OR it may be because clipping into both points with a biner is stronger because the metal biner is stronger than the nylon belay loop.

I think the reason is to bypass the belay loop, which is a single point of failure.

belay loops are there for a reason. if they weren't over-engineered to be damn near unbreakable they wouldn't be on harnesses in the first place. clipping biners to tie-in points and leg loops adds unnecessary redundancy. it also adds triaxial loading to the biner. so while you may be backing up the extraordinarily beefy belay loop that's designed to take massive loads, you're also making the carabiner much more likely to break. personally i'd rather take me chances with the belay loop.

why do you get cross loading on the belay loop?

it's very easy to prevent while on the ground and at an anchor.

Is there ever any time when you should attach a biner to your harness by using both the waist belt and leg loop? Please tell me if there is because I can't think of one. Why do people insist on doing this, and even worse, teaching others to do this. It is the most common mistake that I see as far as improper use of equipment. To make it worse, I just read a post in the accident forum where someone stated that their biner was attached in this way and it took like 6 people posting before anyone said anything about it. Where has this technique come from and why is it SO widespread. Information that comes with harnesses specifically say that this is incorrect, and some of them even have a diagram printed on the belay loop!!

Sorry I don't mean to start a stupid thread but I just don't understand why this issue is still an issue.

In reply to:belay loops are there for a reason. if they weren't over-engineered to be damn near unbreakable they wouldn't be on harnesses in the first place. clipping biners to tie-in points and leg loops adds unnecessary redundancy. it also adds triaxial loading to the biner. so while you may be backing up the extraordinarily beefy belay loop that's designed to take massive loads, you're also making the carabiner much more likely to break. personally i'd rather take me chances with the belay loop.

i was hoping someone would say that

If you don't believe it, then my answer to you is "Roped soloing self-belay", which relies (with my device) on two locking biners, gates opposed, clipped directly through leg loops and swami, and will sustain enormous loads generated by lead fall directly onto static anchors. There is a reason that you don't clip into the belay loop to absorb that kind of force.

What kind of forces (?kn) are you putting on your harness with a dynamic rope in your system?

I understand the purpose of the belay loop, in terms of distributing force into the harness properly, but it's primary weakness is that it is made of cloth and is subject to wear in the real world. Cutting it off, and replacing it with two opposed locking 'biners through the tie-in points would result in a stronger, more reliable system.

Is there ever any time when you should attach a biner to your harness by using both the waist belt and leg loop?

Information that comes with harnesses specifically say that this is incorrect, and some of them even have a diagram printed on the belay loop!!

The integrity of the harness depended on a connection point rated to oh, say....60 lbs.

The point is: Manufacturers can be wrong.

I don't believe that. Which manufacturer? Which harness?

I suspect that you are more likely to be wrong than the manufacturer.

Fair enough. It was a Misty Mtn. harness. I don't remember the "model"...it was one of the less expenseive ones, and it was in 2004. The 60 lbs. thing was a bit cheeky, since I don't really know what it was rated too, but it couldn't have been more than a couple of hundred pounds, max.

They flawed design was observed and confirmed by a number of experienced climbers. We're not manufacturers, but we're not stupid, either.


I don't make a habit of second-guessing manufacturers. In this case, I received a piece of bunk equipment. I don't really care what you suspect or don't. I was right. The harness was poorly designed and broke under normal loading. It is foolish to debate that point. I was there (and so were others), you were not. All due respect, though, since it's usually more likely that operator error occurs than a manufacturing flaw.

It is only foolish to debate the point because you have not substantiated your claim with any evidence, or even a detailed description of this so-called "failure." I have no reason to believe that you're making this story up, but I also have no reason to believe that you were necessarily using the equipment properly, or misinterpreted the failure of a retaining strap as a failure of a leg loop.

That a commercial climbing equipment manufacturer would design a harness that would fail under body weight loads when CE standards require it have 20-some kN of strength is a pretty big claim. Big claims require big support to be believable. And you haven't presented anywhere near that level of support.

Jay

misinterpreted the failure of a retaining strap as a failure of a leg loop.

If you want to avoid cross loding, get a DMM belay master (damn ncie biner and relly usefull for those awkward cramped clusterF"£*ck belays).

Wild Country has some interesting videos of half-way cut belay loop testing. It is their 25KN loop and takes over 13KN even when half-way cut through from two different spots on opposite sides.

http://wld.brlive.co.uk/...s/BelayLoopBreaking/

The swami is where the safety is, if properly adjusted. You won't come out of it, but hanging or falling on just the belt is mighty uncomfortable.

Ever belayed a lead and found that after the leader clips that the biner has rotated around and is sideways in the belay loop?

would it be sensible to clip your biner into your belay loop and then tape the biner in place / tie it in place with a piece of webbing to prevent it rotating? i guess a few wraps of tape across the narrow end of the biner, leaving a few cm of space in which the loop can sit so it doesn't affect movement too much.

Could use a piece of rubber, cut from an old bicycle tyre for example, to keep the biner in place. Bend it over the belay loop from outside to inside and clip the biner to belay loop through these two loops of rubber.

The UIAA sites says belay loops an harness must hold minimum 15 Kn, far less than a biner but more than almost all trad gear. Its called a belay loop for a reason

Yes, I know.

By the same line of reason, you don't really need a two-bolt anchor, do you? Or, more importantly, if you do, it would be perfectly acceptable to tie into both bolts with a single sling. After all, your slings are approx. 14-15 KN, aren't they? And since your harness is part of any anchor system, and we've apparently all decided that redundancy isn't important in that part of the anchor, why would you care if the anchor isn't redundant elsewhere?

It's not that I believe that Black Diamond is in error when they state that their belay loop is bombproof and not of concern........It's just that I've had it hammered into me by every professional instructor I've ever met (including Todd Skinner's older brothers, Monte and Courtney) that single-point attachments are non-redundant, and therefore unacceptable. The concept of redundancy is reasonable, and logical, so I have difficulty rejecting it, even if it is a concept whose time has past. Consider me a dinosaur if you will, but it doesn't mean that I adhere to a lower standard.

I would suggest that for any tutelage you offer in the future, you offer the chance to utilize both methods of attaching a biner to the harness, but be able to state the pros and cons of both methods, leaving it up to the informed pupil to choose the method they are most comfortable with. If you cannot or will not do this, perhaps you should refrain from taking on apprentices in the future.

The problem stems from a recognition by those who have seen the result of many mishaps that there is a design solution to the problem. They design ways to cut down on the occurrence of those mishaps,

just as tube-style belay devices are one of the designed solutions to the problem of figures-of-eight loading the gate of a carabiner.

A quick thought, just for fun.


Yes, but it is all in how you define the essential problem. Your figure-eight rappel device is the better example.


The only way a figure-eight is going to just up and load a gate is through gross operator error. They don't suddenly shift (under normal conditions) once weighted, which means, if the gate was loaded, a person actually allowed it to improperly load. The design fix (an ATC for instance) isn't fixing what was ever really a design flaw.....it is a company decision (based on legal liability) that the operators are going to continue making gross errors. (So the company eliminates the opportunity for the operator error to express itself)

I'm much less familiar with triaxial loading and belay loop history, but I wonder if the reasons are somewhat the same. My understanding is that there are more severe climbing injuries per capita than ever before, and, rather than rely on the climbing populace to become masters of safety concepts, the manufacturers adjust their designs to take into account a more widespread incompetence in their end-using public. Thus, sometimes, designs are adjusted solely for legal/liability reasons rather than to correct real problems.

The only way a figure-eight is going to just up and load a gate is through gross operator error... a person actually allowed it to improperly load

... single-point attachments are non-redundant, and therefore unacceptable. The concept of redundancy is reasonable, and logical, so I have difficulty rejecting it, even if it is a concept whose time has past...

...Sorry I don't mean to start a stupid thread...

Yes, I know.

By the same line of reason, you don't really need a two-bolt anchor, do you? Or, more importantly, if you do, it would be perfectly acceptable to tie into both bolts with a single sling. After all, your slings are approx. 14-15 KN, aren't they? And since your harness is part of any anchor system, and we've apparently all decided that redundancy isn't important in that part of the anchor, why would you care if the anchor isn't redundant elsewhere?

It's not that I believe that Black Diamond is in error when they state that their belay loop is bombproof and not of concern........It's just that I've had it hammered into me by every professional instructor I've ever met (including Todd Skinner's older brothers, Monte and Courtney) that single-point attachments are non-redundant, and therefore unacceptable. The concept of redundancy is reasonable, and logical, so I have difficulty rejecting it, even if it is a concept whose time has past. Consider me a dinosaur if you will, but it doesn't mean that I adhere to a lower standard.

We have never had a harness returned to us with a broken leg loop.

Fair enough. It was a Misty Mtn. harness.

not sure that I would worry a bit about the leg loop - once upon a time, I was taught and read a lot of info about the leg loops being for "comfort" - not safety. Ever wonder why very few harnesses double-back anything on the leg loops? They may add something to the safety, but are not the critical safety component.

The swami is where the safety is, if properly adjusted. You won't come out of it, but hanging or falling on just the belt is mighty uncomfortable.

We have NEVER used a plastic buckle to hold our leg loops together, not in 2004 and not now. The only plastic buckle we have ever used is on the rear leg loop hold up.

Regarding the comment "Whoever said before that belay loops are stronger than 'biners is dead wrong"
I just broke 5 of our belay loops, none of which broke below 7,300 lbs. (33 KN). I just broke 1 locking carabiner, commonly used for belaying and rappeling, at 5,400 lbs. (24 KN) Which is stronger?

We have never had a harness returned to us with a broken leg loop.

However, there is a Liberty Mountain harness recall that sounds about right.

If you are worried about redundancy, tie a loop of dyneema or super-tape, etc. through your harness just like the belay loop and use a water knot to tie it into a loop.

correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you clip to both the leg loops and the waist loops, then yes, it would create triaxial loading if you fell away from the wall at a right angle. But generally gravity forces you downward, so in a real fall the leg loop and the biner will be taking the majority of the force, with the waist loop not really loading the carabiner at all.

Not sure why this was not picked up on. This is spot on. In a fall, the force is either on the gate / spine of the biner and both tie-in points, or it is taken up mostly on the leg loop. It really can't be both, though some grey combination of the two could be true, but that is likely rare.

The question then is, if the biner is properly loaded in a fall (rope is at the ends and not the spine or gate) then how strong is the bottom tie-in alone? Is it stronger than the belay loop? I assume not, but I don't know the answer.

His assumpsion is true if the biner is orientated in the correct position when forces pull on it. If the biner has rotated to a position that the gate is caught on one of the loops when forces hit it, it could load the biner incorrectly across the gate.

...Sorry I don't mean to start a stupid thread...

Somehow, it's managed to reach new lows of stupidity. And for this particular topic, which comes up at least twice a year, that's saying something.

You should not tie thin dyneema together with a water knot, it's too slippery and will untie. it also more closely resembles cord than tape in it's narrower versions. Instead, it's recommended to use a triple fisherman's. that's the same as a double fisherman's, just add another loop on each side to increase friction. I did research on this at one time while considering buying a spool of dyneema and tying my own slings out of it.

Another potential problem with dyneema used as a belay loop is the possibility of it cutting into the nylon harness. I have also seen tests done where 8mm dyneema girth hitched to 1" nylon tape severed the nylon. whereas 8mm dyneema girthed to 8mm dyneema or 1" tape to 1" tape did not result in this failure. Of course, you wouldn't girth hitch it to your harness, i hope, but one should consider this issue and use thicker tape.

sorry, i don't remember where i found these studies, but if you wanted to seek them out i would bet they're still online.

That just about sums it up perfectly.

Except that he left out the case where the carabiner is cross loaded in a belay loop.

Now if you clipped your tie-in loops (or even if you clipped your belay loop it doesn't really matter) and the biner has rotated, you will be cross loading the biner as shown here:

Ya this really hurts my head, everyone is just mixing the terminology, confusing things, and making arguments on misunderstood points.

So here's a simplification as per Majid, though I promise they will make sense:

Okay, imagine your partner just took a major whipper (dude), you get pulled up from the ground as per most real falls (not those weenie sport falls where you grab the draw, ha!). You will look like how this guy ends up in the following pics. (I cut out his belay arm for clarity, in the first two examples the red belay loop is behind everything, not clipped)

Now, if you have clipped your belay biner through your harness tie-in loops (swami and legs), you will be triaxially loading the biner as shown here:



Now if you clipped your tie-in loops (or even if you clipped your belay loop it doesn't really matter) and the biner has rotated, you will be cross loading the biner as shown here:



Ok, now, if you have clipped your belay device in to the belay loop, and have watched it and have used proper belaying technique (I know a lot to ask), you will be loading your harness correctly and the biner correctly, and it will look like this:



Simplified with just forces:



And to clear things up definitively:



(edited to fix link)

This post, I believe, should be linked to in the FAQ, provided you add some more red and green arrows to that last pic.

Maybe a few tires and a floating asteroid wouldn't hurt, either.

Personally, I find this to be one of several recurring and overblown 'safety' topics in climbing these days. I mean - my god! - how did we ever manage to climb before belay loops? About how many biners do you suppose have been broken by cross / tri loading on rappel or in a belay?

Could it conceivably happen? Sure. You could also die driving to the crag and I suspect if you belayed and rapped with the biner through your harness loops for the rest of your life you'd still be at far, far greater risk every time you got in your car to go climbing to do it. I'd further speculate that thousands of times more climbers are hurt by the improper use of belay devices properly fastened to belay loops than by biners breaking do to cross / tri loading on harness loops.

Are there times and circumstances when it's smart to take advantage of the belay loop? Again, sure, I do when roped soloing and rapping with loads, and at times in awkward multipitch belay situations. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about it for rapping - not a lot of reasons not to use the belay loop - but belaying, there some devices I find are best oriented and controlled for belaying using the harness loops rather than the belay loop.

In this day and age of incredibly engineered climbing gear I'd say many elements of our gear are designed to 'idiot-proof' climbers against the statistics of the sheer numbers of their demographic. Climbers would do well to put a bit more energy into skill and craft development rather than simply investing in an understanding rooted in inflexible and rout rules - that's fine to get started, but beyond that a deeper understanding of the 'why' behind these types of issues will serve you better.

About how many biners do you suppose have been broken by cross / tri loading on rappel or in a belay?

In this day and age of incredibly engineered climbing gear I'd say many elements of our gear are designed to 'idiot-proof' climbers against the statistics of the sheer numbers of their demographic. Climbers would do well to put a bit more energy into skill and craft development rather than simply investing in an understanding rooted in inflexible and rout rules