[Stubbs]

Cheers for the replies but how do you plot more than 2 things on a graph?

If I am tracking length of hold and weight added against a calendar how does that work? You would also have a graph for every single grip position on every different hold I assume?

Also, although the resistance on the pulley is constant for a given weight it will obviously change if the weight changes. For 50kg it may be an added resistance of 20kg whereas for 20kg it may only be 5kg. Its not likely to be a simple function of the weight added times a percentage.

I may be talking utter crap here but thats my understanding of these things.

Most assisted weight fingerboard routines will be about the amount of weight you need to take off (or add) to achieve a certain length of hand, this way you only have the weight and date for each grip to plot (or just write down in your diary).

Are you really bothered about exactly how much effect the pulley is having, or can you accept that it will have some impact, but the aim of your training is just to reduce the amount of weight you are putting on the other end? 

I think it's easy to get lost in the minutiae of these things when all you want is a rough way to track how trying really hard is improving your fingerstrength.

[Pebblespanker]

Very fair comment Slackline and fully understand what you are saying (% changes need to be stated against the starting conditions and starting conditions should be the same for all so you can compare apples with apples) but mathematical nuances aside the % route works as a simple personal motivator/indicator for me in a spreado.  I could equally express change as 1 second gain, 2 second gain so the gain is expressed independent of starting conditions, but this all goes to crap once you add remove weight - all I want to see day to day is a measure of improvement via a number saying 'you have improved you beast'

For overall improvement at the end of a cycle I redo the baseline test under the exact same conditions, same added/removed weight, same hold and grip and time the hangs to failure

[Nibile]

I haven't followed a "real" training plan in years, mostly because of work, which often makes spare time unpredictable.
My only plan is the aim of getting stronger, so I adapt every session to how I feel, how the week is probably going to be - work wise - if/when I plan to climb, etc.
As said, I have the luxury of having a board (yes DaveMac, I made a board before you said), a fingerboard, a systemboard and a lot, a lot of different tested sessions that I can use at will depending on the day and time.

The only thing that I really track is my fingers' sessions.
With little time, I tend to overdo them to the detriment of board climbing, that requires more time. So, now, I decided to do only one fingers' session per week, alternating between the two sessions that I normally do.
So, one week is max hangs on the BM (one armed, with added weight, half crimp and monos), the other is max hangs on the systemboard (full crimp). The rest is board climbing, doing short, hard bouldering sessions earlier in the week, and slightly decreasing intensity as tiredness kicks in day by day.

Then: I wrote here about weeks to be more clear, but in reality I don't care about calendar weeks. I choose the sessions regardless of weekdays, but only according to the previous training days.
So, if by accident I climb on a Monday, I take Tuesday off and will fingerboard on Wednesday, that will be the first day of the training week. Then, depending on when/if I go climbing, I will tailor this "new" week, adapting the training to the climbing or the climbing to the training: if I know that conditions are going to be good and I want to work the project, I tailor the training; if I don't want to perform on rock I factor the day out as training as act as a consequence.

Caveat: I love training and almost don't go on rock anymore, I could easily just train, and I don't have to peak at fixed dates for trips and so on, so this makes things easier for me.
HTH.

[mctrials23]

Caveat: I love training and almost don't go on rock anymore, I could easily just train, and I don't have to peak at fixed dates for trips and so on, so this makes things easier for me.
HTH.

Good to see people that are honest about what they get out of climbing. I have never lived in a place where I can climb outside very often without huge amounts of travel and disappointment with the British weather so enjoying my training and sessions at the wall is vital to me.

My current goal for this year is to get outside more as the year goes on. Hopefully my other half will be more excited to climb outdoors as she gets better at climbing which will make things easier. My other goals are to be able to one arm a lot of stuff on the BM2000 without taking weight off and climb something close to 8a outside. One arming stuff on the BM might not seem super hard but I weigh over 13 stone so I think thats a reasonable goal.

[Johnny Brown]

Petzl's advice is that a percentage is close enough at typical climbing use loads. Which pulley are you using? They range from ~80-95% efficiency.

[mctrials23]

I'm using a petzl one and I did a rough test last night to see what the resistance is. I put 20kg on each side of the pulley and then added weight to one side until it became almost effortless to move the weight down on that side. It was about 5-7kg so it's more like 30%. It's a pulley from about 4 years ago though so oiling it would probably help a lot.

[slackline]

I'm using a petzl one and I did a rough test last night to see what the resistance is. I put 20kg on each side of the pulley and then added weight to one side until it became almost effortless to move the weight down on that side. It was about 5-7kg so it's more like 30%. It's a pulley from about 4 years ago though so oiling it would probably help a lot.

If you're worried about minutiae like this then "almost effortless" is pretty pointless and "between 5 and 7kg" is too inaccurate, you could buy some Newton meters and work it out exactly.

In the meantime perhaps this pulley simulator will allow you to investigate the effect friction at the pulley (i.e. resistance) has on the force required.

[blamo]

In the meantime perhaps this pulley simulator will allow you to investigate the effect friction at the pulley (i.e. resistance) has on the force required.

This explains why going from removing weight to adding weight is a bit of hurdle.   

[slackline]

Isn't that obvious?

[Nibile]

I understand that it could be of some interest to know exactly how much weight you have to take off, but I wouldn't stress to much about it. Once you you use the same pulley every time, it is a constant so there's no problem in judging progress.

[blamo]

Isn't that obvious?

When I am hanging from my fingertips trying to eek out a bit more effort nothing seems obvious.  I always attributed it to too much 

[Muenchener]

I'm using a petzl one and I did a rough test last night to see what the resistance is. I put 20kg on each side of the pulley and then added weight to one side until it became almost effortless to move the weight down on that side. It was about 5-7kg so it's more like 30%. It's a pulley from about 4 years ago though so oiling it would probably help a lot.

I'm using a fairly new micro traxion, so the pulley itself is about 90% efficient. But there's only one of it, meaning that the cord and the weight are hanging in contact with my torso, so a lot of friction there probably.

But shirley the friction losses - whatever they are - mean you're actually getting *less* assistance than the weight you have on the other end of the string?

[abarro81]

No, because the arm on the rope (or your body if 2 armed) is trying to move the rope through the pulley, and the friction is opposing this movement, i.e. opposing the pull from that arm: the same effect as increasing the weight.

[rodma]

If you mean increasing the weight of the climber,  then you just angrily agreed with munchie's point Alex.
If that's not what you meant then you just disagreed with yourself.

[abarro81]

I mean increasing the weight of the assist. I fail to see how I disagreed with myself? 1 arm hang, 1 arm on rope, through pulley, weight on other side. Arm on rope tries to move rope by pulling on it. Friction opposes this motion, which is the equivalent of increasing the assisting weight for a frictionless pulley.

[rodma]

I mean increasing the weight of the assist. I fail to see how I disagreed with myself? 1 arm hang, 1 arm on rope, through pulley, weight on other side. Arm on rope tries to move rope by pulling on it. Friction opposes this motion, which is the equivalent of increasing the assisting weight for a frictionless pulley.

Only in one direction does it increase the assistance and that's on the lower, on the upwards motion the assistance is reduced, unless you're some sort of wizard.

Of your not moving ie one arm hang them you're effectively in equilibrium depending on which way you last moved so either you will have greater or lesser assistance, or it'll sorry itself out and it'll be closer to the actual amount of weight off.

[abarro81]

When I do assisted 1 arm hangs the hand on the rope only ever pulls too hard (i.e. tries to pull the rope through the pulley), never too little!

[Muenchener]

When I do assisted 1 arm hangs (etc)

That's probably where we're cross purposes. Struggle if you can to imagine somebody who is so weak they need assistance on two arm hangs.

Now the string is not being pulled on by a hand, it is clipped onto a harness, going from there up to the pulley, and down the other side to a weight. The downward pull of the weight on the other side is - I believe - being resisted and reduced by the friction of the downward leg of the string against the climber's body.

[rodma]

Yes, you are at cross purposes so we are all right and wrong except me and except when I said  that it very much depends on the direction of travel, which I was right about.
:D

[abarro81]

Sorry Muenchener, but, if you're failing on a 2 arm hang then your body pulls the rope through so it's still the equivalent of more weight...

[rodma]

Back in the day before cheap pulleys and when people had ready access to bungees, that's what we used and had a whole different calculation to do, but at least the direction of travel didn't affect the level of assistance.

We use an anchor point on the ceiling with a pulley for weights etc (used to be the mounting point for rings before the novelty wore off) and the effect of friction in the different directions is so apparent that it makes using it (trying to replicate long deep pulls in different positions ) almost too shot to continue with. I now use the theraband instead

[rodma]

Sorry Muenchener, but, if you're failing on a 2 arm hang then your body pulls the rope through so it's still the equivalent of more weight...

Depends on the weight added shirley

[abarro81]

Huh? Don't understand. You're right about direction of travel, but we can assume the fail is gradually going downwards in most deadhang situations. What depends on the weight added?

Not that any of this matters. Hang, try really really hard, reduce the assistance. Pretty much covers it!

[Muenchener]

Not that any of this matters. Hang, try really really hard, reduce the assistance. Pretty much covers it!

Quite. Whether I'm getting 4kg or 6kg of assistance from my 5kg weight is immaterial: when I reduce the weight using the same setup, then I'm getting less assistance.

[rodma]

Huh? Don't understand. You're right about direction of travel, but we can assume the fail is gradually going downwards in most deadhang situations. What depends on the weight added?

Not that any of this matters. Hang, try really really hard, reduce the assistance. Pretty much covers it!

If munchy had added sufficient weight that he isn't moving downwards, then it's harder to work out what level of assistance he is gaining.

If you are always heading downwards then you are getting greater assistance.

If you were to select a higher weight you could do assisted one-armers or locks. Heading south isn't always the best option after all, a maximal pull can be upwards (but only for one trip right enough)