Hello,
I was talking with a friend who climbs mostly trad, and he showed me the way he does his anchors (when there are 2 points: see image).

1. He ties himself in on each point with his rope using a clove hitch.

2. He ties a loop with the two ropes together (the ones towards the other climber) so that the tension is equalized.

3. On that loop he places a Reverso and belays the second.

4. When the second arrives, he clips in on the loop, takes the gear. The leader puts the reverso on his harness, the second clips the rope in on the loop as first placement not to shock the anchor in case of a fall, unclips and starts off as leader.


Isn't there a risk when belaying directly on the rope instead of using slings? He also has an other technique where instead of a sling he uses a piece of 8.6mm rope with a loop on each end placed on the anchor and a loop knot in the middle. It's a Y shape.

Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.

You should have been a art major!

Hello,
I was talking with a friend who climbs mostly trad, and he showed me the way he does his anchors (when there are 2 points: see image).

1. He ties himself in on each point with his rope using a clove hitch.

2. He ties a loop with the two ropes together (the ones towards the other climber) so that the tension is equalized.

3. On that loop he places a Reverso and belays the second.

4. When the second arrives, he clips in on the loop, takes the gear. The leader puts the reverso on his harness, the second clips the rope in on the loop as first placement not to shock the anchor in case of a fall, unclips and starts off as leader.


Isn't there a risk when belaying directly on the rope instead of using slings? He also has an other technique where instead of a sling he uses a piece of 8.6mm rope with a loop on each end placed on the anchor and a loop knot in the middle. It's a Y shape.

Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.

Sorry for the English bit, it's not my language and I had to look around on internet to translate the technical terms.

So the leader of the next pitch makes that loop their first placement...that doesn't make much sense to me. Unless I am losing something in the translation.

And you should be a Male message therepist. Here you can start rubbing on this 8====D---

not really sure what a message therepist is.

Dont you have potato's to harvest.

Yes, but it's only temporary. If the leader of the next pitch falls before his first piece he doesn't fall directly on the belayer.

So you seem to say it's ok to follow that method?

No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ?

As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece.

Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though...

No, not at all, as I still don't quite understand how the loop will be used at the first placement. How will rope be fed if the loop is clipped to the first placement ?

As far as the anchor set up goes, if you are confident in the pieces you have placed, and keep the triangle as tight as possible, I say OK to the anchor, especially if you are swinging leads and don't want to carry a bunch of extra belay gear with you, but I always love a third piece.

Still can't wrap my head around the belay loop in the ropes being used as first placement though...

The "loop" is the masterpoint of the anchor, from which #2 was being belayed. Once #2 arrives, he clips into the masterpoint. #1 takes the belay device off the masterpoint, clips it to his harness, and prepares to belay #2. #2 clips the masterpoint as the first piece of gear, basically making the ENTIRE anchor his first piece. Unclips the safety off the masterpoint then starts climbing.

The idea is like using one piece of your anchor as the first pro, so you don't take a FF2 onto the anchor. But in this case, I'm not sure how much of a difference it's going to make, as the masterpoint (at least in the drawing) is at the same level as the belayer. Seems to me that a fall on the masterpoint is just going to pull the masterpoint to the belayer without doing much to reduce the distance of the fall. For it to be effective, it would have to be a distance above the belayer.

This is very dangerous, since the second is only allowed to fall on the rope 6 times before you have to retire it immediately. Then you have to get the 3rd and 4th ropes out of the pack (which you hopefully didn't forget), and they're always tangled no matter what you do and that sucks.

Instead, you should girth hitch two daisy chains, one for each side of the anchor, directly to the bolt hangars. Be sure to clip the carabiners through two loops on each daisy chain for redundancy, and to try to shorten them as much as possible to maximize the angle between them.

. . .






n00b.

Instead, you should girth hitch two daisy chains, one for each side of the anchor, directly to the bolt hangars. Be sure to clip the carabiners through two loops on each daisy chain for redundancy, and to try to shorten them as much as possible to maximize the angle between them.

. . .

...and try to shorten them as much as possible to maximize the angle between them.

This is very dangerous, since the second is only allowed to fall on the rope 6 times before you have to retire it immediately.

Perhaps you're seeing a pattern here. However, I will help make it clearer since it is apparent that I am bad at internet sarcasm. There are two possibilities for having one post with so much wrong and ridiculous information: either the poster must be an absolute idiot, or he/she is being sarcastic.

The above post was intended as a farce, but apparently this is not clear. I am editing the above post to add a disclaimer that the below is sarcastic. If there was humor there, it is now gone.

Perhaps you're seeing a pattern here. However, I will help make it clearer since it is apparent that I am bad at internet sarcasm. There are two possibilities for having one post with so much wrong and ridiculous information: either the poster must be an absolute idiot, or he/she is being sarcastic.

The above post was intended as a farce, but apparently this is not clear. I am editing the above post to add a disclaimer that the below is sarcastic. If there was humor there, it is now gone.

"altelis" Vertical Limit doesn't represent real climbing.

Is that safe? If it is, it would save a lot of cluster.