4 ms·

I am a big Alex Honnold fan, but no matter how much your skill, free solo climbing will kill you one day. Alex Honnold is not the first free soloist, and won't

I am a big Alex Honnold fan, but no matter how much your skill, free solo climbing will kill you one day. Alex Honnold is not the first free soloist, and won't be the last. He is great climber, and has no fear of heights it appears. Your average person or climber is not going to try to replicate what he is doing due to their desire to preserve their life. We do not see many people jumping gorges in rocket sleds like Evel Kneviel although he was massively famous. Of course some will try to replicate but they are also special people that are daredevils as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_solo_climbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_solo_climbing has a list of free solo climbers. A large number of them have died.

Lordarminius 9y ago
> A large number of them have died. Paul Preuss (October 3, 1913) died during an attempt to make the first ascent of the North Ridge of the Mandlkogel free solo, fell a thousand feet
- kareemm 9y ago
  Man. According to Wolfram Alpha[1] it'd take 7.9 seconds to fall 1000 feet, with a final velocity of 170mph (77 m/s). [1] - https://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+1000ft https://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+1000ft
  - tibyat 9y ago
    x = .5gt^2 give your brain some exercise
  - sib 9y ago
    I thought that terminal velocity for a human on Earth was about 120 miles/h. Seems like Wolfram doesn't take that into account. Just makes the horrifying fall even longer!
    - tintor 9y ago
      170 mph assumes no air resistance
      - sib 9y ago
        Yup, I understand that. My point was that that's not a very accurate assumption in the vicinity of El Capitan :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
avar 9y ago
> free solo climbing will kill you one day > [...] [Wikipedia] has a list of free solo > climbers. The Wikipedia article you're linking to does list a bunch of people who've died doing it, but also famous free solo climbers in their 60s and even 80s.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  There are plenty of chain smokers and drunk drivers in their 80s. It's still not a good idea.
  - avar 9y ago
    It's not a good idea and it's dangerous, but we wouldn't say with confidence that smoking or drunk driving "will kill you one day", which is the part of the GPs comment I'm replying to.
  - fiter 9y ago
    The population sizes are vastly different between chain smokers and free soloists.
cbtacy 9y ago
Speaking as a former sponsored, professional climber who happens to have been one of the first Americans to solo 5.13... sorry but I'm still alive and kicking. Listen... soloing is obviously very dangerous. Nobody who is out there soloing as a pastime is unaware of this. But comparing soloing to trying to jump gorges on rocket slides isn't doing justice to a complicated and nuanced subject. Soloing is a personal decision. And it is usually carefully made. People who solo regularly are usually not adrenaline junkies. They're not thrill seekers. They're careful and methodical and prepared. They have probably solo down-climbed more total mileage than you can imagine. Calling Alex a special person is fair and appropriate. But he's not a daredevil.
- dota_fanatic 9y ago
  What would you estimate his chance of death was in doing this climb? 1%? 5%? Most people would call someone who takes on that kind of deadly risk for nothing more than accomplishment and legacy, ie by choice, a daredevil. If free soloing is not usually thrilling, or adrenaline inducing, but something you approach with care, methods, and preparation... what's the point of the induced-risk? Why not take on a similar challenge that's more difficult, minus the non-trivial probability of dead, like most other climbers do? Gamers find themselves introducing more and more arbitrary challenges to make their accomplishments more difficult to achieve. The difference between gamers and free soloers, is that when gamers fail, they don't destroy, to various extents, the lives of all the people that loved and supported them as a side-effect of their failure, all because they thought it was a good idea to introduce deadly activities into their lives. How is this not daredevil behavior?
  - hervature 9y ago
    I think that this is probably the biggest misconception about Alex. Pad your estimates of death with a couple of 0's, that is, 0.01% (even less) chance of death. From this article others have posted https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free-solo-scared-me https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free...: > “It would be so easy for you—you know you wont fall on 5.12,” In essence, he is so good at climbing, this is like going up a really long ladder for the average human. Sure, rungs on the ladder could break, but even I could climb a ladder 3000ft tall with enough endurance training and not fall. At least, most likely not fall. To answer your question about the thrill, in multiple interviews, he says that free soloing is the "ultimate test". Akin to closed book and no calculators. Can you really claim that you've mastered a subject if you were allowed to use aids? This is the way he views free soloing. When you view it like this and reduce the chances of dying to be less than driving on the freeway, I think it is less daredevil behaviour and more the ultimate passion for his craft.

Lordarminius 9y ago

> A large number of them have died. Paul Preuss (October 3, 1913) died during an attempt to make the first ascent of the North Ridge of the Mandlkogel free solo, fell a thousand feet

kareemm 9y ago
Man. According to Wolfram Alpha[1] it'd take 7.9 seconds to fall 1000 feet, with a final velocity of 170mph (77 m/s). [1] - https://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+1000ft https://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+to+fall+1000ft
- tibyat 9y ago
  x = .5gt^2 give your brain some exercise
- sib 9y ago
  I thought that terminal velocity for a human on Earth was about 120 miles/h. Seems like Wolfram doesn't take that into account. Just makes the horrifying fall even longer!
  - tintor 9y ago
    170 mph assumes no air resistance
    - sib 9y ago
      Yup, I understand that. My point was that that's not a very accurate assumption in the vicinity of El Capitan :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

avar 9y ago

> free solo climbing will kill you one day > [...] [Wikipedia] has a list of free solo > climbers. The Wikipedia article you're linking to does list a bunch of people who've died doing it, but also famous free solo climbers in their 60s and even 80s.

maxxxxx 9y ago
There are plenty of chain smokers and drunk drivers in their 80s. It's still not a good idea.
- avar 9y ago
  It's not a good idea and it's dangerous, but we wouldn't say with confidence that smoking or drunk driving "will kill you one day", which is the part of the GPs comment I'm replying to.
- fiter 9y ago
  The population sizes are vastly different between chain smokers and free soloists.

cbtacy 9y ago

Speaking as a former sponsored, professional climber who happens to have been one of the first Americans to solo 5.13... sorry but I'm still alive and kicking. Listen... soloing is obviously very dangerous. Nobody who is out there soloing as a pastime is unaware of this. But comparing soloing to trying to jump gorges on rocket slides isn't doing justice to a complicated and nuanced subject. Soloing is a personal decision. And it is usually carefully made. People who solo regularly are usually not adrenaline junkies. They're not thrill seekers. They're careful and methodical and prepared. They have probably solo down-climbed more total mileage than you can imagine. Calling Alex a special person is fair and appropriate. But he's not a daredevil.

dota_fanatic 9y ago
What would you estimate his chance of death was in doing this climb? 1%? 5%? Most people would call someone who takes on that kind of deadly risk for nothing more than accomplishment and legacy, ie by choice, a daredevil. If free soloing is not usually thrilling, or adrenaline inducing, but something you approach with care, methods, and preparation... what's the point of the induced-risk? Why not take on a similar challenge that's more difficult, minus the non-trivial probability of dead, like most other climbers do? Gamers find themselves introducing more and more arbitrary challenges to make their accomplishments more difficult to achieve. The difference between gamers and free soloers, is that when gamers fail, they don't destroy, to various extents, the lives of all the people that loved and supported them as a side-effect of their failure, all because they thought it was a good idea to introduce deadly activities into their lives. How is this not daredevil behavior?
- hervature 9y ago
  I think that this is probably the biggest misconception about Alex. Pad your estimates of death with a couple of 0's, that is, 0.01% (even less) chance of death. From this article others have posted https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free-solo-scared-me https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free...: > “It would be so easy for you—you know you wont fall on 5.12,” In essence, he is so good at climbing, this is like going up a really long ladder for the average human. Sure, rungs on the ladder could break, but even I could climb a ladder 3000ft tall with enough endurance training and not fall. At least, most likely not fall. To answer your question about the thrill, in multiple interviews, he says that free soloing is the "ultimate test". Akin to closed book and no calculators. Can you really claim that you've mastered a subject if you were allowed to use aids? This is the way he views free soloing. When you view it like this and reduce the chances of dying to be less than driving on the freeway, I think it is less daredevil behaviour and more the ultimate passion for his craft.