston
comes to mind. Also Madame G's 5.6 comes to mind.  But then there was that
boulder problem on the right corner of the Brat, 5.11a, and it did make
Boston feel like 5.4.
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: What happen to REI?
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:00:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug3.163047.27475@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.MSW@forsythe.stanford.edu (Marc Whitney) writes:
>In article <106480238@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>,
>eao@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ed Ogle) writes:
>>What is happening to REI these days?
>>
>>...profits are $300 mallion...
>
>Actually REI has pretty decent profits, but nothing like $300M!

I know this has already been corrected, but in case people are still
wondering about the finances of REI, this is from the most recent report:

	(where "m." is $million)	    1991	    1990

	Sales				  259 m.	  232 m.
	Cost of Sales			- 147 m.	- 133 m.
	Operating expenses		-  88 m.	-  79 m.
					--------        --------
	NET PROFIT			   25 m.	   21 m.

	Taxes				-   5 m.	-   4 m.
	Dividends			-  12 m.	-  11 m.
					--------        --------
	NET EARNINGS (retained)		    9 m.	    7 m.

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: jmorton@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Morton)
Subject: Cathedral Pk. Accident, Yosemite
Reply-To: jmorton@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Morton)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:26:17 GMT

I have some more details from the recent Cathedral Pk. accident.
The information comes from a former Yosemite Mtn. School instructor who 
spoke at length with the people involved in the recovery.

The couple were an experienced man ("a 5.11 climber") and an
inexperienced woman, climbing on the SE Buttress of Cathedral Pk.,
a 5.6 route which I would guess to be 800 ft. in length, at an
angle of maybe 60 deg.  

From the gear attached to the climbers, it was derived that the 
man was belaying the woman from above at the time of the accident.
There was no protection between them (not surprising - this is an 
easy route, commonly soloed).  He was anchored to two smallish
nuts, and was belaying her through one of them.  Apparently she
fell; one nut pulled and then the other.

I have never liked this belay method, which I believe has come
into common use since the advent of belay devices.  A plate is
pretty quick in a lower belay situation, but the upper
belay is always a hassle because the plate is so far away from
your body.  This forces you to lean way over and take very small 
bites as you uprope.  For this reason you see many climbers set
up the belay so that the rope runs upwards (as is natural) to a
piece, then down to the climber.  Europeans frequently transfer
the device itself to one of the anchor points.

The consequence of a severe fall is that this piece rips first,
spins you around, then shock-loads the next thing in line.
(The poor devil who clipped his/her device to the piece is left
holding the rope with palm-friction.)
The first piece is not contributing to the anchor at all:  
either it holds the fall (and you don't need your body anchor)
or it pulls and your anchor is subjected to more than it would
have seen if you had used a trad-style braced-feet position.

At a time when most belays were on ledges I was taught that 
the body position was very important in holding falls.  The
anchor was always lined up with the potential direction of pull,
something which is made difficult with harnesses which have no
anchor points in back.

I am pretty superstitious about belay anchors.  I _never_ lean
on them unless I have to, and in such a case I make it more
redundant than usual.  I think the reason for this is that I
have held many falls without pulling on the anchor, and always
operate with my body (and technique) as the first line of
defense.  I am therefore also quite confident of unanchored
body belay positions when doing 4th class.

I now invite you to punch holes in my reasoning.

Let us all be careful in the future!

John Morton					University of California
jmorton@euler.berkeley.edu			Mechanical Engineering
{decvax,cbosgd}!ucbvax!euler!jmorton		Machine Shop
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: markd@cup.hp.com (Mark_Donohoe)
Subject: Re: Book and Video on building climbing walls
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

FQV@psuvm.psu.edu (jim bowers) writes:
: Until the Video is available there is still the Petrogrip Guide to Building
: affordable climbing walls ($7.50, 48 pages, $7.00 for netlanders).
: 
:                             Jim Bowers
Jim, I'm interested in getting the book.  You e-mail address was not part of 
the note...and so I'm note sure how to e-mail you etc...please post or e-mail
me and tell me how to get the book...e.g. who to make the check to...address
to send it to etc...thanks!

Mark Donohoe (markd@cup.hp.com)
-- 
Mark Donohoe (markd@cup.hp.com)
From: j_elison@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Elison)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Re: Overhangs (was: Re: Please explain the rating system)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:07:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In rec.climbing, wohfuchi@splash.Princeton.EDU (Wataru Ohfuchi) writes:

> 
>   "Easy Overhang" at the Gunks, NY is 5.2 according to Swain's 1st edition.
> Well, I haven't climbed it but, from its name and the description, it's
> another 5.2 overhang. Sorry, I don't climb routes easier than... ;-)
> ...Wataru
> -- 

Growing up with the blue 1972 Gunks guide, "Easy Overhang" is and always will
be 5.0 to me.  Yep, now you have a new example - overhangs on 5.0.

Mort
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: ghill@dot.cs.colorado.edu (Gregory Hill)
Subject: upper belay, cathedral pk. accident
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:12:13 GMT

in
Article: 5116 of rec.climbing
jmorton@euler.Berkeley.EDU (John Morton) writes

>He was anchored to two smallish
>nuts, and was belaying her through one of them.  Apparently she
>fell; one nut pulled and then the other.
>I have never liked this belay method, which I believe has come
>into common use since the advent of belay devices.  A plate is
>pretty quick in a lower belay situation, but the upper
>belay is always a hassle because the plate is so far away from
>your body.  This forces you to lean way over and take very small 
>bites as you uprope.  For this reason you see many climbers set
>up the belay so that the rope runs upwards (as is natural) to a
>piece, then down to the climber.  

I use the latter technique regularly, and I still think it is good,
but hearing about this accident is going to make me be more careful
about having the "pulley" piece be independent from the belay
pieces, so that if it rips, although I will have to catch the drop
taken by the second (a good reason to make sure when rigging the belay
this way, that the pulley piece is not too high, thus minimizing the
distance the second will fall), my body will not be dislodged until
the next piece in the chain is reached.

The technique really makes a tremendous difference when having to
hold a second for any length of time.

>Europeans frequently transfer
>the device itself to one of the anchor points.

I have never felt comfortable with this, however. 

Xref: sparky rec.climbing:2966 rec.backcountry:6064
From: eexmsj@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (M.S.Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing,rec.backcountry
Subject: Re: Bivvy Sacs
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:37:28 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

>The REI bivy sac is the zip-up sleeping bag type (not a tent).  I
>did use it on a warm July night last summer.  It was a bit
>uncomfortable inside, but bearable.  But I rarely backpack in the
>hot bug season.  On cooler nights it is just fine.
>
>BTW, just so we are speaking the same language, by 3-layer Gore-tex
>I mean that the Gore-tex and a fabric layer on each side are
>laminated into a single "cloth": not the 2-layer variety with a
>separate liner (often used to give Gore-tex clothing a less stiff
>"feel").
>
>After the rain soaked my Therma-rest one night, I've thought about
>squeezing it inside the bivy sac.  Has anyone tried this, and does
>it work?
>
>Ed
When I was talking about 2-layer Gore Tex I didn't mean the above definition
but the type which is as 3-layer but without the inner protective layer. It
does seem to have some protective layer though but not like the stuff clothing
is made of. The inner lining which is bonded to the Gore-Tex is more like a
coarse fabric mesh. This is the other form of Gore-Tex people refer to as
2-layer.

I wouldn't like to put my Gore-Tex bag straight onto the floor without a
mat underneath. They are too expensive to damage.

Also, in response to the other mailings:
My bag is made entirely of Gore-Tex, just big enough for a sleeping bag inside
(depending how thin/fat you are!) with a zip across the full width of it on one
side at about neck height. I have slept in it with it fully zipped up and it
is breathable. Apparently, so I heard in situations such as this 3-layer
Gore-Tex is not breathable (as far as getting oxygen goes). Of course, if you
have a design where the bag is open all night at some point I suppose it would
be ok.

Wild Country must win the prize for the fanciest bivvy bag. Whilst I only
bought the most basic design for Alpine use etc. it came with a GORE-TEX
BAG TO CARRY/STORE IT IN!!!!!!(A bivvy bag for ones pet cat perhaps??)

Martin.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: Bivvy Sacs
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:53:39 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <26756@sophia.inria.fr> luong@sophia.inria.fr writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.074719.526@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eexmsj@unicorn.nott.ac.uk 
>(M.S.Jones) writes:
>
>|> >Besides, 2-layer Goretex still isn't breathable enough to prevent
>|> >suffocation.
>My experience is that you don't suffocate, but there is not enough air 
>to be confortable. I noticed it each time I was forced to zip my bivy bag up,
>so I manage to keep a little aperture, otherwise I fell very bad.

I have found this even in a tent with rain fly.  The walls are not even
waterproof, but still don't pass enough oxygen for two people without 
opening a vent.  This might be true only on the first day at altitude
though.  Ever try carcamping without any windows open?  Good thing humans
wake up when the CO2 level gets too high.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: sinclair@cc.usu.edu (Bob Sinclair)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Let's all be average, Re: height etc
Date: 12 Aug 92 08:40:20 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Bob Harrington bobh@fuji.hwr.arizona.edu writes...

>Being 6'6", I guess it's time for me to put in my $0.02. At my height,
>I've had this discussion many times:

>TALLNESS is almost always an advantage. It seems obvious that someone
>who can reach the bigger holds and skip the little ones  will have an
>easier time of it. Sure, there will be occasions where you have to get
>scrunched up under a roof, and a short person will be more comfortable,
>but I think that for every route where shortness is actually an advantage,
>there are a hundred routes that are easier if you're tall..."

Thank you for "coming out of the closet" and telling us about your affliction!
You made just the sort of points I was trying to a week or so ago, but then
I got flamed as I am not tall and therefore don't know what I'm talking about.

I`ve just thought of another advantage of being tall. You shouldn't get 
flamed for denying short people can be at a disadventage on more climbs that
they are have an advantage on! :-)

I guess they're working on a cure for tallness (and shortness, fatness,
baldness and big noses) and We're all looking forward to the day when 
*EVERYONE* can be merely average. Until then, 6'6"? Dont worry about it,
there are very few of us here that will hold it against you!

And for the silly rhyme thread.. There's a route in Little cottonwood
called 'Lunge or Plunge' which fits the tone.

              ......and to continue with the height thread, how about
'Long reaches or bruised peaches'

Bob
bobs@biocat.ncdmf.usu.edu                     (Bob the Alien)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
From: bruceb@roadrunner.denver.sgi.com (Bruce Bailey)
Subject: Re: Gunks Shoes?
Keywords: Gunks Shoes
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:30:39 GMT

John Morton Sez:

|> >|> What sort of shoes to people use at the Gunks these days?
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >I'll pontificate some more...
|> >
|> >When I climbed in the Gunks I had just moved to New York from Boulder.
|> >I remember doing lots of stuff barefoot (this was in vogue a bit in
|> >Boulder for a time), especially bouldering in the Uberfall area.  The
|> >funny thing was that on lots of stuff I did there, your feet really didn't
|> >make much difference. Yet many of those NY climbers couldn't believe it
|> >(having never walked barefoot in their lives).
|> >
|> >So, the moral of the story is - shoes not necessary!  (Yeah, right)
|> 
|> I heard they don't even wear _pants_ in the Gunks!
|> 

True. Witness the poster of some vulgarian on Shokley's ("Dick" Williams).

Bruce Bailey (Dr. OW)