[lmarenzi]

Hello ladies and gents of UK Bouldering. This is my first post, so please excuse the following links not being embedded.

I am a hobby climber in the sense that I currently spend most of my spare time researching "how to improve training for climbing". I actually do occasionally do some actual climbing and general conditioning work to build core and forearm strength. This is in the hope that it will provide me with more intensity and stamina during those long late-hours computers based research sessions on "how to improve training for climbing".

There seems to be plenty of stuff written on climbing on the internet, and indeed in some books. Unfortunately I usually find the books more difficult to finish than the boulder problems I want to do so prefer the internet at the moment.

If there is any interest I wanted to start a thread celebrating some of the more interesting science that exists relating to climbing.

Here is my offering to kick things off:

http://www.warmsys.com/mog/Arikler/Buldretekst/ARTBOUL8b.html
http://www.warmsys.com/mog/Arikler/Buldretekst/OTAOGBintroduction.html
http://www.warmsys.com/mog/Arikler/Buldretekst/For8anu.html

(Abstract for those wondering if its really worth the effort to cut and paste these into your browser: How and why the unscientific practice of trying to establish grades from people just guessing approximately how hard a boulder problem might "feel" to them needs to be replaced with some proper SCIENCE. With notes on how it can be proven that Arnold Schwarzenegger was thin for his height and why all professional basketball players can climb 8C)

Perhaps a kind soul who frequents the other other channel and knows how (I tried and failed) could let Morten Gulliksen know that his work is being advertised here?

I look forward to more good stuff if any one has any.

Aye

[fried]

[robertostallioni]

"You know, there's going to be sex, drugs, rock-n-roll... chips, dips, chains, whips... You know, your basic high school orgy type of thing. I mean, uh, I'm not talking candlewax on the nipples, or witchcraft or anything like that, no, no, no. Just a couple of hundred kids running around in their underwear, acting like complete animals."



"I want you and your faggot friends to get on your bikes and peddle your ugly asses outta here."

[lmarenzi]

Sorry guys probably was not clear in my first post.

Do you know of any weird science relating to climbing? The weirder the better. Post it up here. I, at least, would like to see it.

There must be some out there, but googling "weird science relating to climbing" will obviously not allow me to find it.

Thanks for any help.

[JamieG]

Welcome to UKB and here you go.

Fingerprints don't improve friction! Well on dry acrylic sheet anyway.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/13/2016.short

[Johnny Brown]

http://www.warmsys.com/mog/Arikler/Buldretekst/ARTBOUL8b.html

The fact that a small person is stronger relative to his weight will be denoted as the mouse-elephant effect.

I think the Ru-Bennett effect is snappier.

[SA Chris]

A mouse can dyno higher than an elephant.

[magpie]

Following this logic I can dyno higher than any of you, I suspect that's not the case though.

[tomtom]

Can elephants to a trunk pull up though?? that would be a pretty handy climbing trick...
No hands rest- pah!

[lmarenzi]

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/13/2016.short

 

Keep em coming.

PS Though a bit counterintuitive at first this looks like pretty solid science. I would translate all that to mean that it might be easier to stick some slopers if you spread your fingers apart a bit, which would probably reduce strength but increase overall friction as the fingers are free to expand a bit under downward pressure, which they might not be able to if they were jammed together.

[ghisino]

since you've posted a deterministic, bottom-up pseudoscientific dissertaition about grades...


here's a top-down, statistic-flavoured attempt, just to balance the two approaches

http://michelecaminati.blogspot.com/p/english-articles.html

[lmarenzi]

Thanks ghisino.

I have put the numbers in for the Hale Bop dyno that is worrying Morten Gulliksen and the formula has returned Scottish Mixed VIII,8

[lmarenzi]

A real collector's piece of weird science.

More chuffing than bouldering, so what, I am 

Reputable equipment manufacturer mentioned? Check.
Large number of "experts" involved in the paper? Check.
Presented unchallenged at a meeting of experts? Check (here, a mountain rescue symposium in 2000?)
Actual testing on a proper rig? Check.
Subsequently endorsed by the media? Check (google mountaineers.org & cordelette)
Subsequently applied and even taught by top class British mountaineers to this day?
In line with current bias? Check (who was it on UKB who said most science was wrong because it's biased?)
Analysis wrong? Check
Actual test values given in spreadsheet wrong? Check
Graphs wrong? Check
Result wrong? Check
Conclusion wrong? Check

Follow this rags to riches story below, where your humble 7mm nylon washing line goes from a rating of a minimum 9kn, well able to hold your laundry in even quite a stiff wind, to becoming a bomber average strength of 22kn cordelette at a big wall belay.

How does it do this? Well, single strand average strength is higher than its rating (good luck on the day though). Then, you tie it in a loop, doubling its strength (don't test this though - you might lose your laundry). Now since this doubles its strength each limb must be stronger too, right?. And don't worry about the knot in the nylon - both knotted limb and unknotted limb are now equally strong and can each withstand 22kn.

Sorry, but  wahahahahaha

http://www.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing

[lmarenzi]

PS

One extra point if you can spot and elegantly explain the mistake made. Only 5 words allowed.

Two extra points if you can identify and allude to the British mountaineer mentioned above without giving away his name!

[Nibile]

http://michelecaminati.blogspot.com/p/english-articles.html

... Must not say what I think...