The knot can only get pulled apart enough to weight the belay loop. If your knot is slightly smaller than the belay loop the anchor will take all the weight without pulling on the climber as well as acting as a shock absorber in a hard fall yet the belay loop will limit the possibility of complete failure of the knot.

My personal solution is to embrace Item 1 and eschew Item 2. I belay from my harness...off the anchor. To do this, I use clovehitchology to easily set up a taut anchor line for whatever belay position I've chosen, and then clip my belay device to the tie-in knot loop, not the harness belay loop.

That is fucking classic. How do you make this shit up?

Who's making anything up? He said repeatedly that he doesn't give a damn about whether the second is on tension or not, that free climbing the pitch shouldn't be a priority for the second, and that if the second wants to free climb the pitch, he should rap down and lead it himself. How much clearer could he possibly have been about his disdain for the role of the second.

Maybe try actually reading the thread.

Jay

Dude, you took what the guy said then extrapolated everything to the nth degree to put words in his mouth. It's pretty lame, and you do it all the time.

Sorry, Dave, but I don't think that I did that here, much less "all the time." Perhaps you're confusing me with Reno.

Jay

There is no pulling-apart force. Think about it.

Who's making anything up? He said repeatedly that he doesn't give a damn about whether the second is on tension or not, that free climbing the pitch shouldn't be a priority for the second, and that if the second wants to free climb the pitch, he should rap down and lead it himself. How much clearer could he possibly have been about his disdain for the role of the second.

Maybe try actually reading the thread.

Jay

You have no idea of how I belay or how I treat my partners.

What I meant was "I'm sorry if I ruined your climb. We have time, would you like to rappel and lead it. It was a great pitch!"

...it wasn't meant as in "Fuck you, I'll belay how I want. If you want to free it rappel and lead it yourself."

Sorry, Dave, but I don't think that I did that here, much less "all the time." Perhaps you're confusing me with Reno.

Yes, you're quite right, I had only thought about it cursorily. I'll edit my previous post.

Cheers,

GO

If you are weighting the bight of whatever knot is tieing you in, and your climber is taking, creating weight/load at the knot where your biner/belay device is at, how is that not a pull apart force?

If you are weighting the bight of whatever knot is tieing you in, and your climber is taking, creating weight/load at the knot where your biner/belay device is at, how is that not a pull apart force?

Dude, you took what the guy said then extrapolated everything to the nth degree to put words in his mouth. It's pretty lame, and you do it all the time.

I'm finding the setup a little difficult to visualize myself, but I think that the reason that there is no "pulling-apart" force on the tie-in knot is that the force of the fall will be nearly in line with the segment of rope that the belayer has tied into the anchor with. Hence, the impact force would be in a knot-tightening direction.

Is that correct (GO, ptlong, rgold)?

If your weight, the anchor line and the force of the climber are all in a line then the knot won't be ring loaded. The crucial piece is that the belayer be located in line between the anchor and the climber.

Thanks CI. That's how I'm feeling.

I'm finding the setup a little difficult to visualize myself, but I think that the reason that there is no "pulling-apart" force on the tie-in knot is that the force of the fall will be nearly in line with the segment of rope that the belayer has tied into the anchor with. Hence, the impact force would be in a knot-tightening direction.

Is that correct (GO, ptlong, rgold)?

Jay

Exactly. My original mistake was due to the consideration that there are three potential force vectors on the tie-in bight.

But the only important vectors are the rope from the anchor to the knot, and the force of the falling climber (through the belay device and belay biner). Unless the belayer uses a stance to hold herself far out of the fall line, the two vectors will always line up, and the loop will be pulled directly in line with the knot.

Dude, you took what the guy said then extrapolated everything to the nth degree to put words in his mouth. It's pretty lame, and you do it all the time.

Dude, you took what the guy said then extrapolated everything to the nth degree to put words in his mouth. It's pretty lame, and you do it all the time. Thanks CI. That's how I'm feeling.

Edit: This post assumes we're belaying a second, which is what most of this thread has been about (flames excluded).

Perhaps I'm picturing Rgold's method incorrectly, but what is gained by doing rgold's method instead of doing what I've listed below?

1) clove hitch in to the masterpoint (assuming the anchor is made with a cordelette)

2) tie a figure eight on a bight immediately underneath the clove hitch (not on the strand going to the harness)

3) Belay with a munter off the figure eight (a direct belay off the anchor)

There is no need to escape the belay, it gives freedom of movement for the belayer, and the munter allows for an easily lowered second.

Optionally, to avoid any issue with both strands of the clove hitch being loaded (thus loading the spine of the carabiner, one could just use a figure eight to attach to the anchor instead.