Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
H
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.
|
|
kc
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!