|
patto
May 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #276 of 296
(13059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Using a current lead rope to rig a top rope anchor seems like lunacy. Sure use retired but safe lead ropes or sections but abusing your lead rope in a TR anchor is just silly. Webbing's only real advantage is that it is cheap. Sure webbing can be used to rig top ropes but it is vastly inferior to rope. Why people ENCOURAGE using webbing is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
rightarmbad
May 7, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #277 of 296
(13047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 218
|
I would quite happily use a lead rope to set up a top rope anchor. What I don't do is use it to top rope on, that is what really causes wear on a rope. Constantly being weighted and lowered through a biner, equals heaps of wear.
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
May 7, 2012, 1:51 PM
Post #278 of 296
(13022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
I am not following why you say you are out of step (do I infer correctly that you feel I implied that? That was not my intent). In saying/writing "long term solution", I meant that if I were going to be doing a lot of TR'ing, I would probably choose to invest in a length of static rope for the reasons outlined upthread ad nausea. I don't do much TR, so I don't own said materials... My point was that using a dynamic lead rope as part of an anchor is not a problem and should not result in damage due to abrasion when the anchor is set up correctly You made the same point in your post and I agree and support that perspective. If the anchor permits abrasion... fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 7, 2012, 2:34 PM
Post #279 of 296
(12993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
tomcat wrote: I guess I am out of step, as none of my toprope anchors represent "long term solutions", nor have I ever seen one rubbed through by contact with trees or boulders. Lugging a static rope around for TR'ing just seems like you are doomed to TR'ing for the day, plus it's only useful for anchor building, hauling or jugging and the latter two rarely occur with the former. If your rope is rubbing enough to cause it to wear I'd take another look at how you rigged it. Let be clear here Redlude indeed, tomcat suggested using a dynamic rope, and did not specify a "main lead rope", just you and someone else's dynamics. This looks like yet another case of guiding practices being pushed onto recreational climbers as necessary, when they are not. Some places are top rope only so if you frequent those places then having a dedicated TR set up is useful. X ft of static isn't too bad to bring when you know you're going to use it. personally if i'm going TRing somewhere then i bring webbing for trees, clove the ends of the static to that, big Fig 8 over the edge. I learned on 100% webbing anchors but i like the modular and adjustable qualities of the static/webbing combo. Patto, your strong objections to webbing is ridiculous. It is cheap, but it is not that hard to use once you learn a good water knot. and if you have multiple tree anchors the shit isn't going anywhere. one of the areas i learned to climb the tree and gear placements are 15-20+ feet back from a 90 degree edge of granite. having 20' loops of webbing is not unheard of to get over the edge. making the same anchor 100% out of static is more difficult. it all depends and getting fired up about it is silly. every area had different needs and uses pieces that you don't need other places. You don't need 12 #1 C4's at the gunks but you might at the Creek. Does that mean that someone at the Gunks should be telling an Indian Creek climber they shouldn't have 12 #1s?
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
May 7, 2012, 3:07 PM
Post #280 of 296
(12965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
rightarmbad wrote: ... snip... Constantly being weighted and lowered through a biner, equals heaps of wear. Isn't that what most recreational climbing does? I suspect TR just concentrates the effect as it allows a greater number of meters climbed in the same time period. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 7, 2012, 3:52 PM
Post #281 of 296
(12947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Conversations like this is where RC always goes awry with people obsessing over the wrong details and priorities. Setting up a TR anchor isn't rocket science and - old or new - any climbing-rated rope or webbing will do. The most important thing to possess for the job is common sense. And, unless you are courting Darwin hard with your anchor rigging, then far and away the most dangerous aspect of TRing is the prospect and possibility of a bad belay. In that regard the three most important things you can do when out TRing remain - STFUAB, STFUAB, STFUAB.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
May 7, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #282 of 296
(12923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
tomcat wrote: Let be clear here Redlude indeed, tomcat suggested using a dynamic rope, and did not specify a "main lead rope", just you and someone else's dynamics. Are you referring to yourself in the third person?
tomcat wrote: My question is, why would you need a static rope for anchor building? Is there some reason you and your nOOb friend who each own a climbing rope couldn't accomplish this? This certainly sounds like you are suggesting either one of the two use their main lead lines as the anchor. Which is mainly why I even responded.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
May 7, 2012, 5:35 PM
Post #283 of 296
(12868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
healyje wrote: Conversations like this is where RC always goes awry with people obsessing over the wrong details and priorities. Setting up a TR anchor isn't rocket science and - old or new - any climbing-rated rope or webbing will do. The most important thing to possess for the job is common sense. And, unless you are courting Darwin hard with your anchor rigging, then far and away the most dangerous aspect of TRing is the prospect and possibility of a bad belay. In that regard the three most important things you can do when out TRing remain - STFUAB, STFUAB, STFUAB. No, you need to have a ROCK I and TR level II certification
|
|
|
|
|
pendereki
May 7, 2012, 9:31 PM
Post #284 of 296
(12780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Posts: 323
|
"No, you need to have a ROCK I and TR level II certification".....Majid good one!
(This post was edited by pendereki on May 7, 2012, 9:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
May 28, 2012, 5:07 AM
Post #285 of 296
(12347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
madscientist wrote: The only "failures" I know of ones like the one John Sherman experienced. http://www.supertopo.com/...9434&f=0&b=0 However, this was using a thin slings girth hitched together, and not... ... one good shred of real evidence to support the mythical destruction of the JohnSherman webbing : it was concluded to have been CUT, and not by some magical "dental-floss cuts <anythying>" mechanism. Sorry, but this myth got legs I have tried hard to cut out, for the same want of any real evidence as we are getting in this thread (up through p.4 (5?) of many Deleted posts and non-replies).
|
|
|
|
|
SillyG
Jun 4, 2012, 7:17 PM
Post #286 of 296
(12179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2010
Posts: 12
|
I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. It might be helpful to reduce the conversation to what's easy. Two 25ft and one 50ft lengths of 11mm static rope can setup a top rope anchor in most circumstances, no 'biners needed. All the person needs to know is how to tie a few "must-know anyway" climbing knots and the basics of anchor redundancy. If it's presented as, "sure, people do use webbing, but all you need are three lengths of cord..." the discussion might win more hearts and minds. :) .
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 4, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #287 of 296
(12161 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
SillyG wrote: I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. People that easily confused should seriously think about taking up a different pastime. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
SillyG
Jun 4, 2012, 9:07 PM
Post #288 of 296
(12152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2010
Posts: 12
|
curt wrote: SillyG wrote: I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. People that easily confused should seriously think about taking up a different pastime. Curt That's a nice sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 5, 2012, 3:56 AM
Post #289 of 296
(12085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
SillyG wrote: curt wrote: SillyG wrote: I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. People that easily confused should seriously think about taking up a different pastime. Curt That's a nice sentiment. More like good advice, actually. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 5, 2012, 2:00 PM
Post #290 of 296
(12044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
SillyG wrote: curt wrote: SillyG wrote: I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. People that easily confused should seriously think about taking up a different pastime. Curt That's a nice sentiment. +1; it is a nice sentiment.
(This post was edited by shockabuku on Jun 5, 2012, 2:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jun 5, 2012, 11:32 PM
Post #291 of 296
(11977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
curt wrote: SillyG wrote: curt wrote: SillyG wrote: I'm afraid a new climber trying to figure out how to setup a toprope anchor is going to look at this thread and become confused, as if learning this stuff isn't hard enough. People that easily confused should seriously think about taking up a different pastime. Curt That's a nice sentiment. More like good advice, actually. +1. There are a lot of people out there climbing that probably.....shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 6, 2012, 1:09 AM
Post #292 of 296
(11966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
NEGuiding wrote: So I'd like to apologize for some misunderstandings and misconstruing in this thread. My own opinion and personal preference to choose static line over webbing is from personal guiding and rescue experience in the crags where my company guides in and trains in. The rock type we have at hand is very abrasive so extending anchors with webbing is not the best and safest option. My professional opinion. To clear a couple other things up, I market, host and sell PCGI courses for approved East coast providers/mentors and I do NOT directly teach these courses. PCGI does NOT frown upon webbing. I am a Board of Directors member for PCGI, hence I am part of the team on a busness level and NOT on a technical development or educational level. I am not a certified PCGI guide. The reasons why I don't use it nor do any of my guides is clearly stated above. So again, I apologize for any misunderstandings on this issue and just stress to choose the right material for the right application when extending top rope anchors. That is my opinion and NOT the opinions of PCGI. Unfortunately this thread was blown way out of proportion for various reasons which some were mine by not making myself clear enough and getting angry at some of the posters in here who seem to enjoy picking things apart in an argumentative manner. Again, my mistake for not making myself clear. I hope this is read over correctly and I made my point/opinion showing that it is NOT something PCGI supports. Thanks, Joey Let me guess... somebody in the PCGI saw this thread and, um, disapproved?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Jun 6, 2012, 1:44 AM
Post #293 of 296
(11951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
j_ung wrote: Let me guess... somebody in the PCGI saw this thread and, um, disapproved? Yep, on a "disciplinary level." http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2582129#2582129 Frankly, I am shocked he is still listed as a Board member on the PCGI website. The guy is completely disreputable, lied about his credentials, flaunted the organization to win an Internet argument, and smeared any validity the PCGI had.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jun 6, 2012, 1:50 AM
Post #294 of 296
(11946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
edge wrote: j_ung wrote: Let me guess... somebody in the PCGI saw this thread and, um, disapproved? Yep, on a "disciplinary level." http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2582129#2582129 Frankly, I am shocked he is still listed as a Board member on the PCGI website. The guy is completely disreputable, lied about his credentials, flaunted the organization to win an Internet argument, and smeared any validity the PCGI had. Maybe they want people who aren't quitters?
|
|
|
|
|
ncrockclimber
Jun 6, 2012, 5:43 AM
Post #295 of 296
(11931 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2006
Posts: 286
|
100 agree. All I know about the PCGI I learned from this thread. I was not at all impressed.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 6, 2012, 3:25 PM
Post #296 of 296
(11894 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
edge wrote: j_ung wrote: Let me guess... somebody in the PCGI saw this thread and, um, disapproved? Yep, on a "disciplinary level." http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2582129#2582129 Frankly, I am shocked he is still listed as a Board member on the PCGI website. The guy is completely disreputable, lied about his credentials, flaunted the organization to win an Internet argument, and smeared any validity the PCGI had. As I understand it, he's a founding member of the PCGI itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if "board member", in effect, means "financial backer". Between those two things, other board members might decide that to try to force him from the board without a good possibility of him taking the whole organization with him is prohibitively dangerous. But every board is different, so who knows. GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|