I sort of count a good stance as a piece, but I still put in at least 3 pieces of removable pro if possible. As a current weekend warrior, it's really not my goal to anaylze every possible failure mode of everything and figure out some sort of personal best practices, as some poeple seem to advocate. While you don't want to shut off your brain and do things just b/c you've been told to, my general goal is to keep current with generally accepted best practices, and do those. I think that means at least 3 pieces of removable pro. (Finally, I'd MUCH rather have 2 pieces of bomber pro than 3 or more pieces of junk)
Most likely, this is perfectly good for the places you're climbing and the objectives you're tackling. But once you get further afield, there will be times when the above concept might mean making a very big tradeoff. Worse yet, it's a tradeoff that you're not making as a personal choice, but is forced upon you by your unwillingness to consider alternatives.
I'll use as an example one time when I was topping out on a long climb in Red Rocks. I had just led to the end of the last pitch. From that point to the top was a fourth class scramble. I had topped out on a huge (two feet thick at the top, a hundred feet tall, and perhaps dozens of yards thick at the bottom) flake, and had no gear aside from my body wide enough to build a belay with. So I had two options:
1 - continue to scramble up, potentially running out of rope (I was near the end already) and forcing my partner to start simulclimbing, in the hopes of finding good gear somewhere in the chossy scramble.
or
2 - Stand on a ledge down in behind the flake, call off belay, and start pulling up rope.
Two points:
A - When standing, my entire lower body was behind the flake. The whole cliff would have to get pulled off, or my lower body separated from my upper, for the belay to fail.
B - My partner at the time was pretty fried. She had just climbed more pitches at her limit than ever in her life (including some pretty spooky leads), and was getting close to seriously bonking. The pitch she was about to start seconding contained techniques that I knew she was unfamiliar with, and I wanted to stay close so communication would be possible. Forcing her to simulclimb in this situation could have been disastrous. Instead, she followed the pitch with no problem (I recall being able to communicate perfectly with her), and we got off no problem.
This is just one example. My point is that true safety doesn't come from the number of pieces of metal you put in the rock. It comes from good teamwork, knowing the right thing to do at the time, and being able to do it effectively.
May 6, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #27 of 143
(4816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Posts: 188
Re: [cracklover] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
basically, It's all situational. There are times when 3 pieces just isn't possible. Long pitch and out of gear, wrong gear for the crack, very little pro opportunity, etc etc.
If you can;t handle having a less than optimal anchor, don't leave the single pitch, G rated routes.
(This post was edited by Factor2 on May 6, 2009, 7:33 PM)
May 6, 2009, 7:47 PM
Post #28 of 143
(4798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
Re: [Factor2] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I use two sometimes, if they are amazing. I think that the poll is a little skewed. I'll bet most people use two occasionally or rarely instead of "sometimes." I could be wrong.
I typically try to do 3, two equalized with a third thrown in somewhere. It's all situational dependent, too many situations to describe here. One time saving trick that I have is throw in two amazing equalized pieces for the belay, and after my follower is climbing I'll throw in a third and work it into the anchor so we have a 3 point anchor by the time we're leading the next pitch and looking at a potential factor 2 fall. It all depends on length of route, required speed that we have to climb at, quality of rock and placements, etc.
Josh
(This post was edited by bandycoot on May 6, 2009, 7:49 PM)
Did you read the thread? No-one is pulling numbers out of their ass. Almost all the replies advocate thinking things through.
You're creating a reality in your head again.
STFU n00b
The OP is refering to magic two why ? because climbers are using the two protections most of the time therfore, using two protection is almost standard practice in building a trad anchor.
sure other people like yourself (ms angry ) will build anchors based one , three....or whatever number of protections but majority of people only use TWO.
May 6, 2009, 9:17 PM
Post #30 of 143
(4762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
Re: [majid_sabet] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
majid_sabet wrote:
angry wrote:
Did you read the thread? No-one is pulling numbers out of their ass. Almost all the replies advocate thinking things through.
You're creating a reality in your head again.
STFU n00b
The OP is refering to magic two why ? because climbers are using the two protections most of the time therfore, using two protection is almost standard practice in building a trad anchor.
sure other people like yourself (ms angry ) will build anchors based one , three....or whatever number of protections but majority of people only use TWO.
STFU n00b read the posts and you'll see most use 3 and on occasion use 2
May 6, 2009, 9:23 PM
Post #31 of 143
(4768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
Re: [cracklover] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Cracklover: I do understand and agree with your example. My point, and I don't know if I'll succeed in convincing anyone, is to try to slightly undermine the "it's all situational" mind set that many people are espousing. I interpret that as thinking that every anchor is some unique thing (in way it it, but in a trival sense) and the climber is supposed to figure out how to set up an anchor from basic principles. That seems like a mistake to me. It seems to me that standard recreational climbing depends on very few variables, and safety is maximized when the same basic methods are employed nearly always, with exceptions being few. I don't mean you can't have more than tool in your box, but you should have a limited number of tools, know how to use them, and not try to repeatedly invent new tools at the top of every pitch. A good body belay would be one of those tools. Just my random musings--in reality, probably vast majority of experienced climbers do things in pretty much the same way, with just a few "tweaks" here and there that don't really affect safety.
(This post was edited by pfwein on May 6, 2009, 9:24 PM)
May 6, 2009, 9:34 PM
Post #33 of 143
(4756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
Re: [moose_droppings] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
moose_droppings wrote:
jt512 wrote:
At least three pieces of removable pro (for a downward pull), two good bolts, or one solid tree/boulder. It's not that hard, people.
Jay
Even with one solid tree, I'm still going to want two connections off it.
Yes, moose, this is excellent advice.
Let us not forget Shelley Windsor's catastrophic anchor failure from a solid tree. A bomber back-up to something else probably would have saved her life that day.
I'd still use a single, solid tree or boulder (and have) if there wasn't anything else to be had, but the point to visually double check that my anchor is truly connected without a doubt has been very reinforced in my head. Then, if a back-up is to be had, I do use it, regardless of how beefy the tree/rock.
interesting thread - some of the replies make me feel like a pussy, but i'm cool with that...
i go for 3+, and have had my partner laugh his arse off when he arrives at the belay to see how many pieces i've put in. i'm new to this and hadn't previously considered the fact that whatever you use in the anchor isn't available on the next pitch (yeah, i know - duh) so overkill on the anchor does have consequences.
cracklover's one piece would scare the shit out of me, but i can see the sense in this if the placement is solid and the rock is good - though there's no chance in hell i'll be following suit any time soon.
May 6, 2009, 10:39 PM
Post #36 of 143
(4721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
Re: [seatbeltpants] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
seatbeltpants wrote:
interesting thread - some of the replies make me feel like a pussy, but i'm cool with that...
i go for 3+, <snip> i'm new to this ...
If you're new, then yeah, you're no pussy: you're smart. You should definitely err on the side of overkill.
In reply to:
cracklover's one piece would scare the shit out of me, but i can see the sense in this if the placement is solid and the rock is good - though there's no chance in hell i'll be following suit any time soon.
steve
Again, that's as it should be for now.
But just as you discovered that when you place a lot of gear in the anchor, that gear isn't available for the next pitch, you'll keep finding other reasons why overkill isn't always the best policy.
Basically, I'm just saying keep learning, and be aware that there *are* often better solutions than the default.
Bill, How much gear do you take on a climb. If I had a 4 cam anchor at the bottom and top of a pitch I wouldn't have much to place during the climb. Personally I like to climb light with just a set of nuts and cams with maybe four double cams in whatever size looks to dominate the climb.
May 6, 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #38 of 143
(4718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 53
Re: [cracklover] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
GO:
With respect to your one-piece "anchor," I guess I follow your logic: your partner, a woman, was probably much lighter than you (with your "fat ass"), and so this one piece was only there to keep you from accidentally falling off the ledge. It was NOT, in other words, intended to used as a typical multi-pitch anchor.
At least I hope not: it looks like a bomber piece for a downward pull, but worthless if the leader fall was capable of lifting your "fat ass" several feet off the ledge.
Cracklover: I do understand and agree with your example. My point, and I don't know if I'll succeed in convincing anyone, is to try to slightly undermine the "it's all situational" mind set that many people are espousing. I interpret that as thinking that every anchor is some unique thing (in way it it, but in a trival sense) and the climber is supposed to figure out how to set up an anchor from basic principles. That seems like a mistake to me. It seems to me that standard recreational climbing depends on very few variables, and safety is maximized when the same basic methods are employed nearly always, with exceptions being few. I don't mean you can't have more than tool in your box, but you should have a limited number of tools, know how to use them, and not try to repeatedly invent new tools at the top of every pitch.
Believe it or not, I agree entirely: the middle of a cliff is no place to try to figure out stuff for the first time.
But this is entirely different from the idea that there is a single "best" anchor. I feel that trying to divine such a thing is simply sinking to the lowest-common-denominator. That there is an anchor which, as you put it "with just a few 'tweaks here and there that don't really affect safety" is a one-size-fits-all is exactly what I'm warning against.
The example I give above is far beyond any "tweaks". And there was certainly a safety difference in my choices. And that safety difference did not favor more gear!
What I advocate is: do your homework, have plenty of practiced tricks up your sleeve, and you'll be in better shape to make the right choice at the right time.
May 6, 2009, 11:26 PM
Post #40 of 143
(4696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
Re: [rocknice2] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
rocknice2 wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
angry wrote:
Did you read the thread? No-one is pulling numbers out of their ass. Almost all the replies advocate thinking things through.
You're creating a reality in your head again.
STFU n00b
The OP is refering to magic two why ? because climbers are using the two protections most of the time therfore, using two protection is almost standard practice in building a trad anchor.
sure other people like yourself (ms angry ) will build anchors based one , three....or whatever number of protections but majority of people only use TWO.
STFU n00b read the posts and you'll see most use 3 and on occasion use 2
ohh man
what I am going to do with you blind people
the title says" Two piece anchors are plenty strong"
May 6, 2009, 11:27 PM
Post #41 of 143
(4696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
Re: [retr2327] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
retr2327 wrote:
GO:
With respect to your one-piece "anchor," I guess I follow your logic: your partner, a woman, was probably much lighter than you (with your "fat ass"), and so this one piece was only there to keep you from accidentally falling off the ledge. It was NOT, in other words, intended to used as a typical multi-pitch anchor.
At least I hope not: it looks like a bomber piece for a downward pull, but worthless if the leader fall was capable of lifting your "fat ass" several feet off the ledge.
Am I reading that right?
Basically, yeah. The point of this example is that it was all that was needed at the time, and sometimes more than enough is too much.
Beyond a doubt she could have generated enough force to lift me off my stance. But lift me twice the height between my harness and the nut? That just wasn't in the cards for that climb.
I mean, let's think about the point of a multi-pitch anchor. It serves two purposes: one, to hold the belayer, to keep him/her from falling off the ledge. Doesn't take much to do that! And 2 - to be able to withstand a factor 2 fall.
Seeing as how I was only 15 feet or so off the talus, she'd have cratered before weighting my anchor. And also, she put several good pieces in right off the bat, and the climbing at the start of the pitch was moderate. Put all that together, and a factor two fall on the anchor just wasn't going to happen.
Again, this boils down to the fact that the anchor was perfectly suited to what it needed to do.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on May 6, 2009, 11:33 PM)
I had hoped this would generate discussion, I am not disappointed. Thanks all!
It was difficult to make a poll that would reflect exactly what I was thinking----I was thinking of norms, not exceptions, and gear placements, not tree and boulders. There will always be situations that need adapting to, that is understood and not what I was thinking about. From reading other threads, it seems as if there are folks who will use two pieces even though there is a third placement available, and be comfortable with that. I was taught that, IF POSSIBLE, always place a minimum of three pieces of gear. I was wondering if that basic tenant is changing. I do like three!
May 7, 2009, 1:30 AM
Post #45 of 143
(4644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
Re: [pendereki] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
pendereki wrote:
I was taught that, IF POSSIBLE, always place a minimum of three pieces of gear. I was wondering if that basic tenant is changing. I do like three!
I like three as well, when possible. Heck, when possible, I prefer to have five. Six. Nine. To be honest, a 12 bomber point anchor suits me to a T.
The reality, though, is that such is not always (often... ever?) a logistical possibility. And, thus, the disparity of opinion. Sometimes, you do the best you can do and make do with what you did.
If that means a solidly slotted nut in a bottle-neck crack and a call to your second of "You're on belay, don't fall," then that's what you've got.
Spurt climbing has the luxury of hard-and-fast rules: "Two bolts at each anchor, period, and never belay off anything less" and all that. Trad routes in general -- and multi-pitch alpine routes in particular -- have no such luxury. Sometimes, ya just gotta make do.
May 13, 2009, 10:22 PM
Post #50 of 143
(4402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Posts: 461
Re: [majid_sabet] Two piece anchors are plenty strong! Poll!
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
majid_sabet wrote:
angry wrote:
Did you read the thread? No-one is pulling numbers out of their ass. Almost all the replies advocate thinking things through.
You're creating a reality in your head again.
STFU n00b
The OP is refering to magic two why ? because climbers are using the two protections most of the time therfore, using two protection is almost standard practice in building a trad anchor.
sure other people like yourself (ms angry ) will build anchors based one , three....or whatever number of protections but majority of people only use TWO.
80 /
37%
