|
|
|
|
grandkodiak
Aug 31, 2013, 10:01 PM
Post #1 of 9
(5194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2013
Posts: 7
|
I've always been curious as to why the belay loop on a harness is not used to tie in when climbing... is there a main reason for this? I have a few ideas on why it might be a not as good choice, and I have a few ideas on why it might be a better choice. I won't ever use it as the tie in point, but I've always been curious as to what made it near defacto as a belay loop only, and not as just "the loop" if you know what I mean.
Second, I often see that top rope books usually all recommend a figure 8 follow through as the tie in knot for belay climber action, but the bowlin as the sport/lead climber knot... and this recommendation given without explination in the same books sometimes without explination. Now, most sources Ive seen list a figure 8 as only reducing rope rate by 20%, while bowlins drop it nearly 40%. that alone would make me think that the 8 would be used reguardless of which style of climbing one would be performing... again, without explination of course.
thanks all!
|
|
|
|
|
vinnie83
Aug 31, 2013, 10:22 PM
Post #2 of 9
(5179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Posts: 112
|
If you look closely at most harnesses the tie in portions are covered with additional webbing that isn't load bearing in order to make it abrasion resistant so that it can withstand the wear the comes from threading and unthreading the rope over and over. The belay loop is not designed to withstand the constant nylon on nylon wear, but is instead designed to create a more ideal loading for the belay/rappel biner.
Figure eight is recommended (and in many gyms the only allowed knot) primarily because it is easy to tie and visually inspect. The bowline is preferred by a lot of people who climb hard and take a lot of falls b/c it is much easier to untie. It would be pretty difficult to create a real world situation where you could break a rope even with the reduced strength of the bowline.
|
|
|
|
|
Danxz
Sep 1, 2013, 9:29 PM
Post #3 of 9
(5000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2013
Posts: 17
|
What is the reason you say "reason why" ? All reasons are why.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Sep 2, 2013, 12:18 AM
Post #4 of 9
(4967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Danxz wrote: What is the reason you say "reason why" ? All reasons are why.
Incorrect.
"Reason(s)" can also be a verb.
|
|
|
|
|
Danxz
Sep 2, 2013, 4:33 AM
Post #5 of 9
(4924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2013
Posts: 17
|
Ignorant peasant ! "Why" is redundant in "reason why".
|
|
|
|
|
grandkodiak
Sep 4, 2013, 5:57 PM
Post #6 of 9
(4694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2013
Posts: 7
|
Which definition of "reason" was I using?
|
|
|
|
|
Danxz
Sep 4, 2013, 9:43 PM
Post #7 of 9
(4639 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2013
Posts: 17
|
Surely there's an even bigger idiot out there who claims "the reason why is because" they love triple redundancy ?
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 4, 2013, 10:09 PM
Post #8 of 9
(4625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Danxz wrote: Surely there's an even bigger idiot out there who claims "the reason why is because" they love triple redundancy ?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
I'm with you.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Sep 4, 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #9 of 9
(4622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
patto wrote: Danxz wrote: What is the reason you say "reason why" ? All reasons are why. Incorrect. "Reason(s)" can also be a verb.
Can be, but is not in this context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
