I really don't understand this point of view, to be honest.

It seems to me that you reduce the peak force seen in a fall// chances of catastrophic failure by building a solid anchor with the consequence meaning running it out a little more. Right?

Especially given that he ran it out right off the anchor anyway.

How would it be better to build a crappier anchor but have 1 extra piece of gear for the pitch?

The thinking that it would be better to have a crappy anchor but not have to run it out seems to me to be an indication of a SCARED train of thought NOT a rational one,eh?

I agree that a 2 piece gear anchor is never a good idea. My question is why did 3 placements fail?

A good climber should build his anchor not based on number of pieces on the wall but based on what the maximum forces may apply to their anchor in SOL situation such as both leader and belayer falling from the anchor.

If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay.

The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no.

Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did.

Am I missing something?

If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay.

The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no.

Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did.

Am I missing something?

Trevor placed a #1 BD cam and proceeded to climb above it. He complained of some difficulties with the climbing and suddenly pitched off backwards. He came tight to the #1 which he was roughly 5 feet above. The cam pulled and he continued falling backward, now head-first, toward the belay. Claire locked off the rope through her ATC and braced inward against the wall to arrest the fall. Trevor hit Claire causing her to slam into the wall leading to fractures of her cheek bone, arm and wrist. Claire also was knocked unconscious at this point. Trevor continued his fall and as the rope came tight through the anchor, the two pieces failed. Luckily for Claire, she had collapsed onto the ledge when she passed out. Her unconscious state also led to a relaxed grip on the rope. Thus, as Trevor continued falling, Claire remained on the ledge despite the anchor blowing. Had she not been knocked out, she would have certainly kept a tight hold on the brake and undoubtedly would have been pulled off the ledge into a fall with Trevor. Sadly, under these circumstances, there was virtually nothing that would have kept Trevor from decking but Claire somehow escaped the same fate.

Sounds like the rope was clipped through the master point and when he hit the end of the rope (after his piece failed) that the two piece anchor failed. Hard to say for sure, but if the anchor hadn't failed, I don't think he would have decked.

Sounds like the rope was clipped through the master point and when he hit the end of the rope (after his piece failed) that the two piece anchor failed. Hard to say for sure, but if the anchor hadn't failed, I don't think he would have decked.

"you are missing a lot but then that is another thread by itself"




A little pissy I pointed out something you hadn't thought of??? Hmm???

Don't you have someone to rescue???

You see, you guys always focus on the event by itself and not the true causes on WHY these climbers took fewer gear with them. let's talk about “climb light and fast mentality”

MS

The climbing at Suicide hardly dictates a "fast and light" style. What's your point?

Does it really matter why they didn't have enough gear with them to adequately protect the route?

Of course it matters. If you do not enough gear to securely lead a pitch then you should stay down below and try some bouldering and not to jeopardize your own and the belayer's life with some half ass protection.

Seriously, who in the hell would build an anchor only protecting against an upward force? That's a mistake which should make you rethink climbing without a guide. Sorry to be a dick. But seriously, no experienced climber should be doing that.

Majid, I disagree. More protection is the obvious answer. In hindsight, it's true they should have had more protection. Now the question is why did the protection they have fail?

We've answered your question, so what else can we learn?

Edited to be nicer.

Seriously, who in the hell would build an anchor only protecting against an upward force? That's a mistake which should make you rethink climbing without a guide. Sorry to be a dick. But seriously, no experienced climber should be doing that.

Majid, I disagree. More protection is the obvious answer. In hindsight, it's true they should have had more protection. Now the question is why did the protection they have fail?

We've answered your question, so what else can we learn?

Edited to be nicer.

If I understand this story right, because the climber went to the deck and not the end of the rope, a bomber anchor wouldn't have changed anything. The belayer was knocked out and climber was effectively off belay.

The only way the story can make sense in my head is if the 2 anchor pieces failed when the climber hit the belayer, and not when the rope came taut against the anchor. She was knocked out and there was no way for the rope to come taut against the anchor redirect or no.

Unless of course he went to the end of the rope, but it doesn't sound like he did.

Am I missing something?

It could have happened this way. Climber falls, pulls #1 Camalot, and hits belayer. Belayer is knocked out and can't apply the brakes. Leader falls the length of the first pitch. Rope comes taught on anchor, just before he decks. Anchor fails but because climber decks, no more rope is pulled out. Belayer manages to stay on ledge because of this.

It would take an amazing stroke of luck for the fall distance to be just a little longer than the rope.

just remember that longer dynamic rope in service reduces the impact so most likely,the anchor failed during the initial impact where the leader hit the belayer .As belayer got knocked off, his weight turned in to a dead anchor which also reduced the shock. My guess is that anchor failed right after the upward shock load .