|
caughtinside
Nov 19, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #26 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Yeah, the problem would have been solved, but the best placements were where I put the anchor. That's why it was where it was, and I redirected.
*I realize this is tricky to talk about w/o pictures or seeing what I was looking at. Suffice to say, I would have built a high anchor if I thought it was the way to go.
But who knows. It can be difficult to look around more when you see great 1 and 2 camalot placements right in front of you.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Nov 19, 2004, 9:39 PM
Post #27 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
«A month back, I was doing some multipitch tradding»
Language police comment. This is a neologism to use "trad" as a verb. Does it go, "trad, tradded, tradding"? Never saw it used that way prior to this.
Valete,
robertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Nov 19, 2004, 9:42 PM
Post #28 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
a constriction of 'traditional climbing' to 'trad climbing' to 'tradding' yes? 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Nov 19, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #30 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Dave is forcing me to respond:
I would not chide you, though I probably would have liked you to have another piece in at the anchor. If you could completely equalize and make it omnidirectional equalized, it should be good enough.
I personally like to belay off the anchor, but if you redirect the rope through a blue alien above you, and it looks bomber, I say: jolly good. you're taking up a second so the force generated in a possible fall will be less than a potential leader.
Okay, can I go back to prepping for class now?
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Nov 19, 2004, 10:05 PM
Post #31 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: «A month back, I was doing some multipitch tradding» Language police comment. This is a neologism to use "trad" as a verb. Does it go, "trad, tradded, tradding"? Never saw it used that way prior to this. Valete, robertusPunctumPacificus
Then I can only assume that you don't read much.
Also, there's nothing wrong with neologisms; they keep language alive.
Ever hear of red-pointing a route?
Caughtinside, just wondering why you didn't simply redirect off on of the cams instead of the Alien? I understand that the Alien was higher, but if you're going to redirect the belay (robdotcalm, any incorrect verb usage there?), why not go for something even more bomber?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Nov 19, 2004, 10:09 PM
Post #32 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
The other pieces were closer to waist level, near the power point. I went off the high piece, so I could pull slack down to belay, instead of having to haul slack up through the belay.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 19, 2004, 10:53 PM
Post #33 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: Yeah, the problem would have been solved, but the best placements were where I put the anchor. That's why it was where it was, and I redirected. *I realize this is tricky to talk about w/o pictures or seeing what I was looking at. Suffice to say, I would have built a high anchor if I thought it was the way to go. But who knows. It can be difficult to look around more when you see great 1 and 2 camalot placements right in front of you.
One more thing to consider: sometimes there's a second ledge, slightly lower down.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Nov 20, 2004, 2:57 AM
Post #34 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: BTW Rgold. I was making the assumption that the alien was about 12 inches above the other pieces so I factored in the double length and slack into it.
Fair enough Karl. But according to caughtinside's description,
In reply to: I was attached to the anchor at the master point, and belayed off my harness with the rope redirected through the blue alien.
the belay rope was redirected through the top blue alien but was not clipped to the power point or in some other way to the "other pieces"---at least he didn't mention this, in spite of describing his attachment to the "master point" explicitly.
But my main point was why use a system that could develop a shock load when it is just as easy not to, and this applies whether the remaining anchor takes a six foot fall or a two foot fall. And remember, sometimes the second moves fast and slack develops---the actual drop could always be more than the belayer expects.
In reply to: Where I come from, solid granite, it's often possible to know that rest of the anchor is 100 percent bomber
Again, fair enough. But but I'm not sure I would use the term "100 percent bomber" to describe a 2-cam anchor, which is all that's left if the blue alien blows.
Regarding the idea that it is ok to do use this set-up if the rest of the anchor is indeed "100 percent bomber," I'd at least tell my the second that his belay is through a good but small Alien and that he'd be taking a short drop if it blew. I feel I owe it to my partner to let him or her know, if possible, what the situation is. At least this would alert a guy who moves fast not to let slack build up during the pitch. I don't know about anyone else, but I have, on a number of occasions, arrived at a belay stance to find a situation I really wish I had known about while I was climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Nov 22, 2004, 4:50 PM
Post #35 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I rarely build three piece anchors, particularly, if one of them is a blue alien.
Given the original description, I assumed that the redirect was adequate for leading the next pitch. (if this is true then it would be a moot point for the second) Basically, he incorporated the first piece off the anchor into the anchor. I do this occasionally. Typically it would be a fourth piece. Also, the reason for doing this would be to prep the next pitch, not to make belaying the second more convenient.
If any component of your anchor is at risk of failure under top rope fall force levels, then you shouldn't be redirecting at all. (particularly if you are standing on a ledge.)
Agreed that you should notify your second if you are belaying off a sketch anchor. (sketch being defined as possible to fail in the event of a fall in a following scenario)
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Nov 22, 2004, 5:56 PM
Post #36 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: A month back, I was doing some multipitch tradding. I got to the belay and built the anchor, three great pieces more or less vertically aligned. The top piece was a blue alien. I was attached to the anchor at the master point, and belayed off my harness with the rope redirected through the blue alien. In my opinion, the blue alien was in an ideal, although horizontal, placement. The other pieces were a 1 and 2 camalot, textbook placements.
Personally I do not consider a blue Alien, particularly a blue Alien in a horizintal placement, a "great piece" for a belay anchor, no matter how good the placement.
Have I used 'em? of course. But I don't consider small cams or brass nuts or small aluminum nuts to be great pieces for a belay, no matter how good the placement. When I find myself using them, I try to add additional redundancy or equalization if possible.
ymmv.
Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Nov 22, 2004, 6:06 PM
Post #37 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
In reply to: ...save energy... ...second...climbs fast ...wanted to be able to pull rope down... rather than pull it up ...second was highly competent and unlikely to fall.
I'd say what you are describing is the absolute ideal conditions for when to use an autoblocking belay device (Reverso, B52) directly on the powerpoint of the anchor. They really do excel in this application.
Autoblockers are inexpensive, and they're lightweight (a GriGri will also work, but they are heavier, much more expensive, and can't be used on two rope systems). Try an autoblocker and I bet you won't be disappointed.
There's some things to remember with autoblockers:
1. make sure your device is compatible with your rope diameter
2. be aware that it's difficult to lower a second who is hanging on the rope (if you expect the second will need to be lowered on a pitch, then don't use autoblocking mode on that pitch -- just use it like a normal tube style belay device)
3. practice the different belay configurations (and lowering) at home, before you hit the crag
If you practice and get comfortable with using autoblock mode, you can even safely bring up two competent seconds at the same time on moderate ground (using two ropes). Talk about efficiency...
[It should go without saying, but IMO autoblockers are not for beginners.]
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 25, 2004, 3:46 AM
Post #38 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I almost always belay with a single redirect up high with my ATC on my harness and me clipped into a 3 point anchor, however...
The redirect is a bomber piece placed at least 6 feet above my anchor, then when it's time to lead the next pitch, this piece becomes my first piece in leading the next pitch. If a 3 point anchor is designed to take a lead fall onto it from far above (worst case senario, but what they all should be built for, as the same anchor will be used to belay the leader on the next pitch), the shockloading of a piece 6' above the anchor failing during the belay of the 2nd isn't a big deal. And if you think about it... This really makes it a 4 piece anchor.
Good redirect making for an easier belay, and the 1rst piece already placed in the next lead... Two birds killed with one "piece". :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Nov 25, 2004, 4:42 AM
Post #39 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: isn't a big deal
But you're exposing your second to what will essentially be a leader fall. If she doesn't hit anything, well OK, fine, no harm no foul. But I'd expect a sharp slap, a stern stare, and a suspicious stance from what remains of your "partnership" on the rope.
I will complement you, however, for bringing this up for discussion. It's hard to go and face the masked and anonymous jury, and basically inviting indictment. So cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Nov 25, 2004, 5:37 AM
Post #40 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
« the shockloading of a piece 6' above the anchor failing during the belay of the 2nd isn't a big deal.»
This could add 12' to the fall for the second, which could be construed by most of us as a big deal if we were coming second.
rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 25, 2004, 7:12 AM
Post #41 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
A "working knowledge" would tell you...
When a 2nd is cleaning a route, there is always a bit of tension in the line, especially if the belayer up top cannot see the 2nd... This means that the redirect piece would NOT be shockloaded, but only feel the weight of the climber if that climber were to fall, say up to 200 lbs, as how many climbers weight more than 200 lbs. A "bomber piece" (as I stated) will hold much more than 200 lbs (<1KN), especially if it isn't shockloaded.
Seth... What do you think the probability of a perfectly slotted stopper pulling would be under a load of the body weight of a climber alone, as this would be all that was given to it ??? Mind you, this is a piece that will be used in the next lead, so it is a "bomber piece" placed to accept the shockload if the leader were to fall from above that piece on the next pitch.
For those without a "working knowledge", feel free to split hairs all you like, and don't tie in with me. The advantages of what I have described far outweigh the risk of a "bomber piece" (do ya know what that means?) blowing under body weight being used as a redirect.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Nov 25, 2004, 7:52 AM
Post #42 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply: I think bomber is bomber is bomber. No problems with that!
The "risk," I think, is (unfortunately) in discussing practices that, though they are perfectly fine for --ahem-- "us," they will become protocol for others.
What I am most afraid of is someone taking some snippet of mine, perhaps fatuously written, and using it without first acquiring the mileage to know better.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Nov 25, 2004, 4:08 PM
Post #43 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: A "working knowledge" would tell you... When a 2nd is cleaning a route, there is always a bit of tension in the line, especially if the belayer up top cannot see the 2nd... This means that the redirect piece would NOT be shockloaded, but only feel the weight of the climber if that climber were to fall, say up to 200 lbs, as how many climbers weight more than 200 lbs. A "bomber piece" (as I stated) will hold much more than 200 lbs (<1KN), especially if it isn't shockloaded.
This is almost true if "a bit of tension" means that you are using a hauling system to pull the climber up.
Otherwise, the MINIMUM force on the redirect is 2 times bodyweight. (in a fall)
As far as your six foot high redirect. It creates a number of problems that have been discussed many times before. Most people would recommend against that practice.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Nov 25, 2004, 5:06 PM
Post #44 of 44
(4267 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: A "working knowledge" would tell you... When a 2nd is cleaning a route, there is always a bit of tension in the line, especially if the belayer up top cannot see the 2nd... This means that the redirect piece would NOT be shockloaded, but only feel the weight of the climber if that climber were to fall, say up to 200 lbs, as how many climbers weight more than 200 lbs. A "bomber piece" (as I stated) will hold much more than 200 lbs (<1KN), especially if it isn't shockloaded. This is almost true if "a bit of tension" means that you are using a hauling system to pull the climber up. Otherwise, the MINIMUM force on the redirect is 2 times bodyweight. (in a fall) As far as your six foot high redirect. It creates a number of problems that have been discussed many times before. Most people would recommend against that practice.
Yup. You already know what's wrong with it. No need for me to weigh in, except to say that I don't like the practice, for all the reasons you could anticipate. I would do it in a pinch, but only if all the alternatives were worse.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
