While I don't want to drift this thread too far, I'd really like to have a 120 that isn't just cut down from one of my old 50s.

I hate dragging that extra weight back to some climb where there's a ledge every fifty feet or, worse, to some crag where the longest thing is only 60 foot high.

After rereading Sosure's description of his setup, it appears that he was not under his anchor, as implied in a post by Bill7, or at least my read of it. An estimate using a little trig suggests that with the anchor at "shoulder height" 10 feet back from the edge, and the belayer at the edge, that the belayer would have available only around 20% of his body weight for use in applying tension to the rope, which surely would have been insufficient under the circumstances.

Jay

Agreed, and I can totally see this happening at the 'Gunks, too. While I've only heard of the particular climb, many of the anchor opportunities at the very top at the 'Gunks (and sometimes at the GT Ledge itself), only come from trees, and in many of those circumstances I would only trust the base of the tree (as opposed to throwing the anchor around a sturdy branch(es)), thus leaving the anchor low to the ground. It is also not uncommon for these trees to be annoying far enough away from the cliff so as to not allow the belayor to comfortably / easily hang over the edge to get below the anchor (if using the same anchor to lock in). It is very difficult to manage pulling up the rope in general in this circumstance, let alone at 160 feet with an inexperienced climber at the bottom.

As a result of this, I try to avoid these routes / circumstances with inexperienced seconds. I simply prefer the autolock option as opposed to a redirect "just in case" a copperhead with a grudge decides to come after me while belaying. Anyway, this decision requires me to be picky on my routes. It sounds as if the OP should have done the same.

I think that it is absurd to write off whole classes of routes just because you insist on using one entirely unnecessary belay technique.

Like I said earlier, I've never used an autoblock belay, and probably never will. Call me crazy, but I like the idea of my second being able to reverse a few moves without it becoming a minor epic.

I don't understand why the autoblock belay has become so popular, except that climbing in parties of three has become so popular, a trend that I equally don't understand. To the best of my recollection the autoblock belay only became popular when the Reverso was introduced. Before that, the only recollection I have of autoblocked belays were for belaying two seconds simultaneously, which then required relatively arcane belay devices like the Kong Gigi. Even the phrase "atuoblock belay," to the best of my recollection, did not come into existence until relatively recently.

If you are seriously concerned about getting knocked unconscious while belaying from above, then use a Grigri. Sure, it weighs a little more, but carrying a bit more weight seems better than writing off whole classes of perfectly good climbs for no good reason.

Jay

After rereading Sosure's description of his setup, it appears that he was not under his anchor, as implied in a post by Bill7, or at least my read of it.

I may have just answered my own question: if she's decelerating at a fairly high rate during the last four feet, then it may well be that her velocity at the beginning of those four feet is, in fact, equal to the velocity she'd attain in a 3.7 foot free fall. Is that what you calculated?

Further comments:

1) The direct belay off an autoblocking device is not the only belay technique I know. You are welcome to believe I screwed the pooch on this climb but consider that I've been climbing without incident for 8 years, mostly on the sharp end -- I doubt that I have avoided an accident for that long just by dumb luck.

Curt, or can I call you Sr. Smartypants, you got something else to bring to this other than a plainly wrong claim about the location of the crux on the climb? I'm listening.

Intereting disscussion yall. Thanks.

DMT

I can only think of one route I've ever climbed where the rope stretch might have been an issue, and looking back I gave absolutely no thought to it.

1) The direct belay off an autoblocking device is not the only belay technique I know. You are welcome to believe I screwed the pooch on this climb but consider that I've been climbing without incident for 8 years, mostly on the sharp end -- I doubt that I have avoided an accident for that long just by dumb luck.

3) After reading the continued discussion in the forum (the quality of which improved, perhaps because I wasn't involved) I still believe that "pretensioning" is largely theory.

The only way such a system could be relied on is if the belayer effectively hauls the second through the climb. Even if the belayer successfully extracts sixteen to twenty feet of stretch from the rope, he must then maintain the tension on the rope (presumably using body weight) until the follower moves past the low crux in order to prevent the rope from recovering.

I doubt any of us (maybe sterlingjim?) have actual data on how rapidly various brands of rope recover their stretch and whether that recovery time is contingent on the amount of elongation, the force used to produce that elongation, the age of the rope, the rope's history of taking falls, the amount of tension held in the rope, etc.

Anecdotal success hardly inspires confidence.

4) While "pretensioning" may be fairly common, (with top ropers, sport climbers, or hangdogging types?) I'm also not convinced it is "standard operating procedure." The "literature search" wasn't a real attempt to prove that, it was mainly an opportunity to use the obvious pun to poke at folks who are proffering what I still consider to be unreliable advice. As to what typical safe climbers actually do, consider Leubben (thank you google book search): "The belayer should keep the rope close to the climber without actually pulling tension (unless the climber requests tension). When the climber is near the ground though keep the rope mildly taught or his could hit the ground in a fall due to rope stretch. If there is a hard start and a poor landing a third person might spot the climber as he starts up." Leubben, Craig. Rock Climbing: Mastering Basic Skills, pp. 129-30.

(I have had good success operating remotely with an autoblocking device, although at least one poster has commented that it is harder to "take stretch out" when one is not right in front of the device -- I don't understand why that would be).

5) In addition to other belay techniques such as belaying off the harness and off the harness through the anchor, I am familiar with the "pretensioning" technique you have described. I don't doubt that it offers some measure of protection, but I do doubt that it is one that climbers can rely on. I have used the technique before but mainly when slingshot belaying from the ground (which I do infrequently) and when I can hop off of a rock or something. Usually these are scenarios where I am climbing with someone with no climbing experience whatsoever. In the climb at issuethe follower was someone who could lead climb (in the gym) and who, as previously mentioned, I had just watched successfully follow and clean Ant's Line -- a considerably more technically challenging climb compared to Double Crack which is rewarding mostly as an endurance fest.

6) It is of some interest that although my belay technique did not change from Saturday (day of accident) to Sunday, on Sunday I was criticized by a follower for belaying her too tightly through Pink Laurel.

My "goal" as belayer in both instances was to keep the rope taut enough that I can feel assured no slack is building but not so taut as to pull on the climber and then to move the rope through the device simultaneously with the climber's upward movement.

Using the autoblock to simultaneously take up slack with the followers movements permits a continuous belay and reduces the possibility of dynamic loading of the rope and anchor, which is obviously safer and more secure than having slack out and then raising the brake strand into a parallel position on a tube device or plate, effectively taking the climber off belay for short periods of time.

Curt, or can I call you Sr. Smartypants, you got something else to bring to this other than a plainly wrong claim about the location of the crux on the climb? I'm listening.

but consider that I've been climbing without incident for 8 years, mostly on the sharp end -- I doubt that I have avoided an accident for that long just by dumb luck.

the Reverso seems to lock up with very little tension, allowing it to act as a ratchet.

I think that it is absurd to write off whole classes of routes just because you insist on using one entirely unnecessary belay technique. Like I said earlier, I've never used an autoblock belay, and probably never will.

Call me crazy, but I like the idea of my second being able to reverse a few moves without it becoming a minor epic.

I don't understand why the autoblock belay has become so popular, except that climbing in parties of three has become so popular, a trend that I equally don't understand. To the best of my recollection the autoblock belay only became popular when the Reverso was introduced. Before that, the only recollection I have of autoblocked belays were for belaying two seconds simultaneously, which then required relatively arcane belay devices like the Kong Gigi. Even the phrase "atuoblock belay," to the best of my recollection, did not come into existence until relatively recently.

If you are seriously concerned about getting knocked unconscious while belaying from above, then use a Grigri. Sure, it weighs a little more, but carrying a bit more weight seems better than writing off whole classes of perfectly good climbs for no good reason.

Jay

Hopefully, you're one of the handful who wants to learn, but based on all the excuses you've made, that is far from certain. People are trying to explain what you did wrong here; they are not theorizing. Perhaps you need it spelled out:

First, you fucked up by having your seconds simul-climb a route with a crux start at their difficulty limit.

Second, you fucked up by rigging an autoblocking belay (necessitated by your first fuck-up), making it difficult, if not impossible, to sufficiently pretension the rope to protect your seconds at the start of the climb. Think about this: You put your seconds at greater risk than yourself, the leader, at the start of the climb. Does something sound wrong there?

Third, you fucked up by sending the least skilled climber up last. Had she gone second, at least the other climber could have spotted her at the start.

These are not my theories; they are your errors.

Jay

Also, at least with regard to the leader rescuing a second, you have already “escaped the belay” from the start when using an autoblock.