Ueli Steck reclaims:
Amazing...
http://www.examiner.com/article/ueli-st ... north-face
by Norman » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:14 pm
by Cy Kaicener » Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:52 pm
by Diego Sahagún » Sun Nov 22, 2015 12:09 am
by clmbr » Sun Nov 22, 2015 5:14 pm
Diego Sahagún wrote:That's sick, anyday he could bump into something and fall to death...
by bserk » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:48 am
clmbr wrote:Diego Sahagún wrote:That's sick, anyday he could bump into something and fall to death...
And that's the only way to become/stay famous nowadays.
He says that also "the athlete has to be willing to take quite a lot of risk" to do it below 2 hours. Is this sarcasm, arrogance or confidence? Just a rhetorical question.
by clmbr » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:13 pm
bserk wrote:clmbr wrote:Diego Sahagún wrote:That's sick, anyday he could bump into something and fall to death...
And that's the only way to become/stay famous nowadays.
He says that also "the athlete has to be willing to take quite a lot of risk" to do it below 2 hours. Is this sarcasm, arrogance or confidence? Just a rhetorical question.
one could also say: less time spend in a dangerous situation reduces the probability of occurence.
by bserk » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:15 pm
clmbr wrote:bserk wrote:clmbr wrote:Diego Sahagún wrote:That's sick, anyday he could bump into something and fall to death...
And that's the only way to become/stay famous nowadays.
He says that also "the athlete has to be willing to take quite a lot of risk" to do it below 2 hours. Is this sarcasm, arrogance or confidence? Just a rhetorical question.
one could also say: less time spend in a dangerous situation reduces the probability of occurence.
Except, in this case it means increasing the risk (exponentially or even logarithmically) and consequences of...
by clmbr » Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:26 pm
bserk wrote:clmbr wrote:bserk wrote:clmbr wrote:Diego Sahagún wrote:That's sick, anyday he could bump into something and fall to death...
And that's the only way to become/stay famous nowadays.
He says that also "the athlete has to be willing to take quite a lot of risk" to do it below 2 hours. Is this sarcasm, arrogance or confidence? Just a rhetorical question.
one could also say: less time spend in a dangerous situation reduces the probability of occurence.
Except, in this case it means increasing the risk (exponentially or even logarithmically) and consequences of...
That is only your perception of the risk. The proability of falling is not lower when being roped in. Even if roped in a party of two the chances for a fatal outcome after a fall are very high as one climber very likely will pull the other one with him. Stopping a pull-accident is most likely on not too steep terrain. On this terrain the experienced climber should be capable of donig this himself. Only if you build a very safe anchor (couple good ice screws/pickets, etc.) you increase your safety at a fall/slip/pull-accident. The guys from bergundsteigen magazine did a quite extensive test on safety with regards to rope usage in mountaineering...very interesting read.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests