|
|
|
|
kimgraves
Mar 20, 2004, 7:19 PM
Post #1 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 1186
|
Hi Gang, In the current issue of Rock & Ice there is an article about the advantages of a dynamic belay. I’m coming back to climbing after a 20-year break. On my first visit to the Gunks last summer I was surprised to see seconds belaying the leader without being tied in – a practice that I had learned was inherently dangerous. While I’m sure that it is true that a dynamic belay would put less stress on marginal pro - being able to provide a dynamic belay is a good tool to have in the toolbox - my feeling is that it’s a more complicated story of when it is appropriate to use a dynamic belay. John Long, in his books, advocates belaying directly off the anchor, rather than off your harness, because it is more comfortable to catch a fall. Also it is inherently dangerous for the belayer to be pulled off a stance. You can never really predict what the dynamics are going to be in a fall. It is important to protect not only the leader but the second as well. In addition, if you need to affect a rescue, it is much easier to escape the belay if you belay directly from the anchor. From my own standpoint, being a moderate leader, often the falls I am subject too are not clean. Moderate routes have ledges – that’s one of the things that makes them moderate. Falling the extra 2-3 feet provided by a dynamic belay might mean the difference between hitting a ledge or not; this assumes, of course, that your pro holds. It seems to me, as a leader, that I want to be able to make a real time decision about whether I want/need a dynamic belay based upon all these factors. And this decision might well change not just pitch to pitch, but between each piece of pro. So for example, the most important thing to me is to be sure that my second is safe and can make a catch. In order to assure that the anchor must be static. But if I deem that a dynamic catch is appropriate (safe landing, poor pro), I should either clip on a screamer, or expect my belayer to affect a dynamic belay by letting rope slip through the belay plate (as I remember GriGri’s are not recommended for trad). I know that my understanding flies in the face of modern practice, so I’m wondering if I’m missing anything? In the old days belays were inherently dynamic because of body belays. It seems that the use of autoblocks has brought this issue up again. I’m interested in hearing the group's take on this issue. Regards, Kim
|
|
|
|
|
tweek
Mar 20, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #2 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 171
|
Kim, Thank you for a well thought out post! They are a rare occurence here. A dynamic belay has its place even on moderate climbs. I will use my particular case of how and when I ask for a dynamic bellay. 1st off my climbing partner is significantly lighter than myself. She is always anchored in when bellaying me on lead but I rarely am when belaying her due to the large mass I am blessed with. There is some room for movement in her anchor (which in most circumstances is behind her) and so upon my leaving the ground she steps so the anchor is tight and I do not get a dynamic bellay. After getting the first few peices of pro she moves her location so now she has some slack in between the anchor and herself so when I fall she gives a dynamic belay. If I take off from a ledge she moves back and once again static. Easy when we can see each other and comunicate but otherwise dificult but it is what we strive for. I give her a dynamic bellay just by stepping into the fall and not raining in slack or doing the opposite if a ground fall is possible. The long and the short of the answer is that a static and dynamic belay have thier place even on moderate climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Mar 20, 2004, 8:09 PM
Post #3 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I don't know very many people that actually subscribe to the purposely-letting rope slip through the belay device. In fact I can only think of one person who regularly uses it in controlled sport climbing situations. If the fall forces warrant it, it is going to slip no matter what you do. One alternative would be to get a softer catch belay device? As far as dynamic belays created through movement of the belayer, such as jumping etc., they are always a good idea when possible. If you are belaying on the ground it is almost always preferable. The amount of "give" you allow is determined by the moment-to-moment circumstances of the leaders situation. As far as multi-pitch belays, I allow a couple of foot rise in my body weight to counterbalance a bad leader fall. This is for the most part theoretical since you are rarely lifted off your stance in a multi-pitch fall situation. I think the "purposely letting the rope slip" is for the most part a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
beesty511
Mar 20, 2004, 8:29 PM
Post #4 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 336
|
Hi Kim,
In reply to: From my own standpoint, being a moderate leader, often the falls I am subject too are not clean. That's the crux of the problem that you and your belayer must always consider as well as the gear. The type of article you read considers falls that are clean where the only consideration is the force on the gear. Unfortunately, after articles like that, I fear the incidence of climbers getting hurt in belaying accidents will increase--not decrease.
In reply to: John Long, in his books, advocates belaying directly off the anchor, rather than off your harness, because it is more comfortable to catch a fall. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I have a few of John Long's books, and I don't recall him advising to belay directly off the anchor. I took a quick look through his book "How to Rock Climb", and his diagrams and images all show a leader belaying off the harness. Personally, I don't know anybody who generally belays leaders off the anchor, and in the US it's not common practice. In "More Climbing Anchors", on page 20 entitled "Belaying off the Anchor", Long says: ---- As seen, the standard belaying method is to lash yourself to a sound anchor, and then belay through a directional clipped to the anchor point. Another method , used widely by European guides and favored by the AMGA(American Mountain Guides Association), involves clipping the belay device (edit: either a widemouth locking carabiner and a Munter Hitch or a GriGri) directly into the anchor. ---- However, it's not clear to me that he is advocating that for belaying leaders: the picture shows the rope going down, which would indicate the set up was being used to belay a second. Also, I don't know any AMGA guides that generally teach belaying leaders directly off the anchor, so I'm not sure where John Long is getting that from--maybe that was old school AMGA philosophy. Also, if you are belaying a leader directly off the anchor on a multi pitch climb, there is a problem with knowing which direction the fall is going to load the anchor. With the leader having gear in, a fall will load the anchor in an upward direction. If the leader falls before getting gear in or the gear rips, the fall will load the anchor in a downward direction.
In reply to: Also it is inherently dangerous for the belayer to be pulled off a stance. You can never really predict what the dynamics are going to be in a fall. Very true. That's why I think John Long as well as AMGA certified guides generally advocate belaying off the harness but redirecting the belay through the anchor: the force then comes from a known direction. It's good to question things, and I think you're on the right track. Have fun with your return to climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 21, 2004, 6:54 AM
Post #5 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: On my first visit to the Gunks last summer I was surprised to see seconds belaying the leader without being tied in – a practice that I had learned was inherently dangerous. Folks have been doing this for a lot longer than the 20 years you've been away. It isn't always such a good idea, but it's fine most of the time and is certainly not inherently dangerous.
In reply to: While I’m sure that it is true that a dynamic belay would put less stress on marginal pro... It puts less stress on all pro. Moreover, in some cases (most typically but not exclusively on overhanging sport routes) it avoids smacking the climber hard into the wall. Ankle and leg injuries from such statically belayed impacts are not uncommon in sport climbing.
In reply to: my feeling is that it’s a more complicated story of when it is appropriate to use a dynamic belay. True enough, but the R & I article doesn't say it should always be used.
In reply to: John Long, in his books, advocates belaying directly off the anchor, rather than off your harness, because it is more comfortable to catch a fall. Supply book titles and page references please. I suspect his only recommendation of this sort involves belaying the second.
In reply to: Also it is inherently dangerous for the belayer to be pulled off a stance. Off is not good if it means being pulled off a ledge and down. This is is not necessarily the same thing as being pulled up, which is what the R & I article suggests as a possibility in some situations.
In reply to: You can never really predict what the dynamics are going to be in a fall. Some very nasty surprises can happen. Still, in most situations, the belayer ought to have a pretty clear idea of what types of forces and directions they will have to hold. It is neither a total mystery nor a complete crapshoot.
In reply to: From my own standpoint, being a moderate leader, often the falls I am subject too are not clean. Moderate routes have ledges – that’s one of the things that makes them moderate. Falling the extra 2-3 feet provided by a dynamic belay might mean the difference between hitting a ledge or not; this assumes, of course, that your pro holds. This type of argument says that a dynamic belay isn't needed if it isn't needed, which is true enough. What if the static belay extracts your pro?
In reply to: The most important thing to me is to be sure that my second is safe and can make a catch. In order to assure that the anchor must be static. I think there are many situations in which the lifting of the belayer neither endangers them nor renders them less able to effect a catch.
In reply to: But if I deem that a dynamic catch is appropriate (safe landing, poor pro)... What about bad landing, poor pro?
In reply to: ...I should either clip on a screamer, or expect my belayer to affect a dynamic belay by letting rope slip through the belay plate Agreed, except that nowadays very very few seconds have ever practiced letting rope slip. As one of the old farts who was around when we used to practice this, it is my sad duty to report that almost everyone who tries this drops the leader (a weight, not a person) the first few tries. You do not want a second who has never practiced a dynamic belay with a test weight to use you as their first practice run. For those who insist on "on the job" training, the best hint I can give is that the rope runs for less than a second. If you belay with an ATC, there is a reasonable way to effect a dynamic belay, which is, contrary to popular wisdom, to resist the urge (and training) to fully lock off the device, thereby allowing for rope slippage at lower loads. Doing this without practice is also an invitation to disaster, however. And speaking of disaster, a second who, voluntarily or involuntarily, gives a dynamic belay (with the rope sliding under tension) is going to end up with rope burns if they aren't wearing gloves, and these burns could cause them to lose control of the belay. (They also might leave the second with more serious injuries than the leader.) I do agree that the jump belay is of limited utility and is most likely to be effective for sport climbers with a belayer on the ground. For one thing, the timing of the jump matters. In addition to having to practice, the belayer has to be in good visual contact with the leader and has to be at a stance that allows for jumping. Moreover, a jump belay, like a screamer, can only remove a fixed amount of fall energy, and so (unlike the dynamic belay and the dynamic rope action) is of decreasing value the longer the fall gets.
In reply to: In the old days belays were inherently dynamic because of body belays. I don't think this is true, and I think the body belay afforded more friction than some modern belay devices give when used with some modern thin ropes. Dynamic belays were thought to be important before standards for dynamic rope were formulated and implemented. Once ropes were viewed as being able to limit forces to "reasonable" levels without belayer intervention, dynamic belaying as a standard climbing skill vanished. When all is said and done, I think the dynamic belay, whatever its potential advantages in certain situations, will remain a rarely used technique. If it occurs because the belayer cannot hold on statically, it is not a technique at all, it is just an event. A reliable, effective, and consciously initiated dynamic belay requires gloves, which are rarely in evidence, and far more practice than anyone I know puts in.
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Mar 22, 2004, 9:09 AM
Post #6 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
I am very glad to see this intelligent discussion of a very important topic. Thanks! :D First, as I recall, John Long said that he would always belay the second directly off the anchor, if the anchor was constructed with a cordolette. Second, like others, I wish to call real attension to the possibility of severe injury that could result in the rope either intentionally or unintentionally running through the belay device during a fall. This is an excellent Petzl link that discusses the situtation in regard to falls near the belay. http://www.petzl.com/petzl/SportConseils?MotRecherche=Quick+Search&Langue=en&Activite=15&Famille=13&Conseil=24&Produit=&SousFamille= 1.)In regard to a belay situation in which the leader has already placed gear (they call this a running belay) and in which the fall factor is significant enough to to cause the belay device (Reverso, figure of eight device) to slip, Petzl says: "If the fall is severe, a force of 2 or 3 kN is soon exceeded. Then significant slippage of the rope in the hand occurs, which causes burns and carries a risk of releasing the rope." Basically if the minimum force of 2 or 3 kN is reached and your device slips on its own, you are looking at a burnt hand and maybe a dead leader. 2.)In regard to a factor two fall i.e. a leader fall above the belay without protection inbetween, Petzl says, " Warning: absence of a running belay will result in very severe slippage of the rope in the hand. Stopping the fall becomes impossible with a figure-eight (huit) or belay plate (because of the severe burning that occurs) and difficult with an Italian Hitch. This risk is avoided by using the GRIGRI, but the impact force transmitted to the belayer is then higher." I think that these are hugely significant points. My interpretation is this: 1.)In general, it is not a good idea for rope to ever slip through your belay device in a fall. 2.) Dynamicism is important but should be provided for in the belay setup and not with the belay device. This seems to be the opinion of the article Kim Graves refers to which can be found here: http://www.rockandice.com/index1.html 3.) Given one and two, we should reconsider the taboo of using gri gri style self-locking devices in trad climbing, as well as, reassert the geniune value of load limiting draws such as Screamers This fly's in the face of what I learned 10plus years ago but it makes a lot of sense. Curious to hear your thoughts. Rock On. john
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Mar 22, 2004, 10:15 AM
Post #7 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
Sorry but I have a few more thoughts on this subject as well. 8) I think that is so many situations the use of a Screamer or the equivalent is really the most sensible way to introduce dynamicism. For the reasons above, I don't advocate letting the rope slip through the device. Rgold's comments about the necessity of gloves are well taken, but to be honest, I have had my hand burned through gloves. When it is 100's in the Valley, I just can't bring myself to where leather gloves while belaying. Jumping seems reasonable for cragging, but what if you can't see or hear your leader. Also, how attentive are you really when belaying on those 10 or 12 hour days? Aid climbing falls usually happen with absolutly no warning whatsoever. There is no hope of jumping in such situations. Like Alpnclmr1 above, I find it to be a rare situation indeed when I am actually lifted from my hanging stance in a fall. Therefore, mere slack in the tie-in doesn't seem like much. Screamers on the other hand, kick in before your belay device would begin to slip on its own. They activate at 2kN where as most devices begin to slip around 3-4 kN. The leader can place them at will, they give you the much needed dynamicism, and they aren't dependant on a belayer's attentiveness. They also bleed significant amount of energy while not introducing a huge amount of extra rope into the fall. I am most inclined to have my belayer use a grigri and liberally use Screamers throughout the pitch. You can learn more about Screamers here: http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/screamer/index.htm Cheers, john
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Mar 22, 2004, 1:46 PM
Post #8 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
dynamic belay is always better, if theres no: a) danger of leader decking or otherwise ijuring himself due to a longer fall b) danger of belayer being pulled into a wall
|
|
|
|
|
drunkencabanaboy
Mar 22, 2004, 10:25 PM
Post #9 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 153
|
In reply to: dynamic belay is always better, if ... Clearly he realizes some people hold that opinion. You really didn't say anything new other than assert your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2004, 3:44 AM
Post #10 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: John Long, in his books, advocates belaying directly off the anchor, rather than off your harness, because it is more comfortable to catch a fall. Supply book titles and page references please. I suspect his only recommendation of this sort involves belaying the second. Regardless of what John Long might have recommended, I think most climbers today -- at least in the US -- usually belay the leader off their harness, redirecting the belay through the belay anchor. Everybody agrees that the redirect should be thru the master point of the anchor, but often it gets run through a single piece, since the masterpoint is sometimes situated too close to the belayer's body. At any rate, redirecting the belay causes the belayer to be pulled up, even if the fall occurs before the leader places any pro; and, as you say, being pulled up should not make it harder to catch the fall.
In reply to: If you belay with an ATC, there is a reasonable way to effect a dynamic belay, which is, contrary to popular wisdom, to resist the urge (and training) to fully lock off the device, thereby allowing for rope slippage at lower loads. That's what I do. If you hold the brake strand of rope at about 90 degrees from the lead strand, and the leader falls, you get some braking. If you then smoothly bring your hand to the full braking position, by your hip, a few feet of rope slip through before the device fully locks up. Perhaps paradoxically, the only time you would do this is when the fall isn't severe enough to allow the device itself to be dynamic. If the leader is going for the big factor-2, you'd lock off. Rope is going to slip through whether you want it to or not.
In reply to: I do agree that the jump belay is of limited utility and is most likely to be effective for sport climbers with a belayer on the ground. That's your idea of limited utility? That's my idea of everyday necessity!
In reply to: For one thing, the timing of the jump matters. I've taught the jump belay to many partners. Some people get the timing right away; some really have a hard time with it. Jumping too soon or too late makes the catch harder than if the belayer had just stood there and locked off, so it's important to practice until you can consistently get the timing right. The key is to jump at the instant you feel your partners weight coming on to the rope.
In reply to: In addition to having to practice, the belayer has to be in good visual contact with the leader and has to be at a stance that allows for jumping. Actually, with practice, you can do a decent job by feel, which is good to know if you get caught not paying attention when your partner falls.
In reply to: Moreover, a jump belay, like a screamer, can only remove a fixed amount of fall energy, and so (unlike the dynamic belay and the dynamic rope action) is of decreasing value the longer the fall gets. I'm not sure if that is correct, because the harder the fall, the higher you'll go when you jump.
In reply to: Once ropes were viewed as being able to limit forces to "reasonable" levels without belayer intervention, dynamic belaying as a standard climbing skill vanished. When all is said and done, I think the dynamic belay, whatever its potential advantages in certain situations, will remain a rarely used technique. It's still a standard skill in advanced sport climbing (at least the jump belay is), and I will not allow anyone to belay me on a climb that is hard for me if he cannot reliably belay dynamically. Broken ankles due to too static a belay are probably the most common injuries among beginning to intermediate sport climbers, so it's too bad that belayers aren't routinely taught to dynamically belay early in their climbing careers. -Jay -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2004, 3:56 AM
Post #11 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: "If the fall is severe, a force of 2 or 3 kN is soon exceeded. Then significant slippage of the rope in the hand occurs, which causes burns and carries a risk of releasing the rope." Basically if the minimum force of 2 or 3 kN is reached and your device slips on its own, you are looking at a burnt hand and maybe a dead leader. Not if you're wearing a glove, as you should be when belaying on a multipitch climb. 2.)In regard to a factor two fall i.e. a leader fall above the belay without protection inbetween, Petzl says,
In reply to: " Warning: absence of a running belay will result in very severe slippage of the rope in the hand. Stopping the fall becomes impossible with a figure-eight (huit) or belay plate (because of the severe burning that occurs) and difficult with an Italian Hitch. This risk is avoided by using the GRIGRI, but the impact force transmitted to the belayer is then higher." I think that these are hugely significant points. My interpretation is this: 1.)In general, it is not a good idea for rope to ever slip through your belay device in a fall. It may not be a good idea if the belayer is poorly trained (which most are nowadays), and is not wearing a glove. The answer, however, is not to switch to a belay device that might overstress the leader's protection. The answer is to learn to dynamically belay. It ain't that hard.
In reply to: 3.) Given one and two, we should reconsider the taboo of using gri gri style self-locking devices in trad climbing, as well as, reassert the geniune value of load limiting draws such as Screamers. You're basing your conclusions on Petzl's conclusions, which in part are that a factor-2 fall will cause 21 meters of rope to run through a munter hitch. I can't prove that that is wrong, but it sure sounds wrong to me. Anybody out there catch any factor-2 falls? How much rope would you say ran through your belay device? -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Mar 23, 2004, 5:15 AM
Post #12 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: In reply to: Moreover, a jump belay, like a screamer, can only remove a fixed amount of fall energy, and so (unlike the dynamic belay and the dynamic rope action) is of decreasing value the longer the fall gets. I'm not sure if that is correct, because the harder the fall, the higher you'll go when you jump. I wasn't being very clear there. I was assuming a belayer anchored, but with some slack, on a multipitch climb. The slack anchor allows for jumping but imposes a definite limit on how high the belayer can go.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Mar 23, 2004, 5:33 AM
Post #13 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
21 feet through a munter hitch would probably burn through your glove. that is just a guess, but based on what 1 foot running over my hand feels like, the thought of 21 feet or rope burn is hideous. How can 21 feet of slipage be right?
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Mar 23, 2004, 6:43 AM
Post #14 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
Jay, please be more specific on that fall-simulator slippage. There are at least five variables one imputs into the program. This program is sweet. You can find it here: http://www.petzl.com/petzl/SportConseils?MotRecherche=Quick+Search&Langue=en&Activite=45&Famille=15&SousFamille=&News=
|
|
|
|
|
johnhenry
Mar 23, 2004, 7:03 AM
Post #15 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2002
Posts: 202
|
The reduction of the force of the fall with Screamers is: 1.)Up to 3-4 kN for regular Screamers 2.)up to 4-8 kN for Zipper Screamers That's a max of 880#'s and 1,760#'s respectively. And by clipping them in series you can double those ratings. There is no worry of burnt hands, no jumping, no hitting ledges because there is too much rope... The blown Screamer will look cool on your wall. It will be the best ten bucks you have ever spent. Rock On, john
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2004, 7:34 PM
Post #16 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: 21 feet through a munter hitch would probably burn through your glove. that is just a guess, but based on what 1 foot running over my hand feels like, the thought of 21 feet or rope burn is hideous. How can 21 feet of slipage be right? Actually, they say 21 meters! -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2004, 7:36 PM
Post #17 of 17
(2476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Jay, please be more specific on that fall-simulator slippage. There are at least five variables one imputs into the program. This program is sweet. You can find it here: http://www.petzl.com/petzl/SportConseils?MotRecherche=Quick+Search&Langue=en&Activite=45&Famille=15&SousFamille=&News= I don't recall exactly what I input. I think I used the default fall length, a 2-bolt belay, no running pro, and an Italian hitch. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|