|
climbingaggie03
Oct 17, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #1 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
So I've seen discusion on this before, but I've never seen it actually happen til this weekend. I set a top rope anchor up at a climb and put two locking ovals opposite and opposed with the locks screwing down at the master point. We top roped on it, and while someone was climbing on it, I walked around to have a look at everything, and get ready to take it down. When I got there, I saw the two biners, both with their gates open. I wasn't too worried about the rope coming out, because they were opposite and opposed, and I wasn't too worried about the biners failing (because they are weaker when open) because it was a top rope anchor and the load was being shared. But I would rather avoid this happening in the future, and was wondering what some suggestions are for avoiding this problem. using non lockers? using ball/auto lockers? And how big of a problem do yall think this is?
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Oct 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
Post #2 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
cant say i've heard of that happening, but i suspect that the locking mechanism on each carabiner rubbed up against the other carabiner and unlocked themselves over time.
i dont think its a problem at all, given the opposite and opposed setup.
personally, when TR'ing, i either use a single locker or a pair of non-lockers opposite and opposed. I've never used more than one locker at a TR point- and if its really a situation where i want extra security (which isnt often), i use two non-lockers opposite and opposed, which i consider safer and stronger than a regular locker anyway.
edited to add: were the gates actually open or just unlocked? if they were just unlocked, they aren't any weaker in this configuration- but of course the gates can open up.
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Oct 17, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #3 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
Never heard of this happening ... maybe superglue? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
slacklinejoe
Oct 17, 2005, 8:36 PM
Post #4 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 1423
|
Eh? Do you mean the locking screw was unscrewed or that the gates themselves were hanging open. If the gates themselves were being held open you were TRing on biners working at less than 1/2 normal strength and putting a hell of a lot of trust in the climber not standing up against the top of the climb.
I've seen them work themselves loose once or twice, but always just one, never both. I fixed that by making sure I really cranked the lockers shut and got some with better threads than the POS lockers I started with.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Oct 17, 2005, 8:45 PM
Post #5 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I'm having a hard time visualizing how both biners became both unlocked, and open.
My first suspicion would be that you rigged the TR anchor with the master point biners loaded over an edge or an irregularity.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Oct 17, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #6 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
With both reversed and opposed, I would think that the chances of you not double checking the setup before climbing are much higher than the chances of *both* biners completely unscrewing.
With that said, maybee tighten the mechanism with a little more gusto next time?
Its nothing personal, but I have a very hard time seriously entertaining the idea that both unscrewed themselved.
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Oct 17, 2005, 9:01 PM
Post #7 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
:troll:
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Oct 17, 2005, 9:13 PM
Post #8 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Doh!
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 17, 2005, 9:37 PM
Post #9 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
to clear up a little confusion,
no this is not a troll.
the biners were against the rock with as little irregularities as possible for natural rock.
the locking mechanisms were rubbing against the spine of the other biner.
I did tighten the locks, but I've never cranked hard on a lock, because I don't want to over tighten the lock.
It's possible that I didn't lock them (I am only human after all) but I feel fairly certain that I did lock them.
the biners were unlocked and the gates were open when I went back to check them.
I know that the biners are less than half strength when open, but when there are two biners that are both open, aren't they twice as strong as one biner that is open?
Thanks for the responses, I think that I'm going to start using opposite and opposed non lockers more often, because the idea of a single locker for a power point makes me nervous about redundancy, and I don't think it's the best thing for your rope to be going over just one biner because of the sharpness in the bend (obviously this is unavoidable and not usually a concern when leading, but why do it to your rope if you don't have to?)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Oct 17, 2005, 9:41 PM
Post #10 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: the biners were unlocked and the gates were open when I went back to check them.
What was holding the gates open when you checked them? They don't just stay open.
|
|
|
|
|
jimfix
Oct 17, 2005, 10:16 PM
Post #11 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 314
|
Why use two lockers?
Two non-lockers, or one locker.
Autolockers shouldn't come open as I assume they just worked open from all the hangdogging NooBs do on TR.
|
|
|
|
|
theledge
Oct 17, 2005, 10:38 PM
Post #12 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 116
|
We had this problem (doubled lockers coming undone) on our ropes course. I cant really see how they would both stay open of they are properly opposed. If you are only worried about the angle and not the strength of the anchor (two lockers is overkill) try using one locker with a non-locker on each side.
|
|
|
|
|
onsight_endorphines
Oct 17, 2005, 10:44 PM
Post #13 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Posts: 226
|
LOL, I'm not even going to touch this one.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Oct 17, 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #14 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: We had this problem (doubled lockers coming undone) on our ropes course. I cant really see how they would both stay open of they are properly opposed. If you are only worried about the angle and not the strength of the anchor (two lockers is overkill) try using one locker with a non-locker on each side.
I use double lockers very frequently and have never had this happen. Never in 33 years I mean. This year I was out doing this almost every Tue and Thurs after work with a small regular group primarilly doing TRoping, I get out fairly frequently.
never heard of this until now either.
My opinion, the point of using 2 carabiners on a TR setup question: they say toproping is harder on a rope than leading/regular trad climbing swaping leads, because of all the hanging, dawging and lowering that goes on all day - the purpose of 2 carabiners is to try and minimize wear on the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
theledge
Oct 17, 2005, 11:40 PM
Post #15 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 116
|
The idea that it has never happened to me is not a proof. It takes an infinite number to prove something. It only takes once to disprove. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with any of these setups. They are all overkill. I happen to like the Single locker with two nonlockers because I have more nonlockers, and it increases the radius of curviture. Just putting out the idea as an alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Oct 17, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #16 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
I had this happen to me once. The biners came unscrewed. It depends how you lap the two biners. One way, the spine hitting the opposing screw case will gradually unscrew it. Lapping the biners the other way will have the spine trying to close them tighter. Take two biners, opposite and opposed and slide one over the other and see if you can cause the sleeve to turn open then take the top biner and place it on the bottom and try the procedure again. One way tightens, the other way loosens.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Oct 18, 2005, 12:12 AM
Post #17 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
while i was soloing a few weeks ago i noticed a tr set up with one locker and one non locker. the locker was unscrewed and the gate was open. i fixed it for them and went about my buisness. yes it can happen. another one of the reasons that I don't top rope much 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 18, 2005, 4:28 AM
Post #18 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
geezergecko wrote In reply to: I had this happen to me once. The biners came unscrewed. It depends how you lap the two biners. One way, the spine hitting the opposing screw case will gradually unscrew it. Lapping the biners the other way will have the spine trying to close them tighter. Take two biners, opposite and opposed and slide one over the other and see if you can cause the sleeve to turn open then take the top biner and place it on the bottom and try the procedure again. One way tightens, the other way loosens
ahh that explains it. to answer someone, the biners were being held open because they were being pressed against each other and the rock, pushing the (now) unlocked gates against the spine of the other biner, when the biners shifted they were held open.
thanks geezergecko, now I understand how this could happen
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Oct 18, 2005, 4:46 AM
Post #19 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: geezergecko wrote In reply to: I had this happen to me once. The biners came unscrewed. It depends how you lap the two biners. One way, the spine hitting the opposing screw case will gradually unscrew it. Lapping the biners the other way will have the spine trying to close them tighter. Take two biners, opposite and opposed and slide one over the other and see if you can cause the sleeve to turn open then take the top biner and place it on the bottom and try the procedure again. One way tightens, the other way loosens ahh that explains it. to answer someone, the biners were being held open because they were being pressed against each other and the rock, pushing the (now) unlocked gates against the spine of the other biner, when the biners shifted they were held open. thanks geezergecko, now I understand how this could happen
a picture of this setup would be nice.
without one, (and the ability to visualize this gat opening) i ask if this is a situation that can be avoided with a different setup, autolocking biners, or a different placement(longer/shorter sling) of the rope biners...?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Oct 18, 2005, 4:56 AM
Post #20 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
Veganboyjosh, I'll try and recreate this setup and put a picture up
|
|
|
|
|
tisar
Oct 18, 2005, 8:39 AM
Post #21 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
|
Lockers become unscrewed under cyclic load. This has seldomly to do with the gate rubbing against anything but is caused by the cyclic deformation of the biner.
Watch a locker in a toprope situations - especially while lowering: With every loading cycle the carabiner is stretched, to maybe about half a milimeter at the gate opening. This movement opens the locking screw by time.
Thightening the gate helps a little but still there's a good chance it'll come open after a while. That's why one always should use two lockers - opposite and opposed as said. Another solution is to use autolockers...
- Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
singin_rocker
Oct 18, 2005, 9:24 AM
Post #22 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 75
|
In reply to: the biners were against the rock with as little irregularities as possible for natural rock. the locking mechanisms were rubbing against the spine of the other biner. I did tighten the locks, but I've never cranked hard on a lock, because I don't want to over tighten the lock.
Sounds like an X-file to me Scully.
Maybe duct tape? :lol: I find it alarming that the two would become unlocked as you described. Good job by using two of them them though. I'm glad you discovered the problem and have no injuries to show for it.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 18, 2005, 1:23 PM
Post #23 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
You said you used two locking OVALS, right? Ovals are symmetrical, which means the locking mechanism will be against the spine of the other biner, causing leverage when the rope is weighted (in case, apparently, turning and opening the gate). Try using assymetrical or different size biners and you probably won't have this problem.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
zoratao
Oct 18, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #24 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 51
|
Is there a point to using two lockers?????
|
|
|
|
|
northerndrawl
Oct 18, 2005, 2:10 PM
Post #25 of 30
(4833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 42
|
Another solution is to use two locking Omega Pacific D biners. They have a cone shaped sleeve that is designed to "nest" against the sleeve on the second biner which is (gasp--heresy!) locking up with the gate on the same side. The result is that neither sleeve can open because the other is in the way.
As a bonus, with this design and application sleeves sit more flush, instead of awkwardly bumping against the spine of the opposite and opposed biner, reducing the likelihood of ovalizing the sleeve.
The biggest problem is eye rolling from other climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
