|
|
|
|
MarcelS
Jul 27, 2011, 7:58 AM
Post #1 of 21
(5677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2011
Posts: 103
|
When I was climbing in France, all top anchors were build with a vertical chain. 2 bomber bolts placed vertically, big steel biners through them, and a chain between those biners.
Now I did get the advice from a local guide, who equips these routes as well, that I should ty in to the chain when setting up my lowering/rapelling (which seemed obvious) and then lower off/rappel through the lower steel biner only. Which seems bomber enough, but provides no redundancy. This guide did have a group of kids on a trip, and they were actually toproping on a similar setup: the rope only went through the lower biner, instead of making their own toprope anchor and attach it to the existing anchor.
How is your opinion on this? I always learned redundancy is they key, my own anchors can hold a Leopard tank or 2, yet here I should rappel from a single steel biner? Am I either too careful, or was the guide/route equiper wrong in his advice?
|
|
|
|
|
rsmillbern
Jul 27, 2011, 10:17 AM
Post #2 of 21
(5658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 319
|
MarcelS wrote: When I was climbing in France, all top anchors were build with a vertical chain. 2 bomber bolts placed vertically, big steel biners through them, and a chain between those biners. Now I did get the advice from a local guide, who equips these routes as well, that I should ty in to the chain when setting up my lowering/rapelling (which seemed obvious) and then lower off/rappel through the lower steel biner only. Which seems bomber enough, but provides no redundancy. This guide did have a group of kids on a trip, and they were actually toproping on a similar setup: the rope only went through the lower biner, instead of making their own toprope anchor and attach it to the existing anchor. How is your opinion on this? I always learned redundancy is they key, my own anchors can hold a Leopard tank or 2, yet here I should rappel from a single steel biner? Am I either too careful, or was the guide/route equiper wrong in his advice?
Unless I am missing something rapping off the lower biner would still be redundant as the biner is attached to the bolt and the bolt to the chain?
I agree with being redundant as much as possible. Coming from the US you almost always see 2 anchor setups, in Germany you rarely see 2 anchor setups...
As always you must make the call on what is safe. There is no 100% rule. Backing up a bolt with a stopper, sling, cam, whatever is always better than the alternative if the bolt goes (even if it is financially painful).
|
|
|
|
|
MarcelS
Jul 27, 2011, 1:09 PM
Post #3 of 21
(5616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2011
Posts: 103
|
Well that depends on the failing part: if it is the biner itself that fails, there is no backup. should the bolt fail, the chain would indeed be the backup for that.
Now I know the odds of a big steel biner failing are of extremely small (as long as it is not worn out of course), but that does not mean I do blindly trust it.
In the end I did take the man's advice, as most of my climbs I rap down from and the anchors all looked very good, but it still made me think. Why not simply use horizontal anchor setups so you can rig your rope through both biners, instead of these vertical setups. Even while the guides are the same people that equip the routes, and will replace these biners long before they wear out, I'd really prefer a setup where my anchor is redundant! Even more with those anchors that are used for toprope setups for the tourists they bring to the crag.
|
|
|
|
|
rsmillbern
Jul 27, 2011, 1:19 PM
Post #4 of 21
(5609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 319
|
I mostly agree, but (generally) I trust a steel biner with a good inspection.
I have "heard" that the DAV did some research on the horizontal Vs vertical anchor setup and found the vertical one better. I will see if I can find the article.... For me I trust the vertical anchor with a chain between for belaying.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jul 27, 2011, 2:26 PM
Post #5 of 21
(5585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
Should only be a matter of minutes before two things are posted:
1. American Death Triangle.
2. Run your TR through your own gear because the wear and tear is abusive to the perma gear.
Wait for it....
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 27, 2011, 5:44 PM
Post #6 of 21
(5535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Horizontal lower-offs twist the rope, wear faster and have more friction.
Vertical inline systems are virtually universal in Europe both indoors and outdoors because we tried the other system years ago!
And not even the UIAA `thinks´lower-offs should be redundant, both they and the European standard consider one point sufficient.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 27, 2011, 7:14 PM
Post #7 of 21
(5505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
If you haven't seen this type of anchor yet you should check it out:
The ring at the bottom is a "master point" of sorts because it is connected to the top bolt (via the chain) and the lower bolt, however it is a single connection point. The reason there is no need for redundancy in that ring is because it's rated to 35-50kN.
I've encountered a few of these systems out there on the rock and I honestly wish there were more like it, instead of the horizontal arrangement commonly found here in America.
|
|
|
|
|
MarcelS
Jul 27, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #8 of 21
(5478 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2011
Posts: 103
|
Funny thing is that in another thread (short top rope advice needed) several people state that you should never toprope on a single anything. You must have redundancy. And my gut feeling agrees with that.
Yet, the setup as shown in the picture by acorneau I have seen before, and is clearly made to use the single ring. And the guide that equips the routes specifically advised to use the lower biner only for the rappel/lower/toprope. So it seems that there is no consensus about this.
What I decided in the end is that for rappel/lowering I do trust the bottom biner (or the ring). When I do set up a toprope for a partner, I build my own anchor anyway.
Thanks for your input!
|
|
|
|
|
amyas
Jul 27, 2011, 10:18 PM
Post #9 of 21
(5461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2009
Posts: 86
|
acorneau wrote: If you haven't seen this type of anchor yet you should check it out: [image]http://www.fixeusa.com/images/products/anchors/007-037_300x400.gif[/image] The ring at the bottom is a "master point" of sorts because it is connected to the top bolt (via the chain) and the lower bolt, however it is a single connection point. The reason there is no need for redundancy in that ring is because it's rated to 35-50kN. I've encountered a few of these systems out there on the rock and I honestly wish there were more like it, instead of the horizontal arrangement commonly found here in America.
Come up to the Canadian rockies sometime, we seem to be going this way (the vertical 2 point anchors) on a lot of retrobolts. Check out some big limestone walls, strong beer and the metric system while you're up here gasping in awe at our progressive developers.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Jul 27, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #10 of 21
(5446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
This is mostly a Europe vs US thing. In Europe one point is generally considered sufficient (even a single bomber bolt in many cases), but in the US, it is generally tought that you should always have a minimum of two points of attachment in case one fails.
I agree with the european view that one good attachment point is all that you need (such as the single ring in the photo above). My problem with this is more along the lines of it becoming the norm to the point that people blindly trust a single attachment point. I could certainly see a future case where someone equips a route with a single ring that isn't for climbing, then someone who doesn't know the difference but trusts a single attachment point uses it and ends up dead.
Just look at this thread http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ng%20broken;#2376540 to see an example of a ring that broke under little more then body weight that I could easily see someone using to equip a route with (even though you shouldn't since it's aluminum and would wear very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
JoeHamilton
Jul 28, 2011, 2:49 AM
Post #11 of 21
(5406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2011
Posts: 815
|
what happened to a good 'ole tree or two ? oh yeah we went to drilling holes in the rock and attaching bolts. They both seem to work ,( I know i am going out on limb adding my thoughts here) I think the horizontal makes us feel safe because when we was young top ropers we tied using webbing on two trees and the biners in the middle ,balancing weight to a focal point. Less stress on either tree. The vertical looks to safer in the sense that the lower of ring would first stress the and take weight on the first bolt n hanger ,if that popped the chain would hold and absorb shock with the top bolt backing it up.
(This post was edited by JoeHamilton on Jul 28, 2011, 1:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 28, 2011, 3:48 AM
Post #12 of 21
(5396 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
JimTitt wrote: Horizontal lower-offs twist the rope, wear faster and have more friction. Vertical inline systems are virtually universal in Europe both indoors and outdoors because we tried the other system years ago! And not even the UIAA `thinks´lower-offs should be redundant, both they and the European standard consider one point sufficient. Jim
Before I read your post I was going to post that Jim Titt says that redundant lower-off anchors are for brainwashed Nancy-pants Americans. Does that about sum it up?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 28, 2011, 6:24 AM
Post #13 of 21
(5363 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
jt512 wrote: JimTitt wrote: Horizontal lower-offs twist the rope, wear faster and have more friction. Vertical inline systems are virtually universal in Europe both indoors and outdoors because we tried the other system years ago! And not even the UIAA `thinks´lower-offs should be redundant, both they and the European standard consider one point sufficient. Jim Before I read your post I was going to post that Jim Titt says that redundant lower-off anchors are for brainwashed Nancy-pants Americans. Does that about sum it up? Jay
Well, I was working a route on a toprope the other week (along with two sponsored climbers and UIGM guide) and did reflect that the single draw through the single bolt might perhaps not be what the internet pundits would like to see.
I think it´s historical, the Euro´s come from a background of a bolt being a gigantic iron thing cemented a foot or two into the rock and with set standards of unbreakability nearly a hundred years ago, longer if you count Elbe sandstone bolts which were standardised even before then. So we are happy with one bolt.
The Americans on the other hand are working upwards from 1/4" rubbish which need all the help they can get.
Each part of the typical lower-off is required by law to be made strong enough to withstand any load a climber could ever impose and be stronger than all the rest of his equipment.
The only uncontrollable aspect is the bolt placement so de-riguer these days is an additional bolt as redundancy joined in by a chain, mostly influenced by the expectations (paranoia) of a new generation of gym climbers where this is a requirement due to the low strength of the individual fastenings (12kN).
Since there appears to have never been a single-bolt lower-off failure ever in Europe that I can find we might well be doing it right, in fact so much so that when the UIAA produced a provisional standard for the lower-offs themselves (the ring, karabiner, ramshorn or whatever) they reduced the strength requirement to 15kN.
V chainsets are very restrictive in that you have to find two good bolt placements in a fairly small area to keep reasonable bolt spacing but not open the angle of the V excessively and in our experience are usually never perfectly equalised anyway so are merely redundant. Inline you have a far greater choice of where to fit the two bolts since they don´t really need to be vertical, normal practice is to set them at an angle of roughly 30°.
Anyway, shouldn´t you guys be worrying about getting your economy out of the shit instead of this stuff?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
MarcelS
Jul 28, 2011, 7:14 AM
Post #14 of 21
(5358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2011
Posts: 103
|
jt512 wrote: JimTitt wrote: Horizontal lower-offs twist the rope, wear faster and have more friction. Vertical inline systems are virtually universal in Europe both indoors and outdoors because we tried the other system years ago! And not even the UIAA `thinks´lower-offs should be redundant, both they and the European standard consider one point sufficient. Jim Before I read your post I was going to post that Jim Titt says that redundant lower-off anchors are for brainwashed Nancy-pants Americans. Does that about sum it up? Jay
This did make me LOL quite a bit 
Anyway as said, I take the single biner/ring at these chain anchors to lower/rap as long as they look good (not worn out), and for setting up a toprope I use an anchor of my own anyway, so I suppose I am safe for the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Jul 28, 2011, 9:36 AM
Post #15 of 21
(5349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
JoeHamilton wrote: what happened to a good 'ole tree or two ? oh yeah we went to drilling holes in the rock and attaching bolts.
While i do prefer to have two points, one should be fine, as long as its good.
And thats kinda the problem. You never really know if the point is good or not, but as long as it looks like its climbing spec and not rusty, it should be OK.
As JimTitt said, there are no recorded single point failures, so it seems like most stuff is good enough.
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jul 28, 2011, 2:41 PM
Post #16 of 21
(5316 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
JimTitt wrote: Anyway, shouldn´t you guys be worrying about getting your economy out of the shit instead of this stuff? Jim
A European is saying that?
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 28, 2011, 3:16 PM
Post #17 of 21
(5298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
I don´t live in Greece, Ireland or another basket case, I live in Bavaria.
Local unemployment rate 2,3%
Regional 2.9%
State 3.2%
Economic growth 3%
AAA credit rating
We are doing o.k. We´ve already bought half of Europe and soon we´ll own it all.
You are next on the list, be cheap enough in a few years!
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Jul 28, 2011, 3:32 PM
Post #18 of 21
(5285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
You are going to be sunk because you are linked by the Euro. The PIGs will drag you right down along with them. Get out now.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 28, 2011, 3:40 PM
Post #19 of 21
(5278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
First we give them credit at extortionate rates, then we make them bankrupt and put them in two tier Euro but the interest is payable in our Euro not theirs!
|
|
|
|
|
JoeHamilton
Jul 28, 2011, 3:43 PM
Post #20 of 21
(5275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2011
Posts: 815
|
Funny how world domination can be done with money now instead of bare knuckles and guns .
|
|
|
|
|
TradEddie
Jul 28, 2011, 4:11 PM
Post #21 of 21
(5256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 164
|
MarcelS wrote: Funny thing is that in another thread ( short top rope advice needed) several people state that you should never toprope on a single anything. You must have redundancy. And my gut feeling agrees with that. Yet, the setup as shown in the picture by acorneau I have seen before, and is clearly made to use the single ring. And the guide that equips the routes specifically advised to use the lower biner only for the rappel/lower/toprope. So it seems that there is no consensus about this.
Redundancy should only be needed to cover the unknown or unpredictable.
A single steel rap ring, in visibly good condition, rated for many times the maximum conceivable load hardly needs redundancy, but a single bolt of unknown type in rock (or playset wood) of unknown strength placed by a person of unknown skill an unknown time ago...two please.
TE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
