|
JAB
Oct 17, 2007, 10:57 AM
Post #26 of 53
(3127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 373
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: krusher4 wrote: you shouldnt use a sliding X on bolted anchors any point could fail and your anchor will be done. no
Was this no meant to mean "disagree" or "agree"?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Oct 17, 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #27 of 53
(3123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
JAB wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: krusher4 wrote: you shouldnt use a sliding X on bolted anchors any point could fail and your anchor will be done. no Was this no meant to mean "disagree" or "agree"?
It means the original statement was so off base that it isn't worth typing any more of a response.
(This post was edited by microbarn on Oct 17, 2007, 11:49 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 17, 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #28 of 53
(3116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
microbarn wrote: JAB wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: krusher4 wrote: you shouldnt use a sliding X on bolted anchors any point could fail and your anchor will be done. no Was this no meant to mean "disagree" or "agree"? It means the original statement was so off base that it isn't worth typing any more of a response.
yes.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Oct 17, 2007, 3:57 PM
Post #29 of 53
(3092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
I think we can all agree that never saying never usually works well.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 17, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #30 of 53
(3079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
patrickm wrote: Any chance on posting this in public or is it too "technical" for us common folk. My skills are a bit minimal compared to some of the more experienced gang, but I enjoy reading as much as I can from books and situations so when I am with instructors/mentors I can question all I that I can. PM's are great if you want to attack someone but why not contribute in public? edit because I forgot "to" is not the same as "too"...
Read your PM
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 17, 2007, 6:05 PM
Post #31 of 53
(3067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
majid_sabet wrote: patrickm wrote: Any chance on posting this in public or is it too "technical" for us common folk. My skills are a bit minimal compared to some of the more experienced gang, but I enjoy reading as much as I can from books and situations so when I am with instructors/mentors I can question all I that I can. PM's are great if you want to attack someone but why not contribute in public? edit because I forgot "to" is not the same as "too"... Read your PM
How come I don't get a PM? Everyone else gets one. Come on, majid, share the love.
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Oct 17, 2007, 6:56 PM
Post #32 of 53
(3051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
krusher4 wrote: you shouldnt use a sliding X on bolted anchors any point could fail and your anchor will be done.
.... wow. Just... wow.
One good reason to belay a second with a redirect:
If you're swinging leads, and belay your second with a redirect, when they arrive at the belay you tie them off with a mule knot or stopper below the device, exchange gear, untie the mule, and send them off on the lead. They don't need to separately anchor in, your device doesn't need to switch from the anchor to your body, etc. It saves time and steps at a belay, and at the speed I climb, I can use any speed increases I can get.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 17, 2007, 7:30 PM
Post #33 of 53
(3040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
glytch wrote: krusher4 wrote: you shouldnt use a sliding X on bolted anchors any point could fail and your anchor will be done. .... wow. Just... wow. One good reason to belay a second with a redirect: If you're swinging leads, and belay your second with a redirect, when they arrive at the belay you tie them off with a mule knot or stopper below the device, exchange gear, untie the mule, and send them off on the lead. They don't need to separately anchor in, your device doesn't need to switch from the anchor to your body, etc. It saves time and steps at a belay, and at the speed I climb, I can use any speed increases I can get.
Does the time it takes to switch from auto lock off the anchor to belaying off your harness or anchor really add that much to your day?
Shaving that small amount of time can be good if your in a hurry and your really good, but if your not, being in that big of a push is an invitation for mistakes
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Oct 17, 2007, 7:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Oct 17, 2007, 7:59 PM
Post #34 of 53
(3030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
If your anchor consists of two good bolts, then questions about more or less force on one of them are pretty academic; the system will be able to take whatever the second dishes out.
For the same reason, I wouldn't be concerned about using a sliding-X; indeed a solid double-bolt anchor is one of the times the sliding-X can be used with hardly any worry about adverse circumstances. The only source of concern that occurs to me is that if the second falls before removing all the traversing pro, the belay device will be pulled up along the sliding-X and might quite possibly slam into one of the bolts or a rock feature near them. What effect this might have on controlling the belay is, of course, impossible to predict.
If one of the two bolts fails, you do not "lose your anchor" with a sliding-X. There is some worry about the belay device bouncing around as it drops onto the remaining anchor, as well as whether its position would interfere with braking. But the operative assumption here is that the bolts ain't gonna fail.
If there is any question about the bolts, and if you have a ledge to stand on (or perhaps better, to sit on), then I'd be inclined to use a harness belay for two reasons: (1) the "give" in the belayer will reduce the load to the anchor, and (2) the belayer will be connected to the anchor with a length of climbing rope (which should be made as long as possible, i.e. sit rather than stand if possible), and the energy-absorbing capabilities of the tie-in strand will also protect the anchor. Note that the belay device is clipped not just to the belay loop, but also through the rope tie-in loop, so that (after a little belayer "give") the load is transferred to the anchor via the rope tie-in. Leaving the rope out and just clipping the belay device to the harness belay loop will subject the harness to nasty opposing forces in the most critical area, which seems like a really bad idea, considering how easy it is to avoid.
The only other comment I have about what happened is that it would have made more sense to teach the second about prussiking before leading the pitch, rather than waiting until she had already fallen off and was dangling in space. And given that such a fall was a genuine possibility, she would have been better off starting the pitch with her ascending system already installed and tucked away.
(This post was edited by rgold on Oct 17, 2007, 8:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 17, 2007, 8:40 PM
Post #35 of 53
(3017 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rgold wrote: If there is any question about the bolts, and if you have a ledge to stand on (or perhaps better, to sit on), then I'd be inclined to use a harness belay for two reasons: (1) the "give" in the belayer will reduce the load to the anchor, and (2) the belayer will be connected to the anchor with a length of climbing rope (which should be made as long as possible, i.e. sit rather than stand if possible), and the energy-absorbing capabilities of the tie-in strand will also protect the anchor. Note that the belay device is clipped not just to the belay loop, but also through the rope tie-in loop, so that (after a little belayer "give") the load is transferred to the anchor via the rope tie-in. Leaving the rope out and just clipping the belay device to the harness belay loop will subject the harness to nasty opposing forces in the most critical area, which seems like a really bad idea, considering how easy it is to avoid.
I would agree with the above, with the caveat that "if there is any question about the bolts" is open to a lot of interpretation. To be specific, if the anchor is really bad (or I think there's a good chance it's really bad) then I agree that it's best to belay the second directly off the harness. However, if even one of the points is really excellent, the benefits of BEC's solution, I think, outweigh the potential downsides.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Oct 17, 2007, 10:35 PM
Post #36 of 53
(2989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
moose_droppings wrote: Does the time it takes to switch from auto lock off the anchor to belaying off your harness or anchor really add that much to your day? Shaving that small amount of time can be good if your in a hurry and your really good, but if your not, being in that big of a push is an invitation for mistakes
Switching from a belay off of the anchor to a belay off of the harness does involve a few steps; it's not a gigantic time issue, but it is nice to simply allow a second to climb through, especially if the anchor stance is awkward, and avoiding a bit of a cluster
Another good reason to belay off of the harness: an anchor without a powerpoint. Of course, this is totally situation-dependent, but there are plenty of scenarios in which it makes sense / is easier to set an anchor without an independent power point; using the rope to build an anchor in a vertical crack is one such scenario that comes to mind.
... anyway, I'm just noting that there are a number of times in which belaying off of your harness with or without a redirect makes sense. The most obvious advantage to belaying as second off of the anchor is the ease of escaping the belay if there is an accident. From a rescue perspective, it's clearly advantageous to use a power point and belay from it... at the same time, other issues can make belaying directly off of the harness either preferable or necessary (eg. oh crap, I have one sling left and my cordellette is slung around a big horn half way down the pitch, need to anchor with the rope). There shouldn't be hard and fast rules like "always belay a second off of the anchor". That's all. Sorry that was so long-winded.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Oct 17, 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #37 of 53
(2985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Yep, definitely depends on whats thrown at ya. I belay off the anchor most of the time so I was just saying I wouldn't do things differently unless the extra time needed outweighed my chances of screwing up by hurrying.
This situation sounds like I'd of belayed off my harness and redirected thru the PP. Escaping the belay would of still been simple enough by using a prusik from the PP to the rope going to the follower. But all this depends, I wasn't there.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Oct 31, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #38 of 53
(2869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
you can go prettty damn fast belaying with an autolock off the anchor:
*2nd doesn't clip in, just through a overhand on a bight into the brake strand. they are off belay. if you are uber worried, clip the bight into the anchor. this is rediculous and overkill, but if you are having coniptiouns, do it.
*rerack. take the biner that creates the autolock and clip it into your belay loop. unclip the biner connecting the device to the anchor and untie the overhand on a bight.
you are now ready to belay your second through. easy as pie and quick as hell too.
and no, no cookie cutter methods. if this is an awkward stance this will probably NOT be the quickest method. in a good stance and/or with a little pre-planning (like putting the master point as close to your waist as possible) this may well be the fastest method. and like i said, even with pre-planning you just may not be able to configure the stance so that this is the best method.
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 31, 2007, 7:22 PM
Post #39 of 53
(2855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
toejam wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Generally speaking, at the end of the traverse, I will belay of my harness and redirect through the anchor to keep the force down in case of a fall. I would think that the pulley effect from redirecting through the anchor would increase the force on the anchor more than the extra foot or so of rope would reduce it. Don't have the math though, need someone like RGold to solve that one. Its not really a factor 1 fall is it, since there is also a pendulum to consider... If I'm worried about forces on my anchor I go straight off the harness without redirect.
From my understanding, if you're worried about force on the anchor, you SHOULD redirect. After all, it sets up a 2:1 pulley, which adds friction to absorb some of the impact, as well as adds a little more rope (and thus stretch) to the belay. Belaying off the harness, which is probably hanging on the anchor (someone seconding you) would be basically the same as belaying directly off the anchor. Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'...
(This post was edited by diebetes on Oct 31, 2007, 11:26 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Oct 31, 2007, 10:14 PM
Post #40 of 53
(2824 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'...
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Oct 31, 2007, 11:25 PM
Post #41 of 53
(2813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'... In your situation i would say that such is precisely the case.
Well, just so we're all clear, direct belay means the belay device is on the anchor, indirect it's on the harness, and redirect it's on the harness but the rope redirects through a piece of the anchor. I don't like the suggestion that I'm confused. I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Oct 31, 2007, 11:39 PM
Post #42 of 53
(2806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'... In your situation i would say that such is precisely the case. Well, just so we're all clear, direct belay means the belay device is on the anchor, indirect it's on the harness, and redirect it's on the harness but the rope redirects through a piece of the anchor. I don't like the suggestion that I'm confused. I'm not.
If you're concerned about forces on the anchor, then one should definitely NOT redirect. It increases loads on the anchor via the pulley effect.
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Nov 1, 2007, 1:48 AM
Post #43 of 53
(2793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'... In your situation i would say that such is precisely the case. Well, just so we're all clear, direct belay means the belay device is on the anchor, indirect it's on the harness, and redirect it's on the harness but the rope redirects through a piece of the anchor. I don't like the suggestion that I'm confused. I'm not. Perhaps I'm the one confused then. Buuuut.... If you're concerned about forces on the anchor, then one should definitely NOT redirect. It increases loads on the anchor via the pulley effect.
Correct, because there is then two forces on the anchor rather than one. I miss-spoke.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 1, 2007, 1:17 PM
Post #44 of 53
(2774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'... In your situation i would say that such is precisely the case. Well, just so we're all clear, direct belay means the belay device is on the anchor, indirect it's on the harness, and redirect it's on the harness but the rope redirects through a piece of the anchor. I don't like the suggestion that I'm confused. I'm not. Perhaps I'm the one confused then. Buuuut.... If you're concerned about forces on the anchor, then one should definitely NOT redirect. It increases loads on the anchor via the pulley effect. Correct, because there is then two forces on the anchor rather than one. I miss-spoke.
Since this thread was revived, I will bring us back on track. We are talking about 2 bomber bolts, so adding your weight to the anchor via the pulley effect is not an issue. And if we are talking bomber gear in a horizontal crack, then also not an issue. The more important issue is direction of pull in case of a fall.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Nov 1, 2007, 2:57 PM
Post #45 of 53
(2756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: stymingersfink wrote: diebetes wrote: Or maybe there's some confusion between the terms 'redirect' 'indirect' and 'direct'... In your situation i would say that such is precisely the case. Well, just so we're all clear, direct belay means the belay device is on the anchor, indirect it's on the harness, and redirect it's on the harness but the rope redirects through a piece of the anchor. I don't like the suggestion that I'm confused. I'm not. Perhaps I'm the one confused then. Buuuut.... If you're concerned about forces on the anchor, then one should definitely NOT redirect. It increases loads on the anchor via the pulley effect. Correct, because there is then two forces on the anchor rather than one. I miss-spoke. Since this thread was revived, I will bring us back on track. We are talking about 2 bomber bolts, so adding your weight to the anchor via the pulley effect is not an issue. And if we are talking bomber gear in a horizontal crack, then also not an issue. The more important issue is direction of pull in case of a fall. Josh
You can never assume that anything is bomber unless you test it. Rock could break (even if it looks good) cams could pull (even if the friction looks alright). I don't understand what you mean. Direction of pull is certainly important, but when we start thinking "meh, this anchor is truck" our vision narrows and we then make mistakes (like ignoring direction of pull). This is not a personal attack Josh, I'm commenting on complacency in climbing in general.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 1, 2007, 4:47 PM
Post #46 of 53
(2746 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Complacency? THis is the opposite of complacency. We are talking about priorities in any given situation. If you think that the pulley effect is a factor in every anchor, then that tells me that you either don't know how to build one or don't trust the ones you build. Each and EVERY situation is different and your job is to choose the right method for the job. Often choosing the right method means giving up something to get something.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
diebetes
Nov 1, 2007, 4:50 PM
Post #47 of 53
(2741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2007
Posts: 106
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Complacency? THis is the opposite of complacency. We are talking about priorities in any given situation. If you think that the pulley effect is a factor in every anchor, then that tells me that you either don't know how to build one or don't trust the ones you build. Each and EVERY situation is different and your job is to choose the right method for the job. Often choosing the right method means giving up something to get something. Josh
Dear Captain Overreaction,
show me where I said the pulley effect is a factor in every anchor.
Sincerely,
Diebetes
p.s. READ WITH MORE CARE
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 1, 2007, 5:06 PM
Post #48 of 53
(2738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
diebetes wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Complacency? THis is the opposite of complacency. We are talking about priorities in any given situation. If you think that the pulley effect is a factor in every anchor, then that tells me that you either don't know how to build one or don't trust the ones you build. Each and EVERY situation is different and your job is to choose the right method for the job. Often choosing the right method means giving up something to get something. Josh Dear Captain Overreaction, show me where I said the pulley effect is a factor in every anchor. Sincerely, Diebetes p.s. READ WITH MORE CARE
Well, if I make a comment and you come in refuting that comment, even if you do not directly refute it, I have no choice but to assume that you are. So please WRITE WITH MORE CARE!
But, as long as you continue to address me as Captain, then we will have no problem 
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Nov 1, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #49 of 53
(2734 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: ... And if we are talking bomber gear in a horizontal crack, then also not an issue. The more important issue is direction of pull in case of a fall. Josh
i just want to point out something here....if we are talking a truck anchor of cams in a horizontal crack to which you directly attach the belay device for belaying a second on a traversing pitch whose traverse ENDS at the anchor (in other words, the pitch doesn't traverse low then go straight up to the anchor) i would be worried about the horizontal pull pulling the cams in a lateral direction for which they weren't intended to hold. this make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Nov 1, 2007, 11:45 PM
Post #50 of 53
(2713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
altelis wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: ... And if we are talking bomber gear in a horizontal crack, then also not an issue. The more important issue is direction of pull in case of a fall. Josh i just want to point out something here....if we are talking a truck anchor of cams in a horizontal crack to which you directly attach the belay device for belaying a second on a traversing pitch whose traverse ENDS at the anchor (in other words, the pitch doesn't traverse low then go straight up to the anchor) i would be worried about the horizontal pull pulling the cams in a lateral direction for which they weren't intended to hold. this make sense?
Make sense? That's basically what this whole thread is about. I guess you missed my argument with majid about precisely that. Oh wait, come to think of it, some of that argument was through pm's.
BUt yes you are right. I was suggesting that with bolts and a sliding x, you can in fact belay off the anchor on a traverse while maintaing decent equalization and not worry about direction of pull, because the bolts are multi-directional.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
