Using the rope for anchor.....another anchor thread

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 75 of total 75 in this topic

aa-lex

climber

Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 10, 2010 - 04:33am PT

So I've been trying to search about people's experiences and opinions with using the climbing rope for the anchor but haven't found much. I have always used a 20' cordolette, with 3 good pieces, equalized, tied off with an eight, and then belay directly off of this using auto blocked device. This has worked great for me but recently I have been intrigued by the idea of using the climbing rope. I see it as a way to eliminate another thing hanging off my harness. I just want to see what pros and cons people who use this system see.

Seems like pros are: less junk on my harness

Cons are: escaping belay

What else? Any input is appreciated.

aa-lex

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 10, 2010 - 04:59am PT

yeah actually most threads i found only briefly mentioned using the rope. most spoke of the web-o-lette vs. cordolette vs. slings.....etc. but seemingly not much about using the rope. most are about different anchor configurations like knot, no knot, sliding x...etc.

all i'm getting at are pros and cons between using the actual climbing rope or another piece of gear (cordolette, web-o-lette, pas, slings).

climber

Mar 10, 2010 - 05:42am PT

Go to a Search and Rescue site...

Prod

Trad climber

Dodge Sprinter Dreaming

Mar 10, 2010 - 08:11am PT

Sometimes I use a cordalette, more and more I tie off 2 or 3 good pieces in series using clove hitches in the lead line.

Prod.

Norwegian

Trad climber

Placerville, California

Mar 10, 2010 - 08:25am PT

ropes and rocks and brawn and dreams.

that's all he ever thinks about...

Jim E

climber

away

Mar 10, 2010 - 09:13am PT

You could do a combo deal. Set three pieces, put a sliding X on two of them, clove hitch yourself to it, then clove hitch in the last piece in a close approximation to equalized. Sort of a 'best of both worlds'. You can still escape the belay easily.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Mar 10, 2010 - 09:38am PT

JimE:
You could do a combo deal. Set three pieces, put a sliding X on two of them, clove hitch yourself to it, then clove hitch in the last piece in a close approximation to equalized. Sort of a 'best of both worlds'. You can still escape the belay easily.

By sheer coincidence I've got a picture of just such a rig.

Prod

Trad climber

Dodge Sprinter Dreaming

Mar 10, 2010 - 09:47am PT

Great minds think alike Prod don't they?

FnA Brother!

But I still use a locker in the system. Roy/ Tarbaby never did when we climbed together.

Prod.

ionlyski

Trad climber

Kalispell, Montana

Mar 10, 2010 - 09:56am PT

Do a search on Ultrabikers 3 loop, sliding knot. Large volume of discussion available in the archives.
Arne

Zander

Trad climber

Berkeley

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:10am PT

Hey aa-lex,
I've been climbing about ten years so I'm still learning. I've learned mostly from reading John Long's books. I carry an equallette and if there is any question in my mind about the individual pieces of pro that's what I use. However, now that I've been doing this climbing thing for a while I've started to feel more confidant in what I'm doing. In the Long/Leuben Advanced Climbing book they say that both of them tie in with the rope most of the time. So now if each piece looks bomber I tie in with the rope. Since I'm still carrying the equallete it is not about weight it is about speed. You can often be clove hitched to two piece in the time it takes to unclip the equallette from your harness. On a ten pitch climb you'll save a lot of time.
Zander

pud

climber

Sportbikeville

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:13am PT

This is a two point anchor prone to shockload that would easily cause complete anchor failure.

Jim E

climber

away

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:16am PT

pud, Shock loading is a myth.

pud

climber

Sportbikeville

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:47am PT

pud, Shock loading is a myth.

Right, sorry, I forgot where I was for a minute. Carry on.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:55am PT

Keep it simple, keep it fast don't "always" do it a certain way. Use the terrain, minimalism is the key.

climber

Mar 10, 2010 - 11:41am PT

I'm with Donini. And it takes a keen awareness of your surroundings and what will work best/most efficient for the given situation. A few quick wraps (a no-knot) of the rope around a stable and stout block (sans edges) is much faster/more efficient than futzing around finding gear placements...

Jim E

climber

away

Mar 10, 2010 - 11:51am PT

Right, sorry, I forgot where I was for a minute. Carry on.

I don't really know what that means but... yeah... seriously, shock loading does not occur when pieces of an anchor blow. At least not in the way term/myth implies.

There is no multiplying of forces on the remaining pieces but rather a transfer of the remaining force to the remaining pieces. The initial impact on the anchor is reduced by the the rope and when/if a piece blows there is further reduction.

edit: yeah, i agree with donini

crackfiend

climber

Springdale, Utah

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:00pm PT

Yeah agreed keep it simple.

Chiloes anchor is one I commonly see and it is clear people dont really understand the forces involved. First this anchor is NOT equalized. Your two good cams are getting 25% each and that little shitty nut is getting 50% of the load. I would probably feel much safer if the nut was not even in the anchor and you just used the good cams. As we have discussed before equalization is an elusive concept but load distribution is not. Sorry for the drift but it bugs me to see stuff people post on the internet without a complete understanding of what they are saying to others, especially new climbers.

Donnini nailed it when he said circumstanced dictate more than anything of how to build an anchor. I will usually have a cordo if I know I will be replacing rap anchors and probablly use this for my anchors. The rope doesnt work well at all if you are not swinging leads with your partner as you build yourself into it. Slings are very easy, versatile, and have more than the singular use of building anchors.

EdBannister

Mountain climber

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:08pm PT

Simpler is usually better.
If for no other reason than a simple system is easier to check.
Anticipation of the direction of pull, and not getting pulled off of something are more important that what you are tied in with, but, if there is any chance of lateral motion, use your rope! The stuff seems never to break, but webbing is very easy to cut under load...

as for "escape" there are options like don't put yourself in the chain in the first place...
and there is time as a factor, Two good bolts at the belay? tie a Bowline with two loops, clip em, 7 seconds.

Edit: Pate, not usually a good idea to show how to do it wrong, when the uninitiated might not realize that you are showing how to do it wrong.

guyman

Trad climber

Moorpark, CA.

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:21pm PT

I am with Donini...... No hard n fast rules.

I usually tie in with the rope, and I don't have difficulty bringing up a second and using the rope to tie them in. It's not rocket science.

I always laugh when I see somebody spending 20 min with multiple cordaletts (sp) equalizing a bolted anchor. Stupid and lame IMHO.

And as far as "escaping the belay".

I have never needed to do that. Have you?

tolman_paul

Trad climber

Anchorage, AK

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:23pm PT

I guess I'm old school, but I like to have as many options as possible, and build my anchor according the situation. I almost never belay off of the anchor, I belay off of my harness. If I'm in easy terrain and want to move quickly I'll likely just clove hitch the rope off of two solid pieces, quickly put my second on belay and get on with it. I'll even use a hip belay on easy terrain if I have a fast partner, because I've never been able to move rope fast enough through a belay device with a fast second, but I can move rope quickly with a hip belay.

No wonder people take so long to climb multipitch routes if they are doing a triplicate, quadlicate escape the belay anchor, every pitch. Having the skills to move quickly and efficiently are much safer then being benighted by bumbliness.

If you have alot of slack in the system and belay off the anchor, the second falling will put a much bigger load on the anchor then if you are keeping the belay taught, belay off your harness, and a fall is caught by you, not the anchor.

cleo

Social climber

Berkeley, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:51pm PT

Rope anchors can be set up very quickly... but ditto about having to switch leads.

nutjob

Trad climber

Berkeley, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 12:52pm PT

I mostly use double ropes, and clove hitch directly to the pieces, in serial if I can get more than 2 placements. Usually don't clip both strands to the same piece.

If the individual placements are shaky, and I have a decent stance, I'll belay off my harness to absorb the load of follower. If anchor is shaky because I ran out of the right size pieces, I'll shore it up when the follower arrives with gear, before they launch off on the next lead.

If the anchor pieces are good, I'll put an extra 'biner for each rope as a directional and back down to my harness ATC, so I have a top-rope effect using my body weight to suck in the slack when the follower climbs up to me (rather than pulling up against gravity with my arms and belaying straight off my harness ATC. This makes a huge difference for me to fend off arm flame-out on all-day climbs. I just rock back and forth at the belay stance using my core muscles to pull in slack.

Often when I try to set up anchors the official preferred way, I jack around wasting time, end up with a power point below my center of gravity so I can't use the stance and comfortably belay, etc. When I catch myself in that little cycle I say F it and go back to serial clove hitches. Sometimes I do hybrid with sliding X's on a few weak pieces close together as sub-points for the serial clove hitches, etc. Whatever is fast and good enough to keep things from blowing out.

DanaB

climber

Philadelphia

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:04pm PT

Chiloe's anchor may not be equalized, but that consideration is far down the list.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:29pm PT

I only use the rope when I need something long to get around a block or something or I've run out of slings. I just like the idea of a stand alone anchor for leading in blocks or escaping the belay. Being able to escape the belay is like wearing a seat belt or a helmet, it's cheap insurance, you might never need it but when you do you'll be happy.

The rope has much better shock absorbtion than slings/cords though.

I use a pretied slidingX with limiter knots on two good pieces 95% of the time. Faster than anything including 2 clove hitches with the rope, and gives a nice powerpoint.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber

San Francisco, Ca

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:45pm PT

Fatty- other failures I've heard of were on the DNB and in the Sandias.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:47pm PT

Fatty and I have found an area where we are in complete agreement.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:48pm PT

It is so situation-dependent that there are no universal rules, and it's futile to seek them. I very often tie in directly with the rope. Simpler, faster, uses less gear, usually no shortage of rope. But sometimes I don't.

It's a bit like those endless threads on equalizing anchors. Sometimes important, often nearly irrelevant. As long as the anchors are solid and you're tied to them, exactly how you're tied to them is less important.

The supposedly perfect in these situations is often the enemy of the good, and the practical. It may be perfect on paper, and perhaps even in reality. But if takes an hour to set up, half your rack, and ten years' experience, other factors intrude. KISS.

And I sometimes belay off my harness, sometimes through the anchors or a directional. Depends on the situation and needs. Adaptability counts.

Prod

Trad climber

Dodge Sprinter Dreaming

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:53pm PT

How many of you belay from your harness and then the first clip is the anchor, and how many of you belay from the anchor?

And why do you do one or the other?

Depends, Mostly I belay off of my harness though. Every now and then I'll put the second on the anchor if the anchor is situated above my shoulders. I just like that setup with a reversoIII.

I don't think I have ever belayed a leader off of an anchor? Does anybody do that?

Prod.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Mar 10, 2010 - 01:59pm PT

It is so situation-dependent that there are no universal rules

Quite so, as Donini and others also said.

Regarding that 3-piece anchor in my photo upthread, we could have a discussion here about equalization and shock loading in theory, perhaps devolving into one of those sessions where people photograph rigs on their floor at home. Jim's tests trump at least one part of that discussion, IMO.

But my conversation with myself on the cliff involved some things that aren't in the photo, or my living room. Not just the relative quality of each piece but also the direction, difficulty and protection opportunities I could see on the next pitch.

AndyG

climber

San Diego, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 02:03pm PT

Pate,

If you have used the rope in the anchor and are then leading the next pitch there is no need to rebuild the anchor to get your end out of the anchor. Just switch rope ends with your second. That way you don't need to re-flake the rope either. (obviously tie in with something else temporarily while switching rope ends.)

aa-lex

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 10, 2010 - 02:05pm PT

Sweet thanks for all the replies guys! I like ec and donini's responses - keep it simple and don't always do it one way. I guess that was my reason for asking about using the rope. Having less things means simpler to me. Though the cordolette is not really any weight. I suppose I'll continue to carry the cordolette yet begin using rope anchors and see where that takes me.

As far as belay - I usually belay off the anchor when the follower's coming up and switch it to off of me when they start leading.

aa-lex

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 10, 2010 - 02:11pm PT

thanks coz but i don't need a guide. not worried about my anchoring skills. just wanna know about using the rope as it is the one thing i've never employed in my climbing experience and it seems worthy of discussing.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber

San Francisco, Ca

Mar 10, 2010 - 02:27pm PT

There is always this...

http://supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=473233&msg=473249#msg473249

Fast!

mongrel

Trad climber

Truckee, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 02:29pm PT

Thread drift to shock loading (myth or reality?). It seems to me that the empirical evidence of some multi-piece anchors having failed fatally is enough data for me to believe that bad consequences are a very real possibility from shock loading. I'd love to see some physicists or people in the rope biz post up here, but here's my understanding: When a falling climber comes to the end of the slack in the rope, the rope's maximum impact force is not attained instantaneously, but gradually (albeit quickly). Then it decreases again down to the static load of the climber's weight. I bet someone can find a printout curve to post (or link to). So, if the anchor remains intact, all pieces experience the same shape of force curve (with the magnitude divided by the number of pieces with minor correction for the vectors of the equalette). In a non-equalized or sliding X situation where one piece fails during the force upload, the climbing rope is now up into the high part of the impact force curve which is near-instantaneously transferred to the remaining piece, potentially initiating failure. Anyone who has shoved around heavy boxes or rocks for construction knows that it's usually harder to get the thing moving than to keep it in motion. So it's easy to picture a practical scenario under which the sudden transfer of already-high impact force to a piece (first there's a moderate force, then momentary total release, then very sudden high force) can lead to disaster. And, to say again, it has happened in the real climbing world - doesn't sound mythical to me. I'm open to correction on this, anyone more knowledgeable about the applied physics of climbing ropes care to educate us?

tolman_paul

Trad climber

Anchorage, AK

Mar 10, 2010 - 02:38pm PT

As far as it being more difficult to get a body to move vs. keeping it moving, that's the difference between static friction and dynamic (or kinetic) friction.

The force of impact is a function of the mass times the acceleration, i.e. f=ma. The amount of force that impacts the anchor is related to rate at which the force is aplied. If the impact is accelerated more slowly, then less force is applied.

Unfortunately it is typically extremely difficult to analise what caused and anchor failure as all you have is gear that pulled at the base of a route. How were the anchors loaded, what direction was the force appied to the anchors, what other factors contributed to the failure.

scuffy b

climber

Where only the cracks are dry

Mar 10, 2010 - 02:45pm PT

Empirical evidence of multi-piece anchors failing does not, in fact, say
anything about shock loading.
All it says is that none of the pieces that failed was particularly great.

Clint Cummins

Trad climber

SF Bay area, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 03:04pm PT

> I'd just like to add that when you're doing all the leading,
> using the lead rope to tie an anchor is not an option.
> Obvious, but something I've forgotten while in the act.
> Not much fun re-building the anchor and switching over to
> the new one in order to extricate yourself.

Actually, you can swap people at the anchor without much hassle.

1. Fast way: follower puts you on belay (your belay of them is tied off). Unclove your rope from the first anchor piece, clove them in. Repeat for the other pieces.
2. Slower way: clip a free biner into each piece where you are cloved.
Clove your follower into the free biners. They put you on belay, then you unclove from the biners you were in and take those biners.

I never use a cordellete or a daisy. Often my partner uses a daisy; they can daisy in to one piece and clove to another.

Morgan

Trad climber

East Coast

Mar 10, 2010 - 03:20pm PT

Block leading using the rope as an anchor does not seem that problematic on a typical multi-pitch sport climb with bomber two-bolt belay anchors. If you don't want to switch ends of the rope, the leader clips two carabiners into each bolt and clove hitches or whatever into the bottom two biners. When the second comes up the rope closest to him can be anchored the same way into the top two carabiners. When the leader is on belay again, she unclips from the bottom two carabiners and takes them along. In terms of managing the rope, the leader lap coils it starting with smaller loops going to bigger loops. When the second is anchored securely, do the "pancake flop" onto the 2nd's tie-in. Now the small loops are on top of the bigger loops and the rope is ready to feed.

bmacd

Trad climber

Beautiful, BC

Mar 10, 2010 - 03:24pm PT

Sliding x's always worked for me. So has building anchors with the lead rope, which is all I have ever done. Cordalettes are certainly not failsafe, and good for only one specific direction of pull, good for walls, but ... other routes require other solutions for speed and safety IMHO.

Make your body part of the belay station load dynamics, because at some point in your climbing career that may be the only part, or the best part of the belay station.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Mar 10, 2010 - 03:45pm PT

don't always do it one way
It's good to have multiple tools in your bag of tricks, but I find it's faster and probably more fool proof to stick with one method most of the time.

I also think what works for some might not work the best for you. Find what you like the best after trying the different options.

le_bruce

climber

Oakland: what's not to love?

Mar 10, 2010 - 04:27pm PT

Chiloe, don't sweat the criticism of your anchor and don't fall into the trap of defending it here. Any picture of any anchor in a climbing forum always brings out the 'experts' and their opinions.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Mar 10, 2010 - 04:35pm PT

On the back of my harness, I keep a sling that has two, very light, locking biners on it and I usualy I have an additional two very light locking biners.

For a two bolt belay, not leading in blocks, I would clip in to one bolt with the locking sling and clove hitch the rope to the other bolt with a free locking biner, and cinch it up if I want to hang/lean against the anchor. If the bolts were too high to clip in straight with a sling, I would probably clove hitch the rope (in series) to the bolts.

For leading in blocks, I would first clip the two lockers to the bolts and then clip into the lockers. That way, when my partner gets to the belay, he can clip into the lockers and I can still easily unclip. Essentially, the light lockers become oversized bolt hangers. For leading in blocks, we flip the rope. Even at an awkward belay where the rope is flaked over a sling, we have gotten good enough to flip it without having problems during the next lead.

For a natural anchor where each piece is very good, I would directly sling into one piece and clove hitch the rope to the other two. Modifying it as needed for less bomber pro and block leads.

I belay off the harness unless rope management makes it easier to belay off the anchor.

I expect to go my whole climbing career without ever having to escape the belay. If it ever comes up, I will take the micro knife that I always climb with, and spend 10 seconds or so cutting myself free.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Mar 10, 2010 - 04:38pm PT

Yer right of course. If the anchor looks funny, good or bad, sometimes I'll shoot it. Here are a couple where the leader finished the pitch with nothing left but the rope and one locker:

Or just the rope, one biner and a sling:

guyman

Trad climber

Moorpark, CA.

Mar 10, 2010 - 04:46pm PT

I think it is very important to load cams with your body weight.

Kris Solem relayed this tragic story to me.

In the early to mid eighties, in the white Mts of NY, a complete anchor failure occurred.

It was a two person party, the belay was on a good ledge. The pro was 3 cams (friends 1-2 size) in a parallel crack, running vertically. The next pitch involved some 5.8 OW ,very steep, going directly above the belay with zero pro for about 25 feet.

When the bodies were examined, they figured out that the belayer was standing on the ledge, clipped into the anchor with slings and belaying off his harness with a stich plate. The slings were sort of long-- to long to have been under his body weight. The leader had climbed about 20 feet and placed no protection when he fell. So now you have a 40 footer on to the belay, it must have created some huge forces. The cams pulled right out! Kris says he looked at the little scratch marks the cams created as they blew.

I always remember this tale. When I am setting up I put my weight on the anchor cams so the lobes are tight.

I always remember the two poor fellows who pulled a cam anchor and went south on Taquitz, I forget the climb, super pooper? I have never read any good explanation for that one.

And I never belay off of the anchor, looks pretty sketchy to me, always off of my harness.

mongrel

Trad climber

Truckee, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 04:56pm PT

Pate and Jim E: Then please explain WHY it's a myth so the rest of us can understand and be enlightened and stop perpetuating that myth. But the explanation needs to make sense. The verbiage quoted just above says, "...when/if a piece blows there is further reduction."...[implication: of the "initial impact on the anchor"] Wait, so when pieces blow there's LESS force on the remaining piece or pieces? That doesn't sound right, so I'm misinterpreting something. Otherwise, something must have accelerated (or work been done) for that to be the case.

I'd be happy to be pried loose from the shock-load myth, but just being told it's a myth isn't quite enough info. It's natural enough to want to hear a little more explanation (or else I wanna know who Jim E works for and buy some other brand of rope!). Just kidding, but I would like to hear more.

Jim E

climber

away

Mar 10, 2010 - 05:03pm PT

mongrel,
I'll take a look around for the data I gathered during the anchor work for Long's book. I'm about done for the day so won't be able to look for it until tomorrow... even then I may not have time but will try.
One of my lab computers was DOA when we moved to a new facility a few years ago, I'm hoping the data wasn't in that one. I might have hard data kicking around, too.

aa-lex

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 10, 2010 - 05:05pm PT

Just curious why some people feel belaying off the anchor is sketchy. Seems like if the anchor is bomber, then why would it be an issue. If the anchor is suspect and it's really important to absorb some energy using my body then it would help to belay off myself but I feel like an auto blocked anchor belay off a great anchor is a good way to belay.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Mar 10, 2010 - 05:09pm PT

Well, we seemed to be doomed to reiterate on this subject (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that). Before beginning, I feel obliged to defend against what I think is a fallacious criticism: that all this complication slows things down to a crawl. Personally, I'm not arguing for complicated set-ups; I have no interest in the various "olettes" that have been proposed. But I reject the contention that somehow knowing and understanding a lot is bad. Knowledge gives you options, and it enables you to make informed choices about the risks you are undertaking.

Stats on anchor failure: I've never seen anything official. In fifty years of climbing, I've heard of a few more than five, so maybe one every eight years or so. Not very likely, but of course when it happens you don't want it to be you or anyone you know. Remember that the unlikelihood of anchor failure is confounded with the unlikelihood of leader falls directly onto the anchor; we surely have no idea of what the anchor failure rate is.

Although not mentioned much yet, I think even the most dedicated rope-anchorers agree that when you get on a wall and have all kinds of crap hanging from your anchor, a cordelette and its master point are the way to go.

For cragging and mostly free climbs, even long ones, I just use the rope unless I am in some kind of "guiding" mode in which I'm doing all the leading and my partner is not an equal, in which case a cordelette seems advantageous.

As for myths, the real myth is equalization. Even various sliding systems are hindered, perhaps decisively, by friction. Equalizing two pieces with a sliding thing and clipping directly to a third is not going to equalize any better, on average, than some equivalent fixed-leg setup. The convenience of rigging might still be decisive in such a case, and such a set-up may, in some situations, cope better with forces that are not in the expected direction.

A second myth, unfortunately, is the rapidly propagating myth that shock-loading is a myth. Of course, shock-loading is an undefined term, but what people typically mean is that extension in an anchor doesn't matter, and they cite the Sterling tests quoted by Largo. Unfortunately, the implementation of those tests was flawed---their negative conclusion was predictable ahead of time---and they actually shed no light on the real issue. Here are some things I think it safe to assert:

(1) In principle, anchor extension could be catastrophic.

(2) How serious it is in practice will depend, I believe, roughly on the ratio of anchor extension to belayer tie-in length (at least if the anchor has been constructed from relatively static materials). This is an H/L ratio for fall arrests by climbing ropes, and if it is big (i.e. short tie-in compared to anchor extension, then I'll go out on a fairly sturdy limb and claim that high anchor loads are guaranteed.

The reason this wasn't detected in the Sterling tests is that they were set up in such a way that the relevant ratio was very small, perhaps in part because there was no weight in the test playing the role of the belayer. (*)

What does this mean practically? I'd say that if your belay anchor includes potentially extending components, then you should try to rig the longest (rope!) tie-in your stance will accommodate. This is all situational, as is everything in climbing, but it is easy to think about and easy to implement if the opportunity exists.

By the way, connecting yourself to an anchor rigged with static material by way of some sort of tether rather than the rope means that you will be applying the largest possible load to the anchor if a bad situation happens. Given the speed with which one can tie in with the rope itself, I find it hard to imagine that tethering-in the belayer could ever be a very intelligent idea, even in the context of a speed ascent.

Most of the time, the ultimate security of the belay anchor is a hypothetical consideration that will never be tested. But if you are forced to build a belay anchor with pieces that are not highly reliable---surely the best example is an anchor built with small cams, and I'll leave the definition of "small" to the reader but would propose sub-purple camalot size---then I think the best thing to attempt is a four-piece doubly-equalized anchor (2 sliding X's or equivalent equalized with a sliding X). You can make one of these easily and very quickly, although using up six carabiners in addition to the powerpoint locker might be a high price to pay. This set-up has the best chance of equalizing the load and so keeping everything in place. I wouldn't use a three-point anchor with questionable gear because I don't think there is any decent way to rig one that isn't likely to put half the total load on one of the anchor pieces.

Ok, I've gone on for too long now. Time to go home.

-----------------------------------------

(*) I hope these comments are not taken as criticism of those who gave freely of their time and efforts. I'm only saying, in retrospect, that the tests don't actually test the belay-anchor scenarios that matter. I should add further that I read an advance copy of Largo's text and did not spot this problem at the time, so any inferred criticism falls on my shoulders as much as on anyone elses.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Mar 10, 2010 - 05:12pm PT

What's that knot at the bottom on the left side of the second anchor Chiloe?

Just a loosely-tied overhand knot. I tend to use overhands in anchor setups too, for tying into a piece that is out of line with the main direction of pull. The overhand loop serves like a runner out to the side piece, but its knot should have the fine properties of a Euro Death Knot if pulled directly. (But only if tied properly, of course.)

Really, I make up each anchor on the spot. There's a time and a place where this made perfect sense:

Morgan

Trad climber

East Coast

Mar 10, 2010 - 06:58pm PT

Anchor Force Continuum (belaying the second)

I've always understood the following:

When the anchors are sketchy, don't redirect the belay off the anchors, belay off the harness.

Direct belay off the anchor. It's strong because the anchor only has to absorb the force of the second in the event of a fall. If it's a sling belay the leader's weight may already be on the anchor.

Redirected belay. This is ideal if the second is following a traverse and convenient when swinging leads. Some good shock absorbing because the leader can often move slightly upward toward the anchor. A redirected belay puts more force on the anchor because it bears the weight of both the second and the belayer.

For belaying the leader, it seems the redirected belay is the belay of choice, even though the direct belay is popular in Europe. By definition, anything else is a factor 2.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Mar 10, 2010 - 07:29pm PT

I think I might have looked at the entire subject of anchors about as much as anyone else out there. In reading 1,000s of pages of shite and writing two books on the subject, a few of my final conclusions are:

If you want totally bombproof anchors, you must stick with good rock.

Concentrate on setting solid primary placements, the actual nuts, cams and so forth in the anchor array. If two or more primary placements are bomber, the chances of the anchor failing approach zero.

Avoid rigging systems that feature the possiblity for huge extension. The value of equalization (never fully achieved) is usually overstated.

Understand about direction of pull/loading, and basic force vectors, and learn basic ways to safeguard against them.

Rig the anchor with the simpliest system possible, using as much nylon rigging gear (the rope) as is realistic.

Elaborate rigging systems (various "olette" arrays) are very rarely needed and often waste time. However, in extreme cases, these systems might be life savers, ergo they are worth knowing. 99% of the discussions per belay anchors are germane to about 1% of anchors you will encounter out there, when the primary placements are VERY poor and various SRENE and tricky rigging strategies are called on.

Anchors built in horizontal cracks are more likely to fail than those built in vertical cracks. A consideration.

Belay anchors rarely fail, not because climbers do such an outstanding job of anchor building, rather because true, factor 2 falls, or significant falls directly onto the belay anchor (other than slab skidders) are VERY infrequent.

Questionably, the most important single piece in the entire roped belay system is the "Jesus Nut," the first piece of pro off the belay. If Jesus is solid, the chance for sudden anchor failure is remote providing you have at least one decent primary placement.

Much of the concern about belay devices and where to put them and how to clip them off and to what and wherefore and how come - this is pretty much overstated since the old hip belays so rarely failed. They also provided another dynamic link in the anchor chain and while seeminly less reliable than modern techniques, they were in some cases more secure.

If you frequently climb where you anchor of to two side by side bolts (classic sport anchors), always carry a pre-rigged "Quad" and rig the anchor with this and this alone. Almost perfect equalization, super strength, instant and simple to rig, and super light and low profile.

Climb long enough and you'll likely run into the rare situation where you're not sure if the belay anchor can withstand a significant fall. You'll also run into routes where you're unsure if you can crank unprotected climbing directly off the belay. Do NOT, under any circumstances, try your luck with the previous two scenarios AT THE SAME TIME.

Put differently, if the anchor is sh#t, carry on only if you KNOW you can make it (and how can you?), and if a fall seems likely directly off the belay, make sure the anchor/protection/Jesus Nut is bomber. If the anchor is sh#t and you don't know if you can crank the climbing just above, your're truly "all in."

JL

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Mar 10, 2010 - 08:24pm PT

The problem I have with the "Jesus Nut" is they always vote Republican.

pud

climber

Sportbikeville

Mar 10, 2010 - 08:27pm PT

I was hoping you'd put in your $.02 John.
Your knowledge on this subject taught me alot about things I thought I knew.
-w

tolman_paul

Trad climber

Anchorage, AK

Mar 10, 2010 - 08:30pm PT

As to benefits of belaying off the harness vs. the anchor:

1) I have never been able to move rope as quickly and smoothly from a remote located belay device as I do when the belay device is right in front of me. You say so what, jerk, jerk, jerk, I'll catch up the second eventually. If you're not keeping up to your second, if he falls, he will generate a greater force with slack in the system then if the rope is taught, and that fall is directly on the anchor.

2) Adding stretch and give to the system is better than having a rigid system. Some of the force of the fall will be absorbed by the belayers bodie before forces are transmitted to the anchor.

3) Call me somewhat paranoid, but I prefer to put as little loading as possible on gear. You never know how good an anchor is until you load it, and for belay stances where the belayer will be able to catch a fall w/o loading the anchor, that's a good thing.

4) It's how I learned how to do it, it's how I've always done it, and sticking with systems and techniques you are familiar with is generally the best way to go. Add fatigue and changing weather into the equation, and you have added more potential for problems.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:04pm PT

Avoid rigging systems that feature the possiblity for huge extension

OK, so I've climbed a long time, rigged many anchors and understand the physics of them (I'm a mechanical engineer). I've read Largo's book on anchors a few times.
I'm unfamiliar with the word "extension" used in two posts. Did I miss it in Largo's book?
I can guess what it means but will someone state what is meant?

Very useful discussion.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:25pm PT

Thanks a lot. That's what I was guessing. And you show two very good examples.

When 1 piece of an equalized sliding anchor fails, the remaining anchor rigging will "extend" the anchor until the second piece is loaded.

So in some cases a cordalette rig has advantages, depending on the direction of load. If the load results in almost equal distance to the two anchors, when the taut one fails the extension will only be a few inches before the second is loaded. This results in a very small increase in kinetic energy from the extension. And the first anchor failure will have absorbed some kinetic energy. A sliding anchor point may have much greater extension and kinetic energy increase before the second anchor is truly loaded.

I believe every anchor has to be setup with consideration for all factors. There is no one easy solution. As John points out in his post and his book.
More than once, I've modified an anchor after my second has come up and I've been thinking things through while he's climbing. The fall dynamics may be completely different for the leader. Yeah, I should have worked it out before belaying the second but sometimes looking at the situation makes new possibilities apparent.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:29pm PT

I have never been able to move rope as quickly and smoothly from a remote located belay device as I do when the belay device is right in front of me.

I agree with this one completely. I've tried belaying off the anchor and it almost always seems awkward and unsafe. Even tried the newfangled belay devices made for that purpose. If it's attached to your belay loop, it can't get away from you.

[...]Some of the force of the fall will be absorbed by the belayers bodie before forces are transmitted to the anchor.

A good idea, just be sure the force through the body is very limited. Under the right circumstances, falls can generate thousands of pounds of force. You definitely don't want that kind of energy going through your spine. A good system should use the rope as the primary shock absorber.

I prefer to put as little loading as possible on gear. You never know how good an anchor is until you load it

I think the one of the goals in learning to build anchors is to know how to recognize how good an anchor is, or at least how to know that it's good enough. I don't claim to be the expert here, but I that's my goal in the learning process. In my view, a "good" anchor is one where we can be confident that the gear will do it's job.

mongrel

Trad climber

Truckee, CA

Mar 10, 2010 - 10:33pm PT

Largo strikes again with a superb summary of the whole deal, and even brings the thread drift back to the OP: yes, tying into the anchor with the rope is recommended, basically.

And sometimes, just don't frickin' fall.

Tomcat

Trad climber

Chatham N.H.

Mar 11, 2010 - 08:43am PT

Personally,I don't think anyone in the history of the sport has contributed as much to rope and anchor knowledge as Jim E..

One reason these discussions tend to go a bit awry is that we don't start out defining how we climb.Tradchick and I do 95% of our climbing on doubles.Doubles,or twins,in my opinion,put the final nail in the cordelette coffin,if you can't get a pretty well equalized,quick,efficient safe anchor together with two ropes and no cordelette,give up.I'd consider carrying a lette if I climbed multi pitch trad on a single,but that's about it.

It seems like a lot of the excitement about cordelettes comes from the guiding industry,which has an overwhelming emphasis on escaping the belay,and belaying directly off the anchors.I think rgold has stated what I will too,in thirty years of climbing,rock,ice,sport,trad,you name it,I've never had to escape a belay,but many times have had to settle for less than perfect anchors,where I was glad to use my body to absorb some of the load.

I'm not saying I will never have to do a belay escape,but will say the practiced scenarios won't always apply.Better to have a brain than a fixed procedure.

Your biggest risk,in my opinion,in a FF2 incident will revolve,quite literally,around the type of belay device you employ.If you don't know what I mean,find out.The Jesus nut is,as Largo states,the best thing going.At times where it's tough right off the belay,I'll belay lower than others,and use the anchor for Jesus.Other times I'll start up the next pitch,place a piece,and climb back down to the belay.

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Mar 11, 2010 - 08:44am PT

Am i missing something all these years or is there some majick rope trick that allows you to lead in blocks and still use the rope as the anchor?

Tomcat

Trad climber

Chatham N.H.

Mar 11, 2010 - 08:47am PT

Dunno about majick Nick,but we just clip the anchor pieces with draws.I put myself into the top biners,she the lower,by passing the cloves beneath,I take myself out of the tops,and awf I goes....

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Mar 11, 2010 - 10:13am PT

he type of belay device you employ.If you don't know what I mean,find out.

I'm curious about this.

The gear reviews here on ST don't suggest that there are any devices that would fail to catch a serious fall.

Is there some characteristic of belay devices that is not being adequately covered in the analysis?

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:34am PT

Tom, when Isa does this she is usualy clove hitched into a bunch of gear, I get up there, take one look at the next pitch, pull a total chicken move and try to talk her into takeing the lead and she gets pissed because its going to be such a PINTA to switch the belay arround and restack the ropes..

When I know that I will be doing all the leading I have a super slick set up with a pre tied 4ft nylon runner that I use to make the transition super smooth.

Tomcat

Trad climber

Chatham N.H.

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:43am PT

LOL Nick !! I generally just use two cloves,if it's three or four pieces,I connect them individually with slings and biners.If sketch,sliding X.

I hope you are booting the Cannon thread Nick!

dktem. Tube type belay devices require what I'll call bend around on the brake side to work.Imagine your right hand is brake side,your portly mate whips above you with nothing in and passes you to the right,you are jerked around and now facing downhill,and your bend back is gone.

scuffy b

climber

Where only the cracks are dry

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:45am PT

dktem:
belay devices.
"being able to catch a serious fall" has some range to it.
A hard fall onto an ATC on a 9.5mm rope is going to be a caught a lot
more softly than one onto a GriGri.
Some rope will move through the ATC. The fall will be caught. The loads
will be different.

Gilwad

climber

Frozen In Somewhere

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:51am PT

http://gravsports.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-tricks-for-speed-on-multi-pitch.html

This is getting to be pretty standard on ice, all rope for rigging the anchor, fast switch. On rock, if you're using a vertical crack, it's even simpler as you can put as many biners through each anchor point as you like to switch leaders or whatever. It's a little more complicated for a horizontal rock anchor, but same basic idea with a sling thrown into the mix to make things a bit more easy for belaying the second. There is no one system that always works, you gotta be inventive and actually understand what might happen.

I rarely belay the second with anything but an autoblock of one kind or another directly off the belay. It's funny how long that has taken to catch on in the US, it's been standard in most of western Europe for a long time.

I'd trust Jim E.'s data. He's a climber, is thinking about this stuff all the time and testing it. There have been some other tests that don't agree with Jim's data, but they had flaws too. Look at it all, try to understand the limitations, be very sure at least one and hopefully two or three pieces are "Jesus" bomber (Jesus as a metaphor only, there are some obvious issues with putting your faith solely in Jesus while climbing).

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:56am PT

From the Sticht to the ATC Guide and in between.
All of the "tube" devices have a basic principle: When loaded, the tube is pulled against the biner by the bight of the rope leading to the belay hand. This puts high friction on the rope. As scuffy says, the rope may pay a short distance through the device until caught, but this significantly reduces the impact energy (peak force) on the anchors or belayer.
A locking device like a GriGri doesn't reduce the impact energy as much.
The stretch in the rope is the main energy absorber unless the climber is close to the belay device. Hence fall factor.

Of course if the belay hand is not pulling the rope into a bight around the tube there's much less friction between the rope and tube. So the direction of forces may be more critical with a tube than a GriGri type.

As others have said. No rules, just think about all the major factors. While its raining in the dark after a dozen pitches.

Tomcat

Trad climber

Chatham N.H.

Mar 11, 2010 - 11:57am PT

Exactly.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Mar 11, 2010 - 12:12pm PT

Am i missing something all these years or is there some majick rope trick that allows you to lead in blocks and still use the rope as the anchor?

I flip the rope. So even if leading in blocks, I never untie from the rope. Even at a hanging belay.

At first, I would occasionally get tangles from this approach. But my partner and I have it pretty dialed. When you tie in and stack the rope, you have to pay attention to how things are going to work when you leave the belay (and which direction you leave versus where your partner is going to be standing and clipped in, etc.)

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Mar 11, 2010 - 12:23pm PT

August i know how to manage the ropes. just never seen an anchor built with only the climbing rope that allowed for the leader to secure the 2nd and then easily start leading again without the need to change things in the anchor.

bkalaska

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Mar 11, 2010 - 12:26pm PT

Chiloe- I'd think about using that if I tied a knot so a failure of a cam wouldn't put all the weight on the nut (and swing unto it at that).

Pate- I love that there is a sliding x for safety on that death triangle:) (You know... just to be safe)

Prod

Trad climber

Dodge Sprinter Dreaming

Mar 11, 2010 - 03:00pm PT

Anchors built in horizontal cracks are more likely to fail than those built in vertical cracks. A consideration.

Why is this the case?

Prod.

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Mar 11, 2010 - 03:24pm PT

Because if you are on cannon, the block forming the bottom half of the horozontal crack is likly to fall off the cliff rendering your horozonttal crack no longer a crack.....