|
fledgling
Jan 13, 2005, 3:58 AM
Post #1 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Is it alright to tie into a anchors from the back of ones harness? I did A climb last fall in which there was a traverse right away on the second pitch. The WA climbers out there might know it. This was the second pitch of canary on castle rock ( the phycological crux move step out over the abyss). The anchors are way out to the right this pitch. The leader moves about 15ft left of the belay before they move up. It seemed more natural to have the belayer facing me as I made this move. They were still tied into the anchors buy the front of their harness, but I placed a large cam in a crack near by and attached the belayer in short by a sling from the back their harness.
|
|
|
|
|
rckymntneer
Jan 13, 2005, 4:21 AM
Post #2 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 67
|
This is the WRONG place to look for that information. You need to look in the manufacturers information for you harness (you didn't mention what make or model you use). With that said, the only answer you should get on this site is NO, do not tie in to the back of your harness.
I use a Black Diamond Blizzard. It does have a haul loop (read that name a couple of times) on the back. That's what it is, a "haul loop." It is not designed or intended for other uses other than hauling another rope up behind you. The instructions with this harness read "These harnesses feature a haul loop on the back of the waistbelt. Use the haul loop for attaching a trail rope only, not for anchoring, rappelling, or tying in."
Again, find your instructions for your harness (and any other equipment) and make sure you understand them!
Cheers...
|
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Jan 13, 2005, 4:37 AM
Post #3 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Thanks for the response. No I didn't tie into the chalk bag/ haul loop. I girth hitched the sling around the waist strap. I am seeking info here because I have not found a definitive answer from other sources.
|
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Jan 13, 2005, 4:50 AM
Post #5 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
Maybe I am an ignorant fool for pressing on, but how would this get one killed if they are also attached by the front of the harness also as originally posted? By the way this whole concept comes form numerous illustrations in Freedom of the Hills 5th edition (pg 189, 217, 218,228, and lots of other places) I thought a fairly reliable source of info.
|
|
|
|
|
johnnord
Jan 13, 2005, 4:52 AM
Post #6 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Posts: 162
|
On my main harness, a Petzl Jump, I added a 4" sewn sling around the waist band in back. I use it to clip stuff to in a variety of situations, including back belaying on extreme traverses, which sounds like a version of what your are asking. There are also situations in belaying where I clip, or tie in, a belayer to the back of the harness through the belt. It's not the best set up, because it can put a lot of stress on the belayer in case of a fall, but it is secure. I think the best solution is to clip, or tie in, to the belay loop and belay off the loop, the belayer is sideways to you and all of the forces are directed to the anchor through the belay loop. This puts less stress on the belayer in the event of a hard leader fall. I hope I understood your question and that this is clear.
John
|
|
|
|
|
rckymntneer
Jan 13, 2005, 4:56 AM
Post #7 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 67
|
Harnesses and other equipment are designed to withstand forces in certain areas, or certain directions. Applying the force that comes with a fall in the wrong place can result in a failure. For example, they only intent gear loops to withstand the weight of your rack, not a fall, and thus don't make them strong. That's why it is so important to read what your manufacturer says about their product.
Photos in magazines are fine, but don't always depict safe practices. How many times have we seen pictures from a multi-pitch climb without helmets? Climbers assume risks all the time, and that's each climbers own decision, but if you want to climb "safe"...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 13, 2005, 5:15 AM
Post #8 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Somebody please either kill this thread, or move it to the "Beginners" forum, where it will receive even more totally clueless responses. Thanks.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Jan 13, 2005, 5:21 AM
Post #9 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: Photos in magazines are fine, but don't always depict safe practices. How many times have we seen pictures from a multi-pitch climb without helmets? |
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Jan 13, 2005, 5:22 AM
Post #10 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: Photos in magazines are fine, but don't always depict safe practices. How many times have we seen pictures from a multi-pitch climb without helmets? |
|
|
|
|
harrisha
Jan 13, 2005, 5:42 AM
Post #11 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 314
|
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Metolius' Safe-Tech harness have a full strength haul loop in the back. By full strenght meaning you can safely anchor yourself by cliping into it. I know my BD harness isn't designed to be used like that, but I think the full strength haul loop is a detail on Metolius' harness. In general the answer to this question should be no, as has been stated.
Edited to add:
Yeah, just checked myself. Metolius' harness has a haul loop that is a stong and the front tie in point 16kn and gear loops that are rated to 10kn. Also, the waist belt will still hold 10kn if you forget to double back. Despite the high strength ratings I would not get in the practice of anchoring off a haul loop, gear loop, or not doubling back your harness or anything else you might think you could do with this harness. If you ingrain bad habits like these: anchoring off a haul loop, etc. your asking to die in my opinion. Suppose you don't wear that Metolius harness once. Think your face would look a little like this all mixed together as you go for a ride after cliping your haul loop at the anchors. :shock: :cry: :o :x :?
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 13, 2005, 5:53 AM
Post #12 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Fledgling,
You did fine.
For all you other boobs, a harness would break at it's weak point. therefore, a harness MUST be strong ALL THE WAY AROUND.
Use your brains. What would be the point of having a super strong tie in point on a harness made of tissue paper?
As well, next time try reading the original post for COMPREHENSION. The belayer was still tethered in normally. The EXTRA tether was around the whole harness waist band, not though a loop.
You might also note for future reference that a belayer's tether would not let them fall very far, if at all, since quite often in multi pitch, the tethers are under a little tension, and already at full extension.
|
|
|
|
|
johnnord
Jan 13, 2005, 6:10 AM
Post #13 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: Somebody please either kill this thread, or move it to the "Beginners" forum, where it will receive even more totally clueless responses. Thanks. Curt
Curt: Can you be less criptic and more specific? Which replies are clueless? I would love it if the posts on rc.com could be less flaming and more critical. I teach critical thinking to my students. The first question we should ask when evaluating a claim is: "what am I being asked to believe?" The second is: "what evidence is there to support that belief?" There are further steps, but if we could start using the first two, we might acutally help each other become better climbers. I see from your profile that you have a lot of years experience. Rather than contemptuously shutting down the discussion, enlighten us with a reasoned response.
Usually I am only online because I can't be on belay.
Respectfully,
John
|
|
|
|
|
duskerhu
Jan 13, 2005, 6:14 AM
Post #14 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2002
Posts: 1023
|
There are LOTS of harnesses out there that feature a "Full Strength Haul Loop." This still does not mean you should tie into it. Metolius' Safe Tech harness has many dumby features to keep you alive if you're not paying attention and clip into the wrong area on your harness.
Rock climbing is a sport where you should paying attention at all times; you may lose your life if you're not!
In case you didn't hear that, I'll say it again...
Rock climbing is a sport where you should paying attention at all times!
Look fledgling, you can tie into your full strength haul loop or around the entire waist belt if you choose but understand this: this is NOT how the harness was designed to be used... Brand and model make no difference here. No rock climbing harness has been designed to be used like this.
If you choose to use your harness like this, you are endangering the life of your partner or yourself, or both.
I'm not saying you will die, just that you might run into a dangerous situation that you are not prepared for. I have come across a situation such as you describe many times. Yes... It's a little inconvenient. Extending your tie-in will give you a bit more room to work/manuver. Tieing in to my full strength haul loop or around the waist belt in the back is something I will never do unless it's my last option at getting down alive.
Proceed at your own risk.
duskerhu
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 13, 2005, 6:50 AM
Post #15 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: I placed a large cam in a crack near by and attached the belayer in short by a sling from the back their harness.
This isn't a fatal error, the belayer is still attached to the anchor in the normal way, but I don't think it is a good idea. Think about what happens in a hard fall: the harness is pulled in two opposite directions, which is going to give the belayer a good punch in the ribs or kidneys as the harness compresses. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to subject the harness to potentially extreme forces when they can be avoided.
The goal of anchoring, if the belay is not redirected through the anchor, is that the belay forces should still be transferred to the anchor. The best way to do this is to make sure the anchor line is taut and to clip the belay device to the belay loop and the tie-in knot.
In the case you describe, the problem is not that the belayer can't face the leader; that is easy. It is that the belayer will be subject to a sideward pull if there is a leader fall.
Here's the way to tie in I think would have been better. Tie a small butterfly loop in the rope directly above the tie-in knot. Clip the rope into the power point of your anchor, clove hitch it back to a locker in the butterfly loop, and then clove hitch to the directional cam (that you attached to the back of the belayer's harness)
Clip the belay device to the belay loop and tie-in knot as usual. If there is an impact, the sideward load will be transferred directly to the directional cam (and any downward component to the anchor) with no compression of the harness and no opposing forces on the harness.
|
|
|
|
|
ebonezercabbage
Jan 13, 2005, 8:06 AM
Post #16 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Posts: 151
|
I'm with dirtineye for very simple reasons.....
I call them physics.
Your harness waistband is designed to hold the fall of a climber, correct? I think we all agree. Simple point....the tie in point of the harness is directly related to the waistband.
Tissue paper example. The harness will not break if tied from the front, factory specs or not. They designed the harness to be tied in the front because thats where humans tie in. (remember they sell not only specs but to the consumer, we would not buy a harness that ties inthe back for obvious reasons)
I would like to add however that this meathod is not safe for the impact of the fall on ur body. The harness may survive, but will you? I've never falllen on a backward tie before however, i'd thinkthe odds of severly hitting off the rocks below is much greater.
Thus,
Will it work: YES
Safe: NO
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 13, 2005, 8:19 AM
Post #17 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
OMFG.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
johnnord
Jan 13, 2005, 2:31 PM
Post #18 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Posts: 162
|
Curt: Thanks for the clarification and raising the level of discourse.
John
|
|
|
|
|
montafoner
Jan 13, 2005, 2:41 PM
Post #19 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 143
|
I don't know if it's been said before, but if you slip off your perch and take a little fall, all of the force will be on you lower stomach, not on your pelvis and leg loops. Therefore I would definately have to say NO!!
|
|
|
|
|
couchman
Jan 13, 2005, 3:29 PM
Post #20 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 26, 2004
Posts: 17
|
ok, I am not trying to hyjack a thread here,, but when at sea, , arrrr. However, while we are talking about tieing into the back of a harness.
what about an Ossy rappel? (head it refered to that way, but if there is another name, , ) Whats the best way to rappel face down?
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 13, 2005, 3:38 PM
Post #21 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
There is no fall for the belayer here, unless the belayer is dumb enough to have slack in his tether.
That was not the case, unless tied in short has some different meaning that I don't know about.
This is not a falling situation for the belayer.
This was not proposed as something to use if you the belayer are going to take a fall of any sort.
It's not given as a way to tie in for leading.
Rgold's point makes sense, and he pointed out the particular circumstances where there would be a problem with this dual tether idea, namely, a hard fall. The belayer's stance would have some effect in counteracting Rgold's problem.
|
|
|
|
|
joneiche
Jan 13, 2005, 4:09 PM
Post #22 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 55
|
I vote in favor of Curt!!!!! I love reading "insightful" posts about the "proper" use of gear from people who have been climbing for TWO YEARS!!!
so...
don't stack nuts
or hex's (if you use them)
never place a cam with less than all 4 (3 in some cases) lobes engaged
don't ever use a biner brake
etc, etc, etc
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Jan 13, 2005, 4:30 PM
Post #23 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
In reply to: I vote in favor of Curt!!!!! I love reading "insightful" posts about the "proper" use of gear from people who have been climbing for TWO YEARS!!! so... don't stack nuts or hex's (if you use them) never place a cam with less than all 4 (3 in some cases) lobes engaged don't ever use a biner brake etc, etc, etc
So, just curious how you determined all the folks posting only had two years experience? Is it by checking their profile? or just the fact that you dont agree with what they have to say therefore they must be a n00b?
I checked their profiles and only found one with less than two years experience myself.
And while we are on the topic, I really can't say I found anything insightful in your post nor in Curt's.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jan 13, 2005, 4:39 PM
Post #24 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
This should have been the last response in this thread.
In reply to: In reply to: I placed a large cam in a crack near by and attached the belayer in short by a sling from the back their harness. This isn't a fatal error, the belayer is still attached to the anchor in the normal way, but I don't think it is a good idea. Think about what happens in a hard fall: the harness is pulled in two opposite directions, which is going to give the belayer a good punch in the ribs or kidneys as the harness compresses. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to subject the harness to potentially extreme forces when they can be avoided. The goal of anchoring, if the belay is not redirected through the anchor, is that the belay forces should still be transferred to the anchor. The best way to do this is to make sure the anchor line is taut and to clip the belay device to the belay loop and the tie-in knot. In the case you describe, the problem is not that the belayer can't face the leader; that is easy. It is that the belayer will be subject to a sideward pull if there is a leader fall. Here's the way to tie in I think would have been better. Tie a small butterfly loop in the rope directly above the tie-in knot. Clip the rope into the power point of your anchor, clove hitch it back to a locker in the butterfly loop, and then clove hitch to the directional cam (that you attached to the back of the belayer's harness) Clip the belay device to the belay loop and tie-in knot as usual. If there is an impact, the sideward load will be transferred directly to the directional cam (and any downward component to the anchor) with no compression of the harness and no opposing forces on the harness. |
|
|
|
|
johnnord
Jan 13, 2005, 5:53 PM
Post #25 of 33
(3638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Posts: 162
|
In reply to: In reply to: I vote in favor of Curt!!!!! I love reading "insightful" posts about the "proper" use of gear from people who have been climbing for TWO YEARS!!! so... don't stack nuts or hex's (if you use them) never place a cam with less than all 4 (3 in some cases) lobes engaged don't ever use a biner brake etc, etc, etc So, just curious how you determined all the folks posting only had two years experience? Is it by checking their profile? or just the fact that you dont agree with what they have to say therefore they must be a n00b? I checked their profiles and only found one with less than two years experience myself. And while we are on the topic, I really can't say I found anything insightful in your post nor in Curt's.
John
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
Jan 13, 2005, 6:09 PM
Post #26 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I vote in favor of Curt!!!!! I love reading "insightful" posts about the "proper" use of gear from people who have been climbing for TWO YEARS!!! so... don't stack nuts or hex's (if you use them) never place a cam with less than all 4 (3 in some cases) lobes engaged don't ever use a biner brake etc, etc, etc So, just curious how you determined all the folks posting only had two years experience? Is it by checking their profile? or just the fact that you dont agree with what they have to say therefore they must be a n00b? I checked their profiles and only found one with less than two years experience myself. And while we are on the topic, I really can't say I found anything insightful in your post nor in Curt's. Perhaps crimpandgo looks as the date people joined rc.com. Since I have been part of the discussion and perhaps even provoked Curt's cripticism, I bristled a bit at the noob implication. Nowhere in my profile is there an indication of how long I've been climbing, but it's been considerably more than two years. In one sense, it shouldn't matter. The validity of the proposition is independent of the qualifications of the person proposing it. Experience, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of widom. That is why I asked Curt to be more specific about which advice he felt was bogus. I am always willing to learn and reexamine my practice. I am somewhat of an idealist and always hope to learn from these postings. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don't. John
No, I was looking at their descriptions in the profile. It was obvious to me some had lots more than two years of experience. that is why I questioned joneiche on the statement made. :)
|
|
|
|
|
johnnord
Jan 13, 2005, 6:33 PM
Post #27 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2003
Posts: 162
|
crimpandgo: I apologize for the misunderstanding. I saw that it was joneiche that made the comment about less that two years experience, but it took me forever to get my edit posted. It's been corrected now.
Sorry,
John :oops:
|
|
|
|
|
joneiche
Jan 13, 2005, 6:52 PM
Post #28 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 55
|
The issue at hand is that Fledgling improvised in a siutation where he deemed it was necessary. is it okay to anchor yourself to the back of your harness as a secondary method (only to gain a better position to belay from) while maintaining a primary and regular anchor attached to the front of your harness? YES IT IS. Out of this entire thread only one post gave any reasonable argument why this should not be done...That was rgold's. Climbing is inherantly a judgemnet call....is it better for me to face the climber on a traversing pitch or not? In some situations this is a reasonable assesment although not conventional one . By anchoring himself to the back, as well as by the standard tie in points in the front, of his harness, Fledgling made a reasonable decision. for people to assume that a harness is not as strong in the back as it is in the front is ridiculous. The whole sawmi is just as strong at any point along its length. Then we have the argument that falling on a swami will kill you.....get real! Didn't Coyne fall on a swami when at IC the friend poped and his glasses? Last time I checked he was still climbing!!
so to this point in the conversation the only intellegent thing that has been brought to light is the possiblity of being attached to OPPOSING anchor systems (which the cam provided in this situation) and the subsequent increase of forces on the harness and belayer in catching a hard fall.
Beyond that....I still agree w/Curt
the two year thing was for effect!!
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jan 13, 2005, 7:21 PM
Post #29 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
In reply to: Then we have the argument that falling on a swami will kill you.....get real! Didn't Coyne fall on a swami when at IC the friend poped and his glasses? Last time I checked he was still climbing!!
I took many falls, the longest of which was a 25 footer, on nothing but a hand tied swami belt. So did several thousand other climbers at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Jan 13, 2005, 7:27 PM
Post #30 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: In reply to: Then we have the argument that falling on a swami will kill you.....get real! Didn't Coyne fall on a swami when at IC the friend poped and his glasses? Last time I checked he was still climbing!! I took many falls, the longest of which was a 25 footer, on nothing but a hand tied swami belt. So did several thousand other climbers at the time.
Um, edge? Please don't use yourself as proof that nothing bad happened to folks using the conventional methods of yesteryear. It defeats the purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
tattooed_climber
Jan 16, 2005, 6:54 AM
Post #31 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 4838
|
the one in the back is called a "HAUL LOOP".....and its called a haul loop for a reason
the one in the front is called a "BELAY LOOP"......and its called a belay loop for a reason
|
|
|
|
|
fledgling
Jan 17, 2005, 5:58 AM
Post #32 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: tattooed_climber Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: tying into the back of ones harness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the one in the back is called a "HAUL LOOP".....and its called a haul loop for a reason the one in the front is called a "BELAY LOOP"......and its called a belay loop for a reason
tattooed_climber maybe you should read the first original post "the one in front". Try some reading comprehension ya hoser. Thanks for the vocab lesson though. Thanks to those of you that had some real info on this for me.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jan 17, 2005, 7:19 AM
Post #33 of 33
(2784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: tattooed_climber Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: tying into the back of ones harness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the one in the back is called a "HAUL LOOP".....and its called a haul loop for a reason the one in the front is called a "BELAY LOOP"......and its called a belay loop for a reason tattooed_climber maybe you should read the first original post "the one in front". Try some reading comprehension ya hoser. Thanks for the vocab lesson though. Thanks to those of you that had some real info on this for me.
This thread has established that reading comrephension on RC.com is often very low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
