Do you belay off the anchor?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 75 of total 75 in this topic

Tattooed 1

Trad climber

Sebastopol, Ca

Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 12, 2010 - 10:00pm PT

I have always belayed both leader and follower off of my harness. I recently puchased a Petzl Reverso belay device that can be used to belay in auto-block mode directly off the anchor. Curious how many people belay off the anchor and what is the advantage? I tried it last weekend and it didn't make my life any easier. Any comments?
Tim

labrat

Trad climber

Nevada City, CA

Jul 12, 2010 - 10:05pm PT

I mostly do. It depends on the anchor and how I can get it set up. Make sure you know how to lower it safely under load!
Erik

waulrat

Big Wall climber

Santa Rosa, CA

Jul 12, 2010 - 10:12pm PT

I'm guessing you mean belaying the leader, or top belaying the follower (not a TR). I have always belayed off the anchor. I use my grigri though, I like the idea of the climbers weight being transfered directly to the anchor in the even of a fall, leading or following. I also like it because in the event something goes wrong, (like if the climber is injured or something)I can lock them off without having to switch the belay location. Luckily that hasn't happened so its purely speculation.

PS...we should go climb!

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Jul 12, 2010 - 10:13pm PT

NEVER!

And being belayed off of a Reverso is not a pleasant experience.

If you are leading you are constantly short roped

If you are following you always are dealing with slack around your feet.

Few can use these things effectively and they are just one more unnecessary complication.

Tattooed 1

Trad climber

Sebastopol, Ca

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2010 - 10:26pm PT

Belaying the follower seemed pretty straight forward but I thought it would be quite cumbersome to belay the leader with the device clipped directly to the anchor. I like the thought of being able to tie off the climber in a rescue situation but in general it seemed like a pain in the ass. Maybe I just need a some instruction from someone that does it regularly.
Tim

Peter Haan

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Jul 12, 2010 - 10:46pm PT

Oh, it all works pretty well belaying with a device off the anchor and as well, off your harness--- either way. The issues are deeper however. Escaping the belay when something bad happens is quite a bit easier if you have been belaying from the anchors. Having the weight of the climber on your waist is obviously a problem. But loading the anchors first thing is a challenge as well, perhaps one that could be fatal. Implicit was the idea of having the anchors but not necessarily bringing them into play right away. This way you had multiple systems going in your favor.

Back in the day, we did not belay off our anchors for the most part; it was considered a bit too direct back then. I am speaking of the sixties and a tiny bit later. The idea was to keep functional, the "Dynamic Belay", using the waist with all its squishiness to absorb dynamic forces and general weight of the belayer BEFORE the anchors might actually be loaded----let the waist (and the body) do a bunch of work before the anchors ever find out about it. This way, perhaps the anchors would remain intact and useful (unchallenged) while the body of the belayer would do all this work. And it was basically a valid view on the protocol. It was a duplex system.

However, and well before the widespread use of belay devices, we were in fact belaying more and more off of our anchors. This meant more and more---of course--- belays were becoming static, relying on the rope and system to do the absorption of those high KE forces. And so now today, a great deal of belaying is right off those anchor points. We have such amazing hardware now though and perhaps far greater awareness of its proximate use.

Rankin

climber

North Carolina

Jul 12, 2010 - 11:19pm PT

I've been belaying off of the anchor lately with a Reverso. I like it when it works out and I'm comfortable belaying without too much effort. Sometimes its not worth it, but when it work out, its sweet.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Jul 12, 2010 - 11:24pm PT

Usually, not always. Whatever you do regarding climbing, stay flexible.

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:00am PT

And being belayed off of a Reverso is not a pleasant experience.
If you are leading you are constantly short roped
If you are following you always are dealing with slack around your feet.
Few can use these things effectively and they are just one more unnecessary complication.

I have no idea who was belaying you, but if you suffered all the above problems, when thousands of other climbers use reversos without any issue, then I think you might want to find a different belayer.

Just sayin.

Edit to add: I don't like reversos because they don't grab the really skinny ropes I prefer to use, but on normal ropes they work fine for most people.

Further edit to answer the OP: Depends on the anchor.

apogee

climber

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:11am PT

What Ghost & donini said.

Belaying the second off the anchor works great, as long as you have the right device and good technique (no innuendo intended). I prefer belaying a lead from my harness...I'm able to provide a better belay that way.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:12am PT

there was a big 600 post thread on this,

or was it on which to clip first, something along those lines,

nutjob

Trad climber

Berkeley, CA

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:40am PT

I've often thought it's a good idea in theory, but in practice I suck too much to do it:
1. Usually the distances and angles of anchor pieces are such that it's awkward, and I get tired pulling at a weird angle or little short bits at a time.
2. I don't like to 100% rely on shock-loading my anchors, want the body to absorb it
3. I'm not as comfortable with that technique.

In theory I should keep some slings on my harness for prussicking, rap backups, and locking off the rope to escape the belay. In practice I often find myself at an anchor with almost nothing left, and no slings. Not good. Maybe this pause that refreshes will help me mend my ways.

I DO find myself using directionals more often in an anchor, so I can use my body weight to suck up slack and save my arms for climbing on a long day. Ironically, that puts 2x load on anchor vs belaying off the anchor, so my argument re: not shock-loading the anchor is lame for solid anchors (still valid for many sketchy anchors where I still go direct from waist).

All things considered, I still like directionals to use my bodyweight for sucking slack (and easier to lock off rope and escape belay), and if anchor is bad go off my waist.

karodrinker

Trad climber

San Jose, CA

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:46am PT

I belay the second often off the anchor through a mini traxion. Seems to work easy. Do others do this? Good practice?

Jaybro

Social climber

Wolf City, Wyoming

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:51am PT

No, I have though.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:54am PT

here is some good anchor stuff>

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/731822/Should-the-leader-clip-the-belay-anchor

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/307091/Equalizing-anchors

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:58am PT

I recently purchased a Petzl Reverso belay device that can be used to belay in auto-block mode directly off the anchor. Curious how many people belay off the anchor and what is the advantage?

I don't do so very often - it has a slight advantage when it comes to escaping the belay (rare), but seems somewhat inflexible. Another example of a perhaps unnecessarily specialized solution to a simple problem. A negative being the possibility of putting the belay device in backward, which I've seen once or twice.

It is entirely possible to 'escape' from a belay when tied into the anchors using the rope, it just takes a little more effort and thought. And it's rarely necessary. Tieing in directly with the rope should use less gear, and is intuitively obvious.

If a climb is pretty much straight up and down, and all the belay anchors are correctly placed bolts, then I can see why some would promote such a system. But many climbs aren't.

Captain...or Skully

Big Wall climber

Transporter Room 2

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:00am PT

I belay off the anchor a bunch, but I ain't never used no Reverso, man.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:04am PT

yeah, but can you flip your eyelids up when your stoned?

Captain...or Skully

Big Wall climber

Transporter Room 2

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:05am PT

Uh, well, no.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:08am PT

which is the answer,

uh ,well, or no?

hey look, it's Lance Armstrong at the Taco. rite on.

we still love ya Lance!

and screw landis, the punk,

i hate people who don't know when to shut up.

Mountain climber

there and back again

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:27am PT

Hi Tim,
I almost alway belay the second off the anchor with just an ATC. Is easy to completely lock it off with a slip knot and go hands free. So I don't use a Reverso or a Grigri.

I find it tricky to belay the leader that way though. So I put in through my harness. Its easier for me to feed the rope out and have more control. A lot of anchors are set up for a downward pull which is why its easier to belay the second and not the leader. If you secure the anchor for an upward pull its easier to lead belay off of it.

I hope this helps,
H

sac

Trad climber

spuzzum

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:36am PT

I'm thinkin' TGT don't like the friction involved w/ reverso (newest version)
on 10+mm ropes.
Understood. Yo tambien.
Anyway... I often climb w/ double ropes.(8-8.5mm)
Belaying (the second)off the anchor w/ reverso works very good IMO. (although, somewhat stance dependant.)
It's simply.... The BOMB!
yep.
A.

Trad climber

lg, ca

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:42am PT

Belay my follower off of the anchor with a cinch.

Belay my leader from my harness with an ATC (with the rope clipped into the highest anchor point when up a pitch or more).

lemonviolence

Trad climber

Monrovia, CA

Jul 13, 2010 - 02:13am PT

Depends on the situation. If I'm at a rather awkward hanging belay I'll use the anchor; Otherwise I usually stick to my belay loop.

pazzo

climber

Vancouver BC

Jul 13, 2010 - 02:14am PT

I usually always belay off the anchor with my Reverso³. It is very efficient and allows you to escape the belay if need be, and is very very nice when your second either falls or calls for tension.
In most situations, I can't see why one would waste time belaying the 'old school' way (off the harness) when the Reverso is so much nicer. Back before the original Reverso's came out I used to belay off my harness, and I always hated hanging onto the rope waiting for my partner to de-pump. Furthermore, it allows you to use your hands for other stuff, should you need to (**you are supposed to keep at least one hand on the rope).

DanaB

climber

Philadelphia

Jul 13, 2010 - 09:35am PT

When I do, I use a Munter. It is quick, easy to tie off, it would be almost impossible to set it up incorrectly, and lowering someone who has loaded the rope is easy and doesn't require any extra gear or fiddling. Go to the company websites and read the instructions for some of these autoblock/lock tube devices. Lowering a second who has fallen and can't help themselves is not a simple process.

slabbo

Trad climber

fort garland, colo

Jul 13, 2010 - 09:40am PT

Like kc , I belay through the anchor- clip a piece and then to my harness. This worked for the second and then as a first bit of gear for the next pitch.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jul 13, 2010 - 12:28pm PT

If you are using one of the older reverso devices, have a look at this edge:

With wear this edge becomes sharp as a knife. I know that in normal use the rope should not get pulled across this edge at a sharp angle, but...

I prefer to use the atc myself (and whether it is off the anchor or harness is entirely situational,) but among my friends who have the old reverso I'll usually say "let's have a look..., say, do you see that is sharp as a knife there?" An astonished look usually leads to the use of a muntner hitch for the rest of the day.

Knuckles

Trad climber

Everett, Wa

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:09pm PT

I presume the OP is talking about belaying a follower off the anchor so I'll limit my thoughts to that as there's no good reason to belay the leader directly off the anchor.

As for belaying the follower off the anchor, I could be wrong but don't you create a pulley effect by redirecting through your anchor from your harness? Sure you add some dynamic element to the anchor but the added force multiplier more than negates that. Ironic that when the anchor seems less inspiring people are adding more force to it by redirecting from their harness, to the powerpoint and down to the follower.

It also donned on me that maybe some people clip into the powerpoint and then belay directly off their harness down to their climber. This is perhaps the worst setup of all as the following climber is pulling you down and limits your freedom to lock them off and potential initiate a rescue.

I guess I don't see a great reason to not belay directly off the anchor unless the anchor is completely bomber and the belay stance just makes it more comfortable to redirect (slack pulling, shade and lounging options, etc).

Hawkeye

climber

State of Mine

Jul 13, 2010 - 01:22pm PT

i never belay offf the anchor...

i havent figured out how to perform a hip belay that way.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jul 13, 2010 - 02:56pm PT

I normally do not belay from the anchor, since many times the anchor is not what I would call 100% bombproof. I hearken back to the "old school" of climbers and attempt to give a somewhat dynamic belay on the leader.

Admittedly, if being able to escape the belay in the case of a serious accident is potentially required....sure, belay off the anchor. Unless the anchor consists of multiple bolts and a chain, I am somewhat leery of implicitly trusting a few pieces of gear that could potentially fail, leading to disasterous consequences.

My approach is as follows: first, imagine what would be the result of a fall if there were no anchor at all. Second, I try to get myself positioned to ameliorate the consequences of an anchor failure. Then I attempt to build the best possible anchor consistent with the gear available and cracks available. Finally, belay partner.

All said, however, if I'm belaying some doofus on a toprope and there is a good tree available for an anchor, I'd let the tree take the punishment from the repeated falls.

As Jim has stated, gotta' be flexible....

apogee

climber

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:06pm PT

I prefer belaying the second off the anchor simply because it allows me more freedom at the belay- esp. when using some kind of autoblocking device. I can move, organize, drink, etc. much easier when the belay is off the anchor, and not off of me.

Escaping the belay is often cited as a primary rationale, but that is so rare it is far less of a consideration.

Belaying a leader off the anchor would be a pita of the highest order- I wouldn't want someone belaying me that way.

Knuckles

Trad climber

Everett, Wa

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:11pm PT

Why do people belay off their harness for a sketchy anchor if it makes the anchor more likely to fail?

If you can absorb the load before it even gets to the anchor then okay I guess but if it goes from your harness to the anchor and then back down ot the climber you are not making things better for your anchor. You are making things worse.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:26pm PT

Never. You just lose way too many nuances around knowing what's going on with a second and escaping a belay is not that big a deal. As for the old Reverso knife edge, yeah it happens, but that's what round metal files and emery cloth are for - knock that edge down occasionally and when you've worn a significant notch retire it. Don't care for the new Reverso and these days I use a Kong Ghost for sub-10 ropes, bummer they don't make a larger version of it for fatter ropes.

ddriver

Trad climber

SLC, UT

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:30pm PT

I'm a harness guy myself, but I've used the guide atc directly on the anchors for the second. It seems pretty straightforward rope management, might be a tad easier for simul-seconding. I think its mostly a matter of personal preference, not substance, though it appears to make it easier to smoke a cig while belaying. Switching to belaying the leader this way just didn't make as much sense to me, mechanically that is.

As for the older reverso, the first time I used it to belay two seconds I discovered it was a pain to give only one second slack, so much so that I never used it again. ATC does this job smoothly.

Hawkeye

climber

State of Mine

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:37pm PT

Why do people belay off their harness for a sketchy anchor if it makes the anchor more likely to fail?

i think thats the point. they dont. read what BDC wrote.

if your anchor is sketchy you can try and put yourself into a position where you wont weight it.

i was belaying in the Black onetime and had a sketchy belay. I was on a sloping ledge and did have enough of a "stance" for my feet that I could have held a fall from my follower that i would not be pulled off. then when my pardner got there, and saw my anchors, he knew that he had to get some bomber gear in early...

Tattooed 1

Trad climber

Sebastopol, Ca

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 13, 2010 - 03:40pm PT

Sounds like it is a matter of personal preference. The key I think as most have said is to be flexible to your situation. As for the device I think the Reverso 3 is a nice piece. Very smooth. I have not rapped with it yet but have seen plenty of people who do so I don't expect it wouldn't work just as well.
Tim

Steve L

Gym climber

SUR

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:42pm PT

I use a direct belay for the second with an atc guide whenever possible, but again, not always. If you've got a comfy stance and a solid anchor, it’s a way more comfortable way to belay, imo. Requires much less effort, and as mentioned above, you can do other stuff at the same time. If your partner is moving fast through easy pitches, belaying direct makes it way easier to keep the rope snug. Obviously, belay escape just means tying a knot. If its more comfortable to belay off the harness, I'll do that. Whatever the situation dictates. I've been using a ~9mm with the atc guide, no issues, works great.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Jul 13, 2010 - 03:43pm PT

Belaying off the anchor has been the subject of a number of discussions on different sites. In this country, the issues are usually those associated with belaying the second, but in Europe it is not at all uncommon to belay the leader with a Munter hitch off a two-bolt belay anchor. I'm going to stick to the questions associated with belaying the second here.

There seem to be two basic methods of belaying off the anchor. One is the redirected belay, in which the belay device is on the waist and the rope runs up to the anchor and then down to the second. The other and now far more popular method is a belay directly on the anchor, either using a Munter hitch, a Gi-Gi plate, a "guide device" like the ATC-Guide or the Reverso^3, or a "locking" device like the Cinch or Gri-Gri.

There are three main issues in these discussions; I've also subdivided number 2.

1. Loads to the belay anchor.
2. Issues for the belayer.
a. Safety of no-handed belaying the downsides of belayer multitasking.
b. Difficulty in keeping up with a rapidly-moving second.
c. Difficulty in taking up the rope.
d. Difficulties in releasing a loaded device.
3. Issues for the second---side effects of a periodically too-tight belay.

Here are some comments on these issues.

1. Load to the belay anchor

As Peter mentions, your friendly neighborhood older generation grew up with the idea that you should try not to load anchors more than necessary. This is surely an unnecessary precaution for the kind of multiple-bolt belay anchors that are becoming increasingly common on "trad" climbs, but there may be some wisdom in the concept for real trad anchors constructed from whatever passive gear is available to the leader at the end of a pitch.

Of course, all gear anchors are supposed to be "bombproof," but anyone who lives in the real world knows, to paraphrase Huxley, that some are more bombproof than others, and an occasional few are even genuinely suspect. As for the loads themselves, people frequently speak dismissively if having to deal with only bodyweight. It's actually a double body-weight peak load for upper-belayed falls with no slack; this is part of the behavior of dynamic ropes, so roughly a bit more than triple bodyweight for a redirected belay with no slack.

Again revisiting the real world, no slack in the upper belay is desirable but far from universally attainable; there are plenty of situations in which at least a little slack accumulates, in which case the upper-belayed fall load goes up. Is sending these potential loads direct to the anchor without any intermediate shock-absorbtion the most intelligent way to belay?

2. Issues for the belayer. The remaining comments all refer to belaying with one of the guide plates.

a. Safety of no-handed belaying

Sure, all the manufacturers say you should never take your braking hand off, but it is easy to find both famous and not-famous climbers on the internet, in blogs, and in books enthusiastically extolling the virtues of hands-off belaying. In addition to the possibility that the device in question might fail to lock (the accident report may say "inexplicably"), the potential for slack accumulating (while the belayer dines and dresses) goes way up, along with the more serious consequences of the second taking a leader fall onto a fixed anchor.

b. Difficulty in keeping up with a rapidly-moving second

The typically enhanced friction of the direct belay off the anchor make it extremely difficult to keep up with a rapidly moving second. (This is acknowledged in the Super Topo reviews.) Once again, extra slack and an increased potential for a seconding leader fall.

c. Difficulty in taking up the rope

The Super Topo reviews refer to the elbow tendinitis experienced by guides who have to pull miles of rope through a belay plate. The fact is that ropes need to be on the thin side for the ATC Guide and Reverso^3 to be used in guide mode without considerable effort; even then if there is much friction elsewhere in the system, hauling rope through these devices will be real exercise for the belayer. Personally, I find that dragging two 8.5mm half ropes through a Reverso^3 to require an unpleasant amount of effort in all but the most frictionless situations.

d. Difficulties in releasing a loaded device

There are two aspects to this: one is the fact that if heavily loaded (free-hanging second, little intermediate friction) the plates can be extremely difficult to unload. The second is that unloading is typically instantaneous and nearly complete, meaning that there is a good chance the second will be dropped unless the whole system is backed up with another belay (e.g. Munter belay off the harness---a harness belay for the belay!). Considering that all you have to do with a harness belay or redirected belay is let out some slack, the complex methods needed for lowering with a guide device border on the comical.

It can also happen that, when loaded, the plate turns out to be in a position (e.g. a shallow corner or depression) which obstructs rotating it toward the horizontal, in which case lowering will be impossible without performing a full-on belay escape to get the rope entirely out of the plate. (This is not hypothetical, I know someone who had this experience with a hanging second.)

2. Issues for the second

The condition of being periodically, even continually pulled on has been dismissed as incompetent belaying, but I don't believe it. Those plates lock up the minute you so much as step down, and I've never yet encountered a belayer, including highly experienced guides, who can prevent this consistently. Guides and climbers who are obsessed with speed don't care about this and even view it as an advantage. Those of us who are competent but who aren't rushing find it a continual annoyance at best. At worst, this type of "belay" will actually cause you to fall, for example if you want to step down from a ceiling or if the rope is pulling you off to the side and you can't get slack when you need it.

Conclusions

I think that for most climbers and most climbs, the plates are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and a mediocre solution at that with some serious drawbacks. To the extent that inattentive belaying is encouraged, the plates are a nuisance and possibly a danger. As a special-purpose device for guides or those who are acting in a guiding capacity and for speed climbers on routes with bolted belays, they have a place.

The claims about belay escape for locking plates are, in my opinion, without merit. It is easy enough to escape the belay in any of the belaying options, and, depending on what has to be done next, a loaded plate may prove to be one of the slower options, since releasing it may require the silly machinations referenced above.

Of course, belaying off the harness has problems of its own, primarily involving the comfort of the belayer when holding the second. My personal solution is an off-the anchor harness belay. To set one up, clove into the anchor without any slack in the tie-in and clip the belay device to the loop of rope that passes through the harness tie-in points. If the tie-in is sufficiently snugged, you can also clip into the harness belay loop, but the point is for the load to be transmitted via the tie-in to the anchor without being applied to the harness at all, so I usually skip the harness belay loop entirely.

This puts you in the harness-belay position with ATC-style belaying as usual, but the load goes to the anchor with the shock-absorbing mediation of the climbing rope tie-in, a benefit which I think could be very substantial in case a bigger than expected load occurs. Hanging climbers can be held without any of the discomfort associated with traditional harness belays. If you have two climbers on separate half ropes, you can take in one and pay out another with ease---try that with one of the guide devices---and lower at will. With 8.5 mm half ropes, I find I can hold a fallen climber on one strand and, with difficulty, take in the other strand with the other hand.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:23am PT

I think that for most climbers and most climbs, the plates are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and a mediocre solution at that, with some serious drawbacks. To the extent that inattentive belaying is encouraged, the plates are a nuisance and possibly a danger. As a special-purpose device for guides or those who are acting in a guiding capacity and for speed climbers on routes with bolted belays, they have a place.

Bingo!

This brings to mind other discussions we've had about similarly specialized techniques, which may have advantages, but tend to be inflexible. In the case of belaying off the anchor, the implication is that belays "must" have two well-situated bolts - which is what the technique really is for. Notwithstanding the proliferation of 'convenience' belay bolts (mea culpa!), there are still many climbs with good natural belay anchors. They may not be quite as convenient, and may require a little thought, but they work fine. Do we want climbers in such situations to think "Why aren't there belay bolts?" or "I need to learn and be more flexible about other techniques".

The ongoing debate about equalettes, cordalettes, and such illustrate another side of this. They present the art of creating belays as arcane if not obscure, which it isn't. The principles - redundant, reliable, anchors, good for significant force from any direction, to which the climber is securely tied - are very simple. Making it out as a giant physics and engineering problem does no one any favours, and again leads to convenience bolting. "If it's all so complicated, I'll just add some belay bolts here." With, of course, the additional claims that it allows greater traffic volume, or makes retreats simpler.

From another perspective, the number of people you see tieing into belays with a single locking carabiner, and a single clove hitch, is mind-boggling. Properly closed carabiners are unlikely to break or open, but clove hitches do slip. Nothing like a bit of simple redundancy. You have to wonder who is teaching climbers these things.

There are other examples of this - specialized and often inflexible solutions to general problems. The "rappelling with a skinny tag line and blocking carabiner" one is another.

IMHO, climbers should learn and practice robust, flexible techniques, and save these tricks for when they're truly needed, and they have the experience to judge so.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:59am PT

you bet some climbers at j tree have been caught by no anchors and no walk off.

how many of the zillions of routes in that place have nice bolted anchors?

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Jul 14, 2010 - 03:56am PT

When the anchor is bomber and shoulder to head height I almost always use my reverso 2 in autoblock. It's faster and more convenient.

I can take slack out faster because I can take out more rope with each pull. We can climb faster because I can re-rack, drink some water, etc. and take photos etc. Attentive belaying is dependent on the climber, not the device.

I've had no problem lowering a single climber the few times I've needed to do it.

I usually extend my device 12" when I rap, instead of right off the belay loop, and have had very little sharpening of that edge. You can tell it gets sharpened from rapping, not belaying because it's not one side that gets sharp it's both. I've had mine for years with no significant sharpening.

DanaB

climber

Philadelphia

Jul 14, 2010 - 08:59am PT

Whenever these discussions arise, someone always mentions that using an ATC guide or Reverso "lets them save time by doing other things, like drink, eat, change clothes, etc."
Unbelievable.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jul 14, 2010 - 09:37am PT

If I found my belayer doing ANYTHING besides belaying MY precious a$$, it would be the last time I ever climbed with that partner. Period!

Accidents are seldom just that--there is always a root cause, and I'd hate to be involved in one where the analysis was "inatentive belayer."

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 14, 2010 - 01:27pm PT

Pretty sure that all the manufacturers of these devices all emphatically warn belayers of their limitations, both in terms of where they should (and shouldn't) be used, and how. For the latter, that the belayer should at all times be attentive, and keep at least one hand on the rope. Do those who promote and teach the use of the devices also do this?

Presumably we will soon start to read reports of accidents caused or contributed to by misuse of these devices and techniques.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Jul 14, 2010 - 01:36pm PT

No need to wait; there's already been an accident in the Gunks. Someone tried to use a guide plate specifically for lowering and dropped the climber to the ground when the plate released.

WBraun

climber

Jul 14, 2010 - 01:43pm PT

MH -- clove hitches do slip.

They do?

MH -- Only one locking biner?

On a typical El Cap raise using a z-rig there will be at times up to 10 people on one locking biner.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:15pm PT

There is always potential for a clove hitch to fail, if improperly tied. They're reasonably reliable for competent and alert climbers, but a figure 8 is as easily tied, and at most can 'give' only a few cm as it tightens under load.

On a typical El Cap raise using a z-rig there will be at times up to 10 people on one locking biner.

Do you mean "ten people standing on the clifftop but clipped in to a locker using a tether, just in case" or "ten people and their equipment actively loading the biner"? The former seems marginal, although if you have someone overseeing what's going on, might work. (Giant industrial carabiner, perhaps.) The latter is hardly believeable. More information on the equipment and techniques used - probably not standard climbing ones - might clarify this.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:29pm PT

Any knot can fail if improperly tied.
A clove hitch has several advantages and plenty of disadvantages.
Like any knot I use in the mountains: I know the knot well, how to tie it in the dark, when to use it, when not to use it, and how to check it. I always check my knots before loading them: always.
Sometimes a clove hitch is just what I want to tie myself off to the belay or to tie a line in short. It's a very good knot for equalizing an anchor because you can slip it to get unwanted slack out of the system.

One full sized locking biner, when you're certain it's locked, is plenty for an anchor.

Back to the thread.
All the pros and cons listed for belaying off the anchor are valid. Mostly I prefer to hold the belay on my harness. Better control, easier to pay out, more intuitive, less peak load on the anchor if catching a fall.

WBraun

climber

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:37pm PT

10 people are all on one locker.

2 people being hauled up the wall with 8 people on top hauling, all on 1 standard locking biner.

So MH where is your problem with one locking biner for a standard climbing belay?

And where's your facts to back up your statement "clove hitches do slip"??

scroll down ---- http://www.geir.com/mythbuster.html

DanaB

climber

Philadelphia

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:57pm PT

Anders wrote:

"Pretty sure that all the manufacturers of these devices all emphatically warn belayers of their limitations, both in terms of where they should (and shouldn't) be used, and how. For the latter, that the belayer should at all times be attentive, and keep at least one hand on the rope. Do those who promote and teach the use of the devices also do this?"

Not all of them.

There was an identical thread on Mountain Project. An (apparently) well known AMGA-certified guide was asserting that it was perfectly okay to take your brake hand off the rope for a "reasonable amount of time." (Quotation marks are mine but I feel the statement accurately reflects the essence of what he said) He defended the practice in tones of slightly bemused condescension for those who felt it was unsafe.

I agree with a previous poster. I would kill the belayer if I found out he/she had taken the brake hand off for anything other than a life-threatening emergency. You can't wait to have something to drink or eat?

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Jul 14, 2010 - 02:59pm PT

If you are belaying a second and are 'inattentive' at worst the rope will get to their feet and they'll say up rope. So there's maybe the potential for a 6 foot fall, plus rope stretch. This is minimal compared to the fall potential you see on every lead. If the second is at a crux or requests it you keep the belay tight. It's weird people who lead are so concerned about a short fall on TR.

I have no problem with my competent partners multitasking while belyaing. I'd be more irritated waiting an extra 10+ minutes at each belay waiting for them To get there sh#t together. But then again I trust my partners to simulclimb so belaying is the least of my worries.

TEchniques to help you climb more efficient and faster aren't about rushing they are about allowing you to do more or longer climbs in a day.

Steve L

Gym climber

SUR

Jul 14, 2010 - 03:05pm PT

This has been discussed many times before. You can create a scenario in the lab where a clove hitch slips - basically by applying a gradual and continually increasing amount force; many kNs of force. The test I saw used a static cord. Nothing you would ever encounter by cloving into the master point of an anchor with the lead line though. Skinny rope cloved to a locked locker...good to go! As far as multi tasking goes, you only need one hand while using an autobloc. Don't see the problem with keeping the other hand busy at the same time.

apogee

climber

Jul 14, 2010 - 03:22pm PT

Re: clove hitch tie-in controversy

This has been going on a long time. Each side presents their 'data' to support their side- some of which is anecdotal, some of which has varying levels of objectivity in the way the testing was conducted and recorded. Since this 'dataset' is not especially empirical, how about considering actual field incidents?

Can someone...anyone...show me the clear, documented trends of incidents that were directly related to a belayer who tied in with a clove hitch?

edit for murcy post below: Not a personal rip, but that sounds like a rope or user problem to me.

murcy

climber

sanfrancisco

Jul 14, 2010 - 03:55pm PT

I'm not so worried that a clove hitch will slip when set and loaded. But, especially with a stiff rope, it doesn't always want to stay set, and I do worry that when not loaded it will wrap around the biner gate leading to unpredictable shenanigans when loaded. It's pretty easy to get a (loosely set) clove to pull one loop of the knot through the gate of a non-locking biner, giving you just a rope running through a biner.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jul 14, 2010 - 04:13pm PT

I've used the clove hitch for most of my career as a climber w/o any problems. Just be sure it is "set" with a hard pull. Some of the newer ropes don't seem too compatible with a clove hitch, however, and a figure 8 is safer.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Jul 14, 2010 - 04:36pm PT

In the interests of balance, here, from a Teton guide, is one of the most reasonable arguments I've seen for belays off the anchor:

http://www.womenclimbing.com/climb/features/feature_belaysecond.html

A few other comments.

1. The behavior of clove hitches is different in static and dynamic ropes. Clove hitches haven't slipped in almost all tests using dynamic ropes. In static ropes slippage has been observed. There are so many different types of static ropes that it is hard to make any generalizations, but it seems prudent to back up clove hitches in static ropes.

As for dynamic ropes, all pull tests show little or no slipping. (It is a little tricky to distinguish between rope stretch and knot tightening and slipping. Testers tend to measure the amount of rope that pulls out of a clove hitch, but slippage should be measured by how much rope is pulled into---and possibly through---the hitch.)

The only credible test showing slippage that I've seen is one by Jim Ewing at Sterling. He clove-hitched a dynamic climbing rope to an 80 kg test weight and did some UIAA drop tests. The clove hitch slipped enough each time to release the weight. I don't recall the length of the tail in this test. It certainly proves you don't want to tie in with a clove hitch on a biner to your harness, but I'm not sure what else.

When he set the clove hitch up the way it would be used in climbing as part of an anchor on the frame, it didn't slip. Depending on what side of the clove hitch debate you are on, you can view this as evidence for the point of view you have no intention of changing anyway.

It is pretty clear that if a clove hitch is going to slip at all, it will take a very large impact force to do it---a factor-two fall onto the belay. At that point, it seems to me that slippage, if it happens, is an advantage rather than a drawback, reducing the peak load on the belay anchor. In this regard, I should mention that I have held a factor-two fall on a climb when anchored with a clove hitch (no backup), and as far as I could tell afterwards the clove hitch did not slip.

Personally, I've been anchoring with clove hitches for 48 of my 52 years of climbing. Usually, there is more than one in the system, but I have no reservations about using a single properly tightened clove hitch without backing it up.

2. The second comment is about whether a plate will hold a leader fall by the second, an event whose likelihood increases enormously when the belayer chooses to do other things as well as belay.

The failure mode of a guide plate is that the load strand squishes past the belay strand, at which point braking power is lost. The loads that make this happen depend on the device and on the thickness of the ropes employed (the thinner the rope the lower the braking failure threshold).

Most people use the plates with thin ropes (typically not more than 10mm) because of the effort level required for taking in thicker ropes, so failure levels will be at the low end for them. I haven't seen any information on what fall factor that will cause the plate to fail. Perhaps Jim Titt knows...

From what little we do know, it seems important to keep slack out of the system when using these plates, and this does pose a conflict with the "hands-off" concept.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Jul 14, 2010 - 05:29pm PT

It's pretty easy to get a (loosely set) clove to pull one loop of the knot through the gate of a non-locking biner, giving you just a rope running through a biner.

You could also end up with the clove making an open gate 'biner. Of course you MUST be using a locking 'biner or doubled and reversed 'biners for an anchor regardless of your choice of knot.

Correction: I should have added that I never use a clove hitch on a non-locking 'biner except (there are always exceptions) to maybe hold a water bottle or other non-essential item.

I carry more locking 'biners than anyone I know and sometimes use them all with the anchor I've left and the one I'm making at the top of the pitch. One locker is quicker than two reversed 'biners (and lighter on the rack).

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 15, 2010 - 02:43am PT

My greatest concern with this system of belaying relates to the old proverb - if you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. If people are learning this as "the" way to belay, even if they're doing it safely and attentively, it limits their options. Too many routes and belays, at least in Canada and the US, aren't well suited to the technique. Even if the hammer is designed and used properly, there are many different nails, and it doesn't work on all or even many of them.

But then, it seems odd to me that people, intermediate climbers anyway, don't learn to do hip belays, carabiner brake rappels, etc.

reddirt

climber

Jul 15, 2010 - 02:53am PT

assuming you're talking about belaying 2nd(s)... depends on the anchor. Depends if I can set up an optimal (higher than my head) anchor. Try doing it from a lowish anchor & maybe you'll see why (could just be me, but I don't think so).

Thorgon

Big Wall climber

Sedro Woolley, WA

Jul 20, 2010 - 01:39pm PT

Off the anchor, unless I am in Slab Monkey mode, then off the harness is the ticket!

Thor

PAUL SOUZA

Trad climber

Clovis, CA

Jul 23, 2010 - 02:02pm PT

A little off topic....

I was talking to an oldschool climber who told me a story where the leader took a huge whipper, pulling the belayer up so hard that the anchor was ripped out upwards and they were both hanging by 1 piece of pro.

So how many of you set a directional piece of gear when belaying a leader?

apogee

climber

Jul 23, 2010 - 02:04pm PT

If you are referring to a directional on the anchor, I do, when potential forces are significant (harder climbing, steeper terrain). On lower angle, easy terrain, oftentimes not. Just depends.

Seamstress

Trad climber

Yacolt, WA

Jul 23, 2010 - 02:19pm PT

Almost always place a directional. I have seen too many zippers - OK just 4, and seen gear pull out as the leader moved up I do not want that to happen to me.

kunlun_shan

Mountain climber

SF, CA

Dec 11, 2017 - 11:24pm PT

Am bumping this thread after my partner reminded me of the article below I sent her back in 2008, written by SP Parker, about proper orientation of a clove hitch when tying in to an anchor. I have to admit I've forgotten about paying attention to this.

Am curious as to whether many climbers are aware of or consider this?

from http://guidetricksforclimbers.com/use-and-abuse-of-the-clove-hitch/

When the knot was tied incorrectly, with the load strand farthest away from the spine of the carabiner, it was found that the knot tried to align itself with the spine at 250 lbs., and carabiner failure occurred–before rope breakage–at approximately 38% below the carabiner’s rated strength.

JimT

climber

Munich

Dec 12, 2017 - 12:25am PT

With an HMS karabiner (which most people are using nowadays) it´s irrelevant and with the ropes we have nowadays the rope will break before the karabiner anyway.

kunlun_shan

Mountain climber

SF, CA

Dec 12, 2017 - 12:31am PT

^ JimT, the link states an HMS carabiner WAS used for the tests.

Am interested in any more info you can offer about this, and how valid a concern it might be.

To get more information the AMGA contacted Bluewater, who agreed to test the clove hitch. The tests were performed under the following conditions:

An HMS style carabiner was used
Test method Mil.Spec 191A was followed
All rope was new and of Bluewater manufacture
All hitches were tied so that the load was applied next to the spine of the carabiner
A slow static pull was used rather than a dynamic load

Delhi Dog

climber

Good Question...

Dec 12, 2017 - 12:51am PT

Interesting link.

Tighten up the knot...yep always.
Orient it to load= new info for me.

Kind of hard to picture what that means in the diagram but reading the article helped.

TFPU!

Charlie D.

Trad climber

Western Slope, Tahoe Sierra

Dec 12, 2017 - 05:29am PT

carabiner failure occurred

Hard to believe!

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber

Wilds of New Mexico

Dec 12, 2017 - 08:05am PT

I've never heard this before, thanks. So the key point is that the load side of the clove hitch should be on the spine side of the carabiner?? Crazy that it could really make that much difference.

kunlun_shan

Mountain climber

SF, CA

Dec 12, 2017 - 08:11am PT

I emailed Marc Chauvin, who recently wrote "The Mountain Guide Manual", which makes extensive use of clove hitches for anchors. He agrees with JimT, and gave me a number of examples of manufacturers NOT being concerned with clove hitches and loading. Am pasting some of his response below.

I'm relieved that this does NOT seem to be an issue.

In this technical notice you’ll see in "Equalized anchor with the climbing rope (only when alternating leaders)" that both clove hitches are shown tied with the load strand for belaying the second on the gate side and in fact they use both sides of the clove (one for the the belayer and the other to belay the second). They also use “both” sides of the clove in one of their "Mono Directional Belay Station"
https://www.petzl.com/US/en/Sport/Installing-an-equalized-belay-station?ActivityName=Multi-pitch-climbing

Here in the Black Diamond technical PDF on locking carabiner use they show the Munter tied with the load on the gate side with a green checkmark (OK). It is in the 3rd row far left.
http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-bdel/default/dw469408d8/instructions/F16/M12273_C_Locking%20Carabiner%20Hang%20Card%20IS-WEB.pdf

Given that there are no warnings by manufactures of something that would be a very easy and common error is a good indication of their concern of this issue.

I'm tempted to delete my earlier posts, but am going to leave this up to relieve anyone in the future who might be concerned about this, as I HAD been for the last 12 hours. I thought I'd been unaware and dodging potential bullets.... but it appears this is a NON-ISSUE :-)