|
ptlong
Jun 17, 2010, 3:42 PM
Post #176 of 190
(2033 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
rgold wrote: As I said, I use the same system for lead belaying, in which case the tie-in knot might be ring-loaded for ordinary leader falls.
Well in that case Cracklover's suggestion to clip the belay loop as well is a good one.
In reply to: Added in edit: Although the figure-eight knot can roll when ring-loaded at relatively low loads (~800 lbf), I've never seen anything about the stability of a figure-eight backed up by a double-overhand (barrel knot).
Or the figure-eight tucked back in (aka Yosemite finish).
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 17, 2010, 4:04 PM
Post #177 of 190
(2023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
ptlong wrote: rgold wrote: As I said, I use the same system for lead belaying, in which case the tie-in knot might be ring-loaded for ordinary leader falls. Well in that case Cracklover's suggestion to clip the belay loop as well is a good one.
Yes, quite so. Or use a good backup knot.
But a single bowline with no backup (or one where the backup knot has unraveled after six pitches of climbing) could easily be pulled apart by those sorts of forces.
In reply to: In reply to: Added in edit: Although the figure-eight knot can roll when ring-loaded at relatively low loads (~800 lbf), I've never seen anything about the stability of a figure-eight backed up by a double-overhand (barrel knot). Or the figure-eight tucked back in (aka Yosemite finish).
It seems inconceivable to me that a fig-8 follow-through knot could roll *over* a barrel-knot backup. I think the rope would break first (IE - not gonna happen).
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 17, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #178 of 190
(2009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I too suspect that a figure-eight with barrel knot backup won't roll. And the double bowline/yosemite finish/barrel knot combination does not "unravel" after a twelve pitches of climbing, much less six, in my pretty lengthy experience.
The point being that the dreaded "ring loading" effect probably only applies to knots that haven't been tied with appropriate backups, which means it needn't be a consideration at all.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 17, 2010, 6:16 PM
Post #179 of 190
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rgold wrote: I too suspect that a figure-eight with barrel knot backup won't roll. And the double bowline/yosemite finish/barrel knot combination does not "unravel" after a twelve pitches of climbing, much less six, in my pretty lengthy experience. The point being that the dreaded "ring loading" effect probably only applies to knots that haven't been tied with appropriate backups, which means it needn't be a consideration at all.
At no time did I suggest that *your* method of tying in was suspect.
But I strongly disagree that ring loading "needen't be a consideration at all" for climbers tying in with a safe knot and a safe backup, if they clip the belay device to the tie-in bight only.
One of the most common methods of tying in is to use a fig-8 follow-through knot with a double-fisherman (barrel knot) backup. The backup knot often falls apart after a few pitches.
I also have met people who do not use a backup on their fig-8 at all. And for most cases, I would not say this is a particularly dangerous practice, since in a worst-case scenario, the rope can come out of even the last bend in the knot, and still safely catch a fall.
I have yet to climb with anyone who ties in with a single bowline with a double-fisherman backup, but I'm sure such people exist. And while that is a reasonably acceptable practice, it would make a very dangerous potential scenario in combination with your lead belaying method, since unloaded half double-fishermans (barrel knots) will come out on their own, and the single bowline is extremely susceptible to ring-loading.
Nothing against your method - just that it requires some attention to the method of tying in, {edited to add}at least if being used for lead belaying.{/edit}
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Jun 17, 2010, 6:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 17, 2010, 7:10 PM
Post #180 of 190
(1976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Gabe, you're right. There's no question that some attention has to be paid if the method is going to be used to belay a leader. It works for me, but I'm not suggesting anyone else should be using it.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 17, 2010, 10:24 PM
Post #181 of 190
(1958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
bill413 wrote: spikeddem wrote: Edit: This post assumes we're belaying a second, which is what most of this thread has been about (flames excluded). Perhaps I'm picturing Rgold's method incorrectly, but what is gained by doing rgold's method instead of doing what I've listed below? 1) clove hitch in to the masterpoint (assuming the anchor is made with a cordelette) 2) tie a figure eight on a bight immediately underneath the clove hitch (not on the strand going to the harness) 3) Belay with a munter off the figure eight (a direct belay off the anchor) There is no need to escape the belay, it gives freedom of movement for the belayer, and the munter allows for an easily lowered second. Optionally, to avoid any issue with both strands of the clove hitch being loaded (thus loading the spine of the carabiner, one could just use a figure eight to attach to the anchor instead. If the belayer moves around, their relationship to the belay device changes. It can be easier to have it in a known place at all times, and can make for faster rope movement.
I was referring to just adjustments or stretching your legs or something. If the line to the anchor wasn't taut (e.g., belaying standing to stretch legs), then they're going to get yanked down. Or if they want to reach over to grab some water or whatever else.
When belaying a second, I just absolutely don't see advantage in belaying off the eight from the harness instead of an eight off the anchor. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Jun 17, 2010, 10:43 PM
Post #182 of 190
(1949 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
spikeddem wrote: Perhaps I'm picturing Rgold's method incorrectly, but what is gained by doing rgold's method instead of doing what I've listed below?
If you read rgold's post you would have come across his reason. You may disagree with him of course but that's the rationale.
rgold wrote: The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay.
To this I would also add that it means there is no extra transition in going from belaying the second to belaying the leader, as would be necessary if you belayed the second directly off the anchor itself.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Jun 17, 2010, 10:55 PM
Post #183 of 190
(1942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
ptlong wrote: spikeddem wrote: Perhaps I'm picturing Rgold's method incorrectly, but what is gained by doing rgold's method instead of doing what I've listed below? If you read rgold's post you would have come across his reason. You may disagree with him of course but that's the rationale.
All it says it that it incorporates a shock-absorbing connection to the anchor and that it is easier to catch a factor 2 fall. The first is not any different than the setup that I'm advocating. Considering that belaying directly off an 8 with a munter off the anchor is more comfortable (RGold points this out when he compares it to belaying off the anchor using an auto(b)locking device), and that I'm only talking about belaying a second, I see no reason to use this method. Especially when considering the necessary belay escape involved in rescuing a second, and that the belayer must keep himself or herself in a position that keeps the line both taut and in a straight line between the climber and the anchor.
In reply to: rgold wrote: The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay. To this I would also add that it means there is no extra transition in going from belaying the second to belaying the leader, as would be necessary if you belayed the second directly off the anchor itself.
All that's necessary is for the climber to change his munter into a clove hitch (or to avoid a potential factor one fall, clove into another biner left on the anchor's shelf. And they're on belay before they've even got the gear leftover from your harness.
(This post was edited by spikeddem on Jun 17, 2010, 11:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
Jun 17, 2010, 11:28 PM
Post #184 of 190
(1928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
spikeddem wrote: All it says it that it incorporates a shock-absorbing connection to the anchor and that it is easier to catch a factor 2 fall......
Didn't think I needed to highlight his words for you:
rgold wrote: The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay.
In reply to: ptlong wrote: To this I would also add that it means there is no extra transition in going from belaying the second to belaying the leader... All that's necessary is for the climber to change his munter into a clove hitch (or to avoid a potential factor one fall, clove into another biner left on the anchor's shelf.
Right, that's one way to do it. It's an extra step that rgold's method avoids.
In reply to: And they're on belay before they've even got the gear leftover from your harness.
So I've been told, but I often find that there's a short delay while this operation takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 17, 2010, 11:45 PM
Post #185 of 190
(1922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
spideddem wrote: All it says it that it incorporates a shock-absorbing connection to the anchor and that it is easier to catch a factor 2 fall. The first is not any different than the setup that I'm advocating. Considering that belaying directly off an 8 with a munter off the anchor is more comfortable (RGold points this out when he compares it to belaying off the anchor using an auto(b)locking device), and that I'm only talking about belaying a second, I see no reason to use this method. Especially when considering the necessary belay escape involved in rescuing a second, and that the belayer must keep himself or herself in a position that keeps the line both taut and in a straight line between the climber and the anchor.
It is true that some things were left unsaid.
1. I climb almost exclusively with half ropes, so the Munter method is out, and I'm not a fan of plates.
2. I regularly find I have to construct anchors whose position is no good for belaying essentially off the power point, for example because the anchors are too low. I wonder whether folks who speak as if this doesn't occur regularly climb in areas that have bolted belays.
I've also seen people set up anchors allowing them to belay off the power point when far better anchors are available, and wonder whether their dedication to power point belaying doesn't limit their perspectives.
3. The discussion about ring-loading notwithstanding, I still feel the method I described is the best way to be prepared for a factor-2 fall. The fact that you don't have to change anything when going from belaying the second to belaying the leader is a small bonus.
4. Not to start another fuss-up, but I think the whole belay-escape industry is mostly a distraction leading to improvised rescue scenarios that won't work half the time and will take so long another quarter of the time as to be perhaps worse than useless. I understand that guides may have to rescue seconds who are clueless, but if you are not taking out a rank beginner, the second can just about always rescue themselves. Whatever the case, if you are dealing with an injury in which a few minutes here or there is really and truly going to make a critical difference, then I suspect you're dealing with a fatality no matter what.
BUT, as I said to Gabe, these are things that work for me, YMMV. Ya gotta do what you feel most comfortable doing.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 18, 2010, 6:59 PM
Post #186 of 190
(1880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
ptlong wrote: rgold wrote: The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay. To this I would also add that it means there is no extra transition in going from belaying the second to belaying the leader, as would be necessary if you belayed the second directly off the anchor itself.
My understanding, although I haven't seen this in person, is that it is a fairly common practice in Europe to belay the leader directly off the anchor.
In such cases, no transition would be necessary in Spike's belay method as the second becomes the leader.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jun 18, 2010, 10:27 PM
Post #187 of 190
(1853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
The Euro off-the-bolts leader belay is typically set up with a short a sling as possible. This is because when the leader falls, the munter carabiner naturally flies up until held down by the sling, smacking the biner against the rock and adding to the length of the leader fall. I rather doubt that the folks who use this type of belay would think it good to have the munter biner extended below the anchor even a little, as Spike's method does.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 19, 2010, 3:44 AM
Post #188 of 190
(1828 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Makes sense. Though I suppose one could use a rather short stretch of rope. His method doesn't appeal to me much for other reasons, though, anyway.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Jun 19, 2010, 7:41 PM
Post #189 of 190
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
billcoe_ wrote: That just happened to me yesterday. I was belaying a new knob climb with an ATC, and realized that my location under the small overhang was not as safe as I thought, and I swapped out the atc for a gri gri when the climber was above me 40' still on lead.
8 pages of sporto-driven argument (yawn) and no one did a double-take at this?
RC.wtf
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 19, 2010, 11:10 PM
Post #190 of 190
(1779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
davidnn5 wrote: billcoe_ wrote: That just happened to me yesterday. I was belaying a new knob climb with an ATC, and realized that my location under the small overhang was not as safe as I thought, and I swapped out the atc for a gri gri when the climber was above me 40' still on lead. 8 pages of sporto-driven argument (yawn) and no one did a double-take at this? RC.wtf
No one but you apparently.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
