|
csproul
Dec 18, 2007, 4:53 PM
Post #26 of 56
(5693 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
evanwish wrote: so then the question comes to "who do you trust?" I've seen guys who are guides and climb all over the world, Alaska to the Antartic and they all use the girth hitched tether.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks
Dec 18, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #27 of 56
(5692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 35
|
evanwish wrote: so then the question comes to "who do you trust?"
The point is to know the best and safest ways to do things. If you decide not to do it that way, thats your choice. But to tell others to do it that way just because you do it that way and have seen others do it that way is not helpful. RGold and others have pointed out in a logical, detailed fashion why to tie in with the rope. Maybe you should look in to it a little more.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 19, 2007, 3:21 PM
Post #28 of 56
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
evanwish wrote: so then the question comes to "who do you trust?"
I think the question is (or, rather, should be) "Do you know the strengths and weaknesses of various anchoring methods, and can you apply that knowledge to the real climbing world?"
I have probably anchored in a dozen different ways: rope to a powerpoint.... two slings girthed to my harness and clipped to bolts.... a rope wrap around a BMFT*..... rope to five individual pieces with cloves all the way around..... two quick draws from harness to bolts.... double ropes, one each to a different ice screw, and a daisy to my ice tool.... and so forth.
Each has it's upside, each has a downside.
What I think RGold is saying (and I trust he'll correct me if I'm wrong,) is that for MOST climbers in MOST situations MOST of the time, using the rope to anchor offers the best balance of safety, simplicity, and utility.
And he's correct.
(*BMFT = Big Mutha Fukkin' Tree)
(This post was edited by reno on Dec 19, 2007, 7:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Dec 19, 2007, 6:55 PM
Post #29 of 56
(5455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
I'm a big proponent of the daisy chain method, it allows you to play with the rope all you want (like when leading in blocks), besides, anchoring is usually the first thing I do after I reach/build an anchor, and the daisy chain is the easiest way IMHO. Still, I commonly also use the grith hitch together with the daisy for redundancy and adjustability.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Dec 19, 2007, 7:24 PM
Post #30 of 56
(5439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
In reply to: so then the question comes to "who do you trust?" I've seen guys who are guides and climb all over the world, Alaska to the Antartic and they all use the girth hitched tether.
Unfortunately, experience, even professional experience, is not a guarantee that people know the best way of doing things. There is a now famous account of an extremely dangerous knot being recommended for joining two ropes in an early AMGA guide.
So although experience should be respected and learned from, the fact that most people acquire their experience in a haphazard and unstructured way means that there can be holes in the fabric, and so my response to you would be that if by trust you mean uncritical acceptance, then you shouldn't trust anyone. As a maturing climber who wants to be around for the long haul, learn what you can, ask people for explanations for what they do, question them about their assumptions, and arrive at your own conclusions. Beware of zealots who proclaim some method to be the One True Way and opine that they'll never climb with anyone who does it differently.
What most experienced people end up with is a whole spectrum of options that they employ in different situations. We don't know what the situation was when you observed your guide friends using their tethers directly on the belay anchor, so cannot evaluate what options they were weighing. What you want to avoid is marrying yourself to only one option, as you yourself claimed when you said "as much as i try i just can't tie in like that while hanging on and clipping into a hanging belay." Perhaps the measure of expertise is not so much what particular method you use, but the number of methods you have to choose from.
Finally, there is a reality behind these discussions that makes it hard to decide on the best practice, and that is that most of the time, perhaps nearly all of the time, pretty much anything will work. What you are doing with your choices, then, is trying to build in a touch of extra security in a situation which will very likely not call for it. But if you are so unlucky as to be involved in a critical incident (and you might climb your whole life without ever being tested in this way) then your choices may well decide on whether you live or die.
So good luck, keep you mind open, never stop learning, live long, and prosper.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Dec 20, 2007, 4:12 AM
Post #31 of 56
(5395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
evanwish wrote: so then the question comes to "who do you trust?" I've seen guys who are guides and climb all over the world, Alaska to the Antarctic and they all use the girth hitched tether.
Trust Rgold. I've been doing this for 35 years and MOST of the time do what he does. As far as you carrying a 30 foot and a 40 foot piece of EXTRA gear. Uhhh, seems redundantly strange to load up with something you do not need when you already have over 200 feet already tied to your waist that many experienced climbers find more than adequate.
|
|
|
|
|
evanwish
Dec 20, 2007, 4:33 AM
Post #32 of 56
(5379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 1040
|
billcoe_ wrote: Trust Rgold. I've been doing this for 35 years and MOST of the time do what he does. As far as you carrying a 30 foot and a 40 foot piece of EXTRA gear. Uhhh, seems redundantly strange to load up with something you do not need when you already have over 200 feet already tied to your waist that many experienced climbers find more than adequate.
wow i guess so..
well i choppe that 40' sling in half this morning, figure if i need it for TR'ing i'll just clip em together.
I feel very secure with my ability to set almost any anchor with chord or slings, but i've never learned how to properly do a trad anchor with just the rope.. (unless the anchor's a vertical crack)
anyone wanna explain?
and i need to find someone in sacramento to go with too...
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 20, 2007, 4:29 PM
Post #34 of 56
(5319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
Do you guys really backup glove hitches with a figure eight? Except the fact that it's quite unlikely that it will get loaded that much to start slipping, how far will it slip? There's some 60m of backup rope running out of the glove hitch and in fact the slipping will help to absorb energy, when in some real ugly szenario the leader is jumping on my head.
For the guys that like the girth hitched tether so much:
When reaching the place I want to build (or I found) an anchor, I just clip the rope to the anchor, just like it was the next piece of gear in the middle of the pitch. Then you are already secured through the belayer. Then with 10 minutes of practice once in your life you will learn how to easily transform a rope running through a biner into a glove hitch in a matter of few seconds, even with not looking at it.
The last thing I do when trad climbing is girth hitching anything to the front of my harness. But of course I do so, at the very moment I start rappelling a multi pitch route.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 20, 2007, 4:40 PM
Post #35 of 56
(5315 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mangiari wrote: Do you guys really backup glove hitches with a figure eight? Except the fact that it's quite unlikely that it will get loaded that much to start slipping, how far will it slip?
If you do a thorough review of the posts on this site on this subject, especially those by rgold, you'll see that the behavior of a clove hitch under a dynamic load is has not been well characterized. Plus, backing up the clove hitch with a figure-8 gives you a redundant connection to the anchor; and with two people's lives on the line, how bad a thing can that be?
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 20, 2007, 4:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 20, 2007, 4:57 PM
Post #36 of 56
(5306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
I just wondered if you really do, because over here in Europe I never saw that before. And I never heard about any problems with single glove hitches. And I have to admit that I'm a similar tattletale in the local climbing forum as you seem to be in this one ;)
Anyhow how redundant can your link to the anchor be, if your using only your ONE rope?
I recently read John Long's climbing anchors, just to learn how people over the ocean are doing things. Somehow, I still prefer having all the load (and possible load) distributed over one single point. The idea of clipping into primary anchors directly does not sound so nice to me, when I have a self equalizing power point right in front of me. Just imagine giving bad side pull to a nut, because moving around and being tied in directly to that primary placement.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 20, 2007, 5:34 PM
Post #37 of 56
(5288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
First of all, it's a "clove" hitch, not a "glove" hitch.
mangiari wrote: I just wondered if you really do, because over here in Europe I never saw that before. And I never heard about any problems with single glove hitches. And I have to admit that I'm a similar tattletale in the local climbing forum as you seem to be in this one ;)
In previous threads on this topic it was clear that the American practice is different from the European.
In reply to: Anyhow how redundant can your link to the anchor be, if your using only your ONE rope?
You're literally only backing up your connection to the anchor; that is, your carabiner. With the figure-8 backup you are connected to the anchor with 2 locking biners instead of 1. The probability of a locker not being locked is not negligible, so I like the idea of having a second locker between me (or my belayer) and the anchor.
In reply to: I recently read John Long's climbing anchors, just to learn how people over the ocean are doing things. Somehow, I still prefer having all the load (and possible load) distributed over one single point. The idea of clipping into primary anchors directly does not sound so nice to me, when I have a self equalizing power point right in front of me. Just imagine giving bad side pull to a nut, because moving around and being tied in directly to that primary placement.
That's a separate issue. I think that what we've been been talking about is a figure-8 backup to a clove hitch, which is presumably tied to the power point. The figure-8 doesn't get loaded unless there's a problem, like the clove hitch slipping.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 20, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #38 of 56
(5285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
yep you're right, it's two different things.
I thought it's a "glove hitch" because it's so easy to tie, even with big gloves on  .
Didn't know the English term at all, until I read this book. In German it's called "Mastwurf".
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 23, 2007, 2:25 PM
Post #39 of 56
(5132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
Now as I have the book in my hands I have to wonder why at one side
In reply to: John Long, Climbing Anchors: "The clove hitch can be used to tie off oppositional nuts at an anchor."
With the need of holding factor 2 falls, because we talk about an "anchor". And on the other side people are making backups behind the clove hitch, even if it will be just stressed with body weight. In fact also John Long says to do this backup. But I found one more thing:
In reply to: John Long, Climbing Anchors: "Though a properly tied clove hitch will work fine here, to me the clove looks weird as my one and only tie-in knot, so for purely psychological reasons, I, and many others, go with the figure eight."
He even says that tests have shown that the clove hitch does NOT slip with dynamic ropes at all, only in static rope it might start slipping above some 1,000 pounds. As a freeclimber I'm not much interested in static ropes, especially not as a self tie in rope.
And as the clove does not look any weird to me, I don't need to back it up for pure psychological reasons.
Why I post all this? Because I more and more get the feeling that quite often huge discussions are focusing on effects, that in real life just do not matter or the difference will be something like two digits behind the decimal point.
Looking at other countries' climbing doctrines quickly reveals that feeling, as some nations with thousands of climbers live happily doing stuff every day, that is considered 100% deadly in other parts of this world.
Picking out the most useful techniques world wide is a real benefit of globalization. So don't stick with your old dusty habits, check out that new tie in knot from that japanese kamikaze pilots. 
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 23, 2007, 5:16 PM
Post #40 of 56
(5103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mangiari wrote: Now as I have the book in my hands I have to wonder why at one side In reply to: John Long, Climbing Anchors: "The clove hitch can be used to tie off oppositional nuts at an anchor." With the need of holding factor 2 falls, because we talk about an "anchor". And on the other side people are making backups behind the clove hitch, even if it will be just stressed with body weight. In fact also John Long says to do this backup.
There's more confusion packed into those few sentences than I can deal with before I've had my coffee, but for starters, how do you come to the conclusion that belayer's tie-in will only have to hold body weight?
In reply to: But I found one more thing: John Long, Climbing Anchors: "Though a properly tied clove hitch will work fine here, to me the clove looks weird as my one and only tie-in knot, so for purely psychological reasons, I, and many others, go with the figure eight."
Although John phrased it as "for purely psychological reasons," maybe he has a gut feeling that the testing hasn't been adequate.
In reply to: He even says that tests have shown that the clove hitch does NOT slip with dynamic ropes at all, only in static rope it might start slipping above some 1,000 pounds.
I don't have a thorough enough understanding of why the behavior of the knot would differ between static and dynamic ropes to trust these results. Do you, or are you just blindly relying on the test results? The hitch has been shown to slip in some ropes. Additionally, as rgold has pointed out, there has been little if any testing of the clove hitch under dynamic, as opposed to static, loads. So, testing has clearly been inadequate.
In reply to: And as the clove does not look any weird to me, I don't need to back it up for pure psychological reasons.
On the other hand, you've demonstrated that you're very confused about the role of oppositional nuts and the amount force the belayer's tie-in must be able to withstand, so I question whether your judgment can be relied upon, given your current level of understanding.
In reply to: check out that new tie in knot from that japanese kamikaze pilots.
Until you clear up some of the misunderstanding you have on this subject, you might be emulating those kamikaze pilots more than you think.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 26, 2007, 10:29 AM
Post #41 of 56
(5005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
jt512 wrote: There's more confusion packed into those few sentences than I can deal with before I've had my coffee... ..On the other hand, you've demonstrated that you're very confused about the role of oppositional nuts and the amount force the belayer's tie-in must be able to withstand, so I question whether your judgment can be relied upon, given your current level of understanding.
I guess the confusion lies somewhere in the transformation of what I'm knowing and thinking and what comes out of my keyboard in English. I only learned English in school and by reading books, never even been to a English speakin' country. I don't feel any confused about what I'm doing. Please don't judge over my level of understanding whithout having much knowing about me. I'm only confused about people that need irrational backup of stuff in one case, but don't use it in other cases. That's just fooling yourself.
A similar example is the backup when rapelling. Everybody says it's absolutely important to backup the belay device, when rapelling, e.g with a prusik. But nobody is backing up the rapelling device when lowering people after a sport climb. The effect will be absolutely the same. If the guy handling the belay device lets the rope go, the climber will fall on the ground. So where's the difference?
jt512 wrote: I don't have a thorough enough understanding of why the behavior of the knot would differ between static and dynamic ropes to trust these results. Do you, or are you just blindly relying on the test results?
I don't care much about testing in this case, but I rely on techniques, that have been used already by my father 50 years ago and are used still by every european alpine climber I know, without a single incident of failure, as far as I heard at least. But trust me, I would have heard if there had been a serious one. Furthermore the clove hitch is not only used for the last century by climbers, but it is used by sailors over centuries and still. Do you think they would, if the knot tend to slip just like that?
Of course it can slip a bit. Nobody with a basic understanding of rope would use it e.g. to connect the rope to the harness at the very end of the rope. That will be instant death.
But in fact when used correctly it is a very good thing when it slips a bit, because this will absorb some more energy and will beware of injuries resulting from a too static stop. It slips at 1.000 pounds? That's fine, because I don't want to have 1,000 pounds of force at my hips without some give in the system. The munter hitch also slips and nobody considers that harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 26, 2007, 11:11 AM
Post #42 of 56
(5003 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
mangiari wrote: jt512 wrote: There's more confusion packed into those few sentences than I can deal with before I've had my coffee... ..On the other hand, you've demonstrated that you're very confused about the role of oppositional nuts and the amount force the belayer's tie-in must be able to withstand, so I question whether your judgment can be relied upon, given your current level of understanding. I guess the confusion lies somewhere in the transformation of what I'm knowing and thinking and what comes out of my keyboard in English. I only learned English in school and by reading books, never even been to a English speakin' country. I don't feel any confused about what I'm doing. Please don't judge over my level of understanding whithout having much knowing about me. I'm only confused about people that need irrational backup of stuff in one case, but don't use it in other cases. That's just fooling yourself. A similar example is the backup when rapelling. Everybody says it's absolutely important to backup the belay device, when rapelling, e.g with a prusik. But nobody is backing up the rapelling device when lowering people after a sport climb. The effect will be absolutely the same. If the guy handling the belay device lets the rope go, the climber will fall on the ground. So where's the difference? jt512 wrote: I don't have a thorough enough understanding of why the behavior of the knot would differ between static and dynamic ropes to trust these results. Do you, or are you just blindly relying on the test results? I don't care much about testing in this case, but I rely on techniques, that have been used already by my father 50 years ago and are used still by every european alpine climber I know, without a single incident of failure, as far as I heard at least. But trust me, I would have heard if there had been a serious one. Furthermore the clove hitch is not only used for the last century by climbers, but it is used by sailors over centuries and still. Do you think they would, if the knot tend to slip just like that? Of course it can slip a bit. Nobody with a basic understanding of rope would use it e.g. to connect the rope to the harness at the very end of the rope. That will be instant death. But in fact when used correctly it is a very good thing when it slips a bit, because this will absorb some more energy and will beware of injuries resulting from a too static stop. It slips at 1.000 pounds? That's fine, because I don't want to have 1,000 pounds of force at my hips without some give in the system. The munter hitch also slips and nobody considers that harmful.
Your logic on this issue is totally fucked up, but it appears that you've made up your mind. After all, if sailors use clove hitches without backups in sailing, then clearly, we should do so in climbing. I don't know why that didn't occur to me before.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 26, 2007, 11:25 AM
Post #43 of 56
(5000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
jt512 wrote: Your logic on this issue is totally fucked up, but it appears that you've made up your mind. After all, if sailors use clove hitches without backups in sailing, then clearly, we should do so in climbing. I don't know why that didn't occur to me before.
That is in fact a line of argument that clearly proofs my lack of understanding. I'm quite sorry for wasting your time with my balderdash.
|
|
|
|
|
Jbitz
Dec 26, 2007, 2:43 PM
Post #44 of 56
(4985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 124
|
The link below to guide tricks might be of interest.
Personally, I think both Mangiari and Jay have valid points.
Jay you should cut Mangiari some slack "American" English is not his first language.
http://guidetricksforclimbers.com/cloveHitch.art.html
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Dec 26, 2007, 4:21 PM
Post #45 of 56
(4967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
That is really some interesting link, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Dec 26, 2007, 5:03 PM
Post #46 of 56
(4956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
Jbitz, that's a great link. Thanks for dropping it into the discussion. Orienting the load to the spine of the carabiner with both clove and munter hitches is an important thing to know.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Dec 26, 2007, 9:35 PM
Post #47 of 56
(4930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Here is yet another slow-pull test of a clove hitch in dynamic rope. Note that these particular "myth busters" appear to consider a single test conclusive and also seem unaware of the emerging difference between static and dynamic loading. (The author of the site lays claim to research and testing experience without actually specifying any of it.)
One wonders whether the 5" of what I'd call "tightening" is what Fox called "slipping" in those now mysterious tests that seem to have started all this. The tightening effect absorbs fall energy and so might be seen as a benefit rather than a drawback. Such effects are just as much a feature of the figure-8 and should not be viewed as an anomaly associated only with the clove hitch.
This result adds nothing to what is already known, although it could be considered another trial that confirms that slippage is of little or no consequence in dynamic ropes under in static loading. The suggestion that the authors have done any "myth busting" with a single slow-pull test demonstrates just how tricky real myth busting can be, underlining at least the potential for perpetrating new myths through the mechanism of inadequate and/or poorly conceived testing protocols.
I do think that Mangiari, whose English is admirable compared to most of our abilitities in another language, has a general point about safety procedures, which is that it is possible to become obsessive about points with microscopic probabilitities of ever occurring, while perhaps overlooking significant judgement errors with far greater likelihood of being harmful.
On the flip side of this is the everyday analogy to the mathematical notion of expected value: a low-probability event with extremely "costly" consequences can nonetheless be highly significant and so worthy of attention. The question about whether a belay anchor could actually withstand a worst-case scenario load is an example of this line of thinking.
I think one of the tests of safety "obsessions" is how much time they add to the climbing process, and whether that time matters. Practices that suck up time may be fine on a two-pitch crag but dangerous on a big route. Personally, I don't think clove hitches need to be backed up, but they can be so quickly and easily that there seems to me to be little to argue about, except perhaps for those who, for various reasons, really just want to argue.
|
|
|
|
|
livinonasandbar
Dec 27, 2007, 5:43 PM
Post #49 of 56
(4866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
An additional thought on this matter:
A number of people I've climbed with did not feel it's important to properly "dress" a knot, whether a figure 8, clove hitch, or other type. They threw the knot together and left it... loose and disorganized. It is my understanding that one should carefully organize and tighten ("dress") each knot to minimize any chance of slippage.
I wonder if any tests have been conducted to compare the integrity of "dressed" knots with that of loosely tied knots?
|
|
|
|
|
mangiari
Jan 3, 2008, 9:45 AM
Post #50 of 56
(4673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2004
Posts: 18
|
As far as I heard, bad dressed knots may result in higher weakening of the rope and also sometimes are very bad to be reopened again. Somehow it is not really possible to dress a clove badly. And it will be automatically tightened when it is weighted with the belayer's body.
In fact I would consider it much safer to already hang in the self belay rather than just having it lose as a backup. If you already hang in it, the clove will be tight.
But be sure to tie it that way that the load is applied next to the spine of the biner, as described in the posted link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
