|
jred
Nov 19, 2005, 12:51 AM
Post #1 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In the latest issue of Rock and Ice there is an article in the Climb Safe section about belaying technique for a lead climber. The belay technique described is both awkward and stupid. Firstly the belay device is clearly upside down in all of the illustrations. Secondly it shows, on the articles first page the brake hand described as correct in a overhand position. On the very next page the hand is flipped. There are other mistakes as well, but the main lameness is just the ridiculously awkward method suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Nov 19, 2005, 1:45 AM
Post #2 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Massive thread on this on rec.climbing a while ago. Generally agreed it was terrible article and nobody would climb with a belayer using that BS technique.
But seriously, anyone reading the mags for technique or safety info should stay in the gym. Both of them routinely spew terrible advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
horseonwheels
Nov 19, 2005, 2:47 AM
Post #4 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Posts: 226
|
There's nothing wrong with the technique described in the Climb Safe section of R&I #146. It's a technique that thousands of climbers use succesfully all of the time. However, the description and photos do make it look more complicated than it really is.
It is strange that they have the hand in the overhand position on the first page, and the underhand position on the second, but it doesn't really matter which way your hand is facing.
I will say that people shouldn't learn to belay from a magazine, but it seems that the article was focused towards people using the parallel technique that may not be aware of the dangers of it. That is, taking in slack during a fall. It takes more awareness to move the brake hand back down to the break position.
Generally, it's better to have someone with experience and common sense belaying, regardless of the technique used.
In reply to: the belay device is clearly upside down in all of the illustrations |
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
Nov 19, 2005, 3:20 AM
Post #5 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
So since not all of us have subscriptions what do they advise?
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Nov 19, 2005, 3:36 AM
Post #6 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I haven't seen the article, but can't you flip some tube devices upside down to increase friction? hence the device would be upside down, but that is ok?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 19, 2005, 3:47 AM
Post #7 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: There's nothing wrong with the technique described in the Climb Safe section of R&I #146. It's a technique that thousands of climbers use succesfully all of the time.
There is plenty wrong with the technique, but I'll save that for another post. My question to you is where do the 1000s of climbers who use the technique in the article climb? I have never seen anyone use that method, and if I ever do, that person won't be belaying me.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 19, 2005, 4:07 AM
Post #8 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I haven't seen the article, but can't you flip some tube devices upside down to increase friction? hence the device would be upside down, but that is ok?
That's not the issue. The article advocates a convolluted 5-point belay technique the supposed advantage of which is that the rope is always locked off. The fallacy, however, is that having the rope always locked off is not usually an advantage; it's a disadvantage. The rope only needs to be locked off to catch a fall. The rest of the time the belayer should hold the brake side of the rope in a neutral postion -- say 45 to 90 degrees from the leader's side of the rope. With the ropes held in this manner, the belayer can respond instantly to his partner's needs, always keeping the optimal amount of slack in the system. If the climber suddenly needs a huge amount of slack for a clip, the belayer can instantly give it; if the climber falls unexpectedly above an obstacle, the belayer can instantly yard in an armful of slack; etc. In contrast, with the rope constantly locked off, the belayer must first bring the rope up out of the locked-off position before giving or taking in slack. The extra fraction of a second required to do so results in short-roping, and in general slow, inflexible belaying that limits the belayer's options. For instance, it completely negates the belayer's ability to pull in an armful of slack in response to a sudden fall above an obstacle.
What I wrote above applies to any method of belaying in which the rope is kept locked off by default, but the method in the article is even worse. It effectively limits the belayer's options even further because the guide hand is often the one doing the braking. If the leader falls, quickly needs slack, or whatever, while the guide hand is acting as the brake hand, the belayer is in a very poor position to respond. Most likely he will have to switch brake hands first and then bring the rope out of the locked-off postion before finally being able to actually do something useful. Of course, by the time he does all that it will be too late to do anything useful.
The method is worse than worthless. It is outright dangerous.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
deserteaglle
Nov 19, 2005, 4:28 PM
Post #9 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2005
Posts: 1617
|
The method does seem a little impractical, but the main idea of creating more friction by not using the Atc with the paralell style does make sense.
I am sooo lucky because just this last weekend, I removed my brake hand for a whole fracton of a second and my partner didn't die, though he definitely could have. It was a close one though, and I'll never make that horrible mistake again.
Already said, but I have to repeat. The belay device is not upside down...I have no idea what you meant, it would be interesting to see what kind of job it would do if it were... :?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 19, 2005, 5:19 PM
Post #10 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
I've not seen the article myself, but from the pics I've seen:
http://dawnalguard.com/climbing/atrest.jpg
http://dawnalguard.com/climbing/slack.jpg
http://dawnalguard.com/climbing/takein.jpg
I hate to be so blunt, but they've got their heads up their asses.
Jay has pointed out the overall idiocy of the method, because of how cumbersome it is, and how it requires a locked-off position at all times, but there is a specific problem with it that seems particularly dangerous.
In the photos above, when the belayer is in positions 3 and four, if they have a solid hand on the brake end rope with their guide hand (which is necessary to re-set or slide the brake hand), it becomes very difficult to effectively move the brake hand down into a brake position. The brake strand is basically caught in a sort of middle position by the guide hand. And the cross-through position of the guide hand makes it impossible for the guide hand to get down low enough to allow good braking.
So if the climber were to fall while the belayer was in position 3 or 4, the belayer would have to let go with the guide hand. I'll be damned if I'm going to teach a new belayer a technique requiring letting go with one hand "Okay, which hand lets go again?"
Compared to what I teach, this technique is both cumbersome and inferior.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 19, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #11 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Seems odd to me.
THey have combined the worst elements of 3 or 4 different methods into one mishmosh.
Does anyone else believe that if your braking hand is too close to the belay device (as shown in several of their pics) that the belayer could get their hand caught between the rope and device in a fall, which tends to really hurt and is also quite dangerous for the leader?
|
|
|
|
|
landgolier
Nov 19, 2005, 6:59 PM
Post #12 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 714
|
I have it on good authority that Jay wrote that article and did the idiotic photos in an effort to prove that anyone who belays hands down is a complete moron who can't even set up their belay device correctly. :D :D
|
|
|
|
|
grk10vq
Nov 19, 2005, 7:14 PM
Post #13 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: My question to you is where do the 1000s of climbers who use the technique in the article climb?
joshua tree. remember?
|
|
|
|
|
claramie
Nov 19, 2005, 7:35 PM
Post #14 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 152
|
In reply to: But seriously, anyone reading the mags for technique or safety info should stay in the gym. Both of them routinely spew terrible advice.
Not to be a stickler, but I would have to disagree with you. No one source of information is totally accurate or fool-proof, but I regularly read magazine tips for ideas. I read magazines for tech tips and safety information and I have no reason to stay in the gym
Take everything with a grain of salt, and do extra research. Don't just disregard potentially great technique because you think that climbing mags don't ever give good advice. Also don't follow advice that you think might be suspect. Gather information, use techniques that feel the best and are safe. I learn every day.
|
|
|
|
|
statusfreejoy
Nov 19, 2005, 7:54 PM
Post #15 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 48
|
I agree that this method looks like crap...too awkward!
I also agree that one could come up with 10 different ways to belay that would be generally "safe." It seems much important to know how the gear works and be able to think clearly about the specific conditions in which you find yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
horseonwheels
Nov 19, 2005, 8:02 PM
Post #16 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Posts: 226
|
In reply to: There is plenty wrong with the technique, but I'll save that for another post. Jay
By saying that it is wrong, it would seem that you are implying that someone will die using that technique, which is obviously not the case. I agree that it perhaps isn't the best possible technique, especially for feeding out slack, but people using it have no greater chance of dropping their leader than any other technique (provided they are familiar with it).
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Nov 19, 2005, 8:14 PM
Post #17 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: The method does seem a little impractical, but the main idea of creating more friction by not using the Atc with the paralell style does make sense. I am sooo lucky because just this last weekend, I removed my brake hand for a whole fracton of a second and my partner didn't die, though he definitely could have. It was a close one though, and I'll never make that horrible mistake again. Already said, but I have to repeat. The belay device is not upside down...I have no idea what you meant, it would be interesting to see what kind of job it would do if it were... :? |
|
|
|
|
altelis
Nov 19, 2005, 10:17 PM
Post #18 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
two points----one, if the picture posted is the same as in the article (haven't read the article) there is nothing wrong with the orientation of the rope....the strand "on top" is going to the climber
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimdavis
Nov 20, 2005, 12:37 AM
Post #20 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 1935
|
I'll argue that they have a good point. Having the brake strand locked off 90% of the time is a good thing. It's not that hard to yard slack in, or pay slack out...they pics just ruin it though.
That's very similiar to the way my gym makes climbers belay, and the way I relearned to belay and have been doing for almost 4 years now.
It is much safer than the old thumbs up, pinch w/ parallel ropes method; and it's much easier to teach to beginners.
Here are the problems I see with the article...
1) the belay device is twisted...why the hell did they do that? just stupid....
2) they show their lock-off possition being off to the side. yeah, some old school climbers like to brake off to the side...but it's pointless these days and its not as strong. it's easier to hold a locked off ropes straight down with your thumb up, than out by your side with your thumb down.
3) this locked off to the side shit...makes your transfer step much harder. (step 3 and 4)
4) with your your locked off possition stright down, and your thumbs up, it's super easy to transfer your hands, just grab below your brake hand, with both thumbs up and slide your brake hand up.
4) for paying out rope, all i ever do is slide my hand down the brake strand, no transfer hand (steps 3 and 4 in their article). I dont think you really need to have a step 3. if you slide your hand down (not to the friggin side), with only a slightly loose grip, you'll be able to feel if the rope starts to move instantly (if your climber falls). the weight of the rope on one end, and the friction of the belay device makes it so you can slide down the rope still maintaining a decent hold on it, and you can catch a fall easilly. Their match hands with one hand outwards, one inwards, to the side is just stupid.
I'm disappointed that R&I presented this technique this way...who wants to be the one to write in?
If you have any questions about what I said, let me know. I can see the noobs putting on their flame-throwers now....
Cheers,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 20, 2005, 4:22 AM
Post #21 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: people using it have no greater chance of dropping their leader than any other technique (provided they are familiar with it).
I vehemently disagree with you, and I explained why in my earlier post.
In addition, dropping your leader isn't the only way to fail him, to cause him injury. JT is right - even if you don't drop someone, you stand a good chance of short-roping the leader to the point where he takes a leader fall. Lead falls are dangerous, and people get hurt, sometimes badly, from taking them all the time.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 20, 2005, 6:12 AM
Post #22 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Another humorous thing on this (which was mentioned in the rec.climbing thread): those two diagrams show the brake hand in a different position. Apparently we are supposed to somehow switch between palms up and palms down depending on whether we are feeding slack or pulling it in.
The article was just plain crap.
|
|
|
|
|
phreakdigital
Nov 20, 2005, 7:55 AM
Post #23 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2002
Posts: 228
|
well i have caught many falls just like this and have belayed 100s of climbs just like this...i didn't get it out of a magazine...i just did what i thought would be safer and work to get around what i deem to be the more awkward method that is taught in the gyms. Many of these 1000s of climbers doing this live in Oregon and california...i have climbed with people in Yosemite, tuolumne meadows, Donner, lovers leap, placerville, Smith Rocks Oregon, and many other local crags across the west who belay very similar to this. I believe many of you are not understanding the true technique being portrayed here...perhaps its confusing if this isn't your style, but if it is you get it...many things are like this...dangerous? worthless? maybe that is just your posts? I think we should hesitate to call anything worthless that others are saying isn't.
This is being way way overanalyzed...the reason the photos are slightly different is because obviously they aren't belaying...they are take pictures...they are posed...either way you can catch a lead fall...i have done it...i believe one is better than the other...the obviously better one.
These steps are done quickly...and i don't feel awkward at all...this most certainly wont change my belay technique
|
|
|
|
|
horseonwheels
Nov 20, 2005, 10:26 AM
Post #24 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Posts: 226
|
In reply to: I vehemently disagree with you, and I explained why in my earlier post. In addition, dropping your leader isn't the only way to fail him, to cause him injury. JT is right - even if you don't drop someone, you stand a good chance of short-roping the leader to the point where he takes a leader fall. Lead falls are dangerous, and people get hurt, sometimes badly, from taking them all the time. GO
Short-roping the leader is a result of the belayer not paying attention, not a fault of the belay technique. Is it generally less efficient to use a hip-belay than a standard tube device? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's a dangerous way to belay, provided the belayer knows the correct way to use it.
In reply to: well i have caught many falls just like this and have belayed 100s of climbs just like this...i didn't get it out of a magazine...i just did what i thought would be safer and work to get around what i deem to be the more awkward method that is taught in the gyms. Many of these 1000s of climbers doing this live in Oregon and california...i have climbed with people in Yosemite, tuolumne meadows, Donner, lovers leap, placerville, Smith Rocks Oregon, and many other local crags across the west who belay very similar to this. I believe many of you are not understanding the true technique being portrayed here...perhaps its confusing if this isn't your style, but if it is you get it...many things are like this...dangerous? worthless? maybe that is just your posts? I think we should hesitate to call anything worthless that others are saying isn't. This is being way way overanalyzed...the reason the photos are slightly different is because obviously they aren't belaying...they are take pictures...they are posed...either way you can catch a lead fall...i have done it...i believe one is better than the other...the obviously better one. These steps are done quickly...and i don't feel awkward at all...this most certainly wont change my belay technique
Exactly!!!
I also use a variation of this technique, as do a number of people that I know and have climbed with, and no leader has ever been short-roped or dropped because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 20, 2005, 2:45 PM
Post #25 of 353
(32316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: the reason the photos are slightly different is because obviously they aren't belaying...they are take pictures...they are posed
Right. And, due to the inconsistency, one can only presume that the person posing in the photos doesn't actually use this technique. (Or if they do, they apparently switch their brake hand orientation constantly, and are probably a pretty scary belayer).
In other words: R&I is totally full of shit on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
