Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
O-n-O lockers unsafe?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 


Guran


Aug 25, 2011, 12:19 AM
Post #1 of 63 (6086 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220

O-n-O lockers unsafe?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In another thread in the beginners forum (where the mud slinging has reached a level where I don't want to contribute.) it is suggested that opposite and opposed loockers at a top rope anchor is somehow less safe than double lockers oriented.

Does anyone agree? I'd say that though OnO biners makes it more likely for one gate to be rubbed, pressed and opened against the rock it makes it far less likely for both biners to be compromised.

Not really a beginners question, but since the discussion originated in this forum I'll keep it here.


Oh, and I do know that O-n-O is a pain with some biner shapes. Actually with most anything but ovals. However that was not the original point.


healyje


Aug 25, 2011, 2:18 AM
Post #2 of 63 (6055 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

In 37 years I don't think I've ever TR'd with two lockers, just two opposed non-locking biners or draws. I suppose if you're paranoid or engaged in group commerce, but seems like overkill to me no matter how you orient them (which in itself also seems like a silly subject).


Guran


Aug 25, 2011, 3:05 AM
Post #3 of 63 (6045 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220

Re: [healyje] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
In 37 years I don't think I've ever TR'd with two lockers, just two opposed non-locking biners or draws. I suppose if you're paranoid or engaged in group commerce, but seems like overkill to me no matter how you orient them (which in itself also seems like a silly subject).

Agreed, and I'd top rope on opposed non-lockers any day of the week myself.
Wouldn't (normally) top rope on a single locker though. The risk might be minimal, but it seems sloppy. (And there is absolutely no excuse for sloppyness in a top rope anchor)

However what you or I climb on was not the question.
In the thread that I linked to it was suggested that using two lockers with gates to the same side is safer than the same lockers o-n-o. Since this is the beginners forum I'd like to have that statement verified or debunked.

(Yes I do agree that opposed lockers can be overkill. I also agree that D-shaped biners can pinch the rope thus nullifying the effect of a greater bend radius which is one good reason to add a second biner.)


Partner j_ung


Aug 25, 2011, 3:56 AM
Post #4 of 63 (6036 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Guran wrote:
I also agree that D-shaped biners can pinch the rope thus nullifying the effect of a greater bend radius which is one good reason to add a second biner.

I know the conventional wisdom that the pinch adds more wear and tear to a rope, but I've never heard that it amounts to reducing the rope-bearing radius to one biner. In since I first owned d-shaped biners, I've almost always reversed and opposed them, and if I've experienced any decrease in the life of my rope, it's been so slight that I haven't noticed. I think rope-on-rock contact is a far greater concern.

I'm with everybody who thinks arguing over lockers, reversed and opposed or otherwise, vs. reversed and opposed non-lockers is a waste of time.


(This post was edited by j_ung on Aug 25, 2011, 8:12 AM)


Partner rgold


Aug 25, 2011, 6:42 AM
Post #5 of 63 (5971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1800

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

guran wrote:
In the thread that I linked to it was suggested that using two lockers with gates to the same side is safer than the same lockers o-n-o.

Nonsense. The whole point of opposing the gates is so that nothing, anticipated or not, can simultaneously open both gates. Opposed gates has been the standard, as far as I know, for longer than lockers were commonly employed.

As for wear, I'll believe that when someone shows me hard data. And I'd guess that loading has the opposite effect from pinching, aligning the biners so the rope is on the broadest part of both.

Edit: I missed something with the last comment above. I was assuming gates on opposite sides but both biners oriented normally. I can't see any good reason for also "opposing" them, if that is the appropriate term, and it is true that in that case the narrow end of one of the "D's" will be part of the rope-bearing surface, potentially contributing ever so slightly to additional sheath wear.

Until shown real contrary evidence, I'd say the differences are negligible, but lots of lowering through biners does (or at least used to) wear the sheath. I knew guides who constantly top-roped who used beefy rescue pulleys instead of biners to cut down on that wear.

When I was guiding (and that was a long time ago), I almost never (as a matter of philosophy) used top-ropes, but when I did I used three carabiners with the middle gate on the other side from the two outer gates---all biners oriented properly. in the current context, this seems to have something to satisfy everyone.


(This post was edited by rgold on Aug 25, 2011, 9:19 AM)


billl7


Aug 25, 2011, 6:43 AM
Post #6 of 63 (5969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Guran wrote:
However what you or I climb on was not the question. In the thread that I linked to it was suggested that using two lockers with gates to the same side is safer than the same lockers o-n-o. Since this is the beginners forum I'd like to have that statement verified or debunked.

You'll need some drop testing as part of the statement verification.

For me, I consider o-n-o equivalent to one locker and in certain cases stronger. Also, I'll put the gates on the same side (but still opposed) if it looks like the other side might preferrentially see some action with the rock.

Bill L


Partner j_ung


Aug 25, 2011, 8:14 AM
Post #7 of 63 (5912 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

BTW, what is "O n O?"


njrox


Aug 25, 2011, 8:21 AM
Post #8 of 63 (5899 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251

Re: [j_ung] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

opposite and opposed


Guran


Aug 25, 2011, 8:26 AM
Post #9 of 63 (5896 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220

Re: [j_ung] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
I know the conventional wisdom that the pinch adds more wear and tear to a rope, but I've never heard that it amounts to reducing the rope-bearing radius to one biner.
Sorry if my posting was unclear. I did not mean that it would reduce the rope bearing radius. I meant that the increased friction from the pinch counteracts the decreased friction from a greater radius.
In reply to:
I with everybody who thinks arguing over lockers, reversed and opposed or otherwise, vs. reversed and opposed non-lockers is a waste of time.

Well you are right. But after all this is the beginners forum and I thought it might be a good idea to crush a myth before it went any further.


camhead


Aug 25, 2011, 9:59 AM
Post #10 of 63 (5828 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20733

Re: [j_ung] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #11 of 63 (5790 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

If you're using 2 lockers it doesn't matter how you orient them. They're going to flip around sometimes. One of them is going to unscrew sometimes. So what?

Nobody gets hurt top-roping because of the orientation of lockers at the anchor. They get hurt because a n00b belayer drops them, or they fuck up cleaning and rapping, or a rock falls on their head, or they noticed their girlfriend checking out the roided up beefcake on the route next door.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 1:55 PM
Post #12 of 63 (5667 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Guran wrote:
it is suggested that opposite and opposed loockers at a top rope anchor is somehow less safe than double lockers oriented.

Don't misrepresent my statement. I did not say O&O locking biners are always unsafe, just that under certain circumstances they can be problematic: causing gate abrasion on the rock or gate opening by the rock, and causing pinching of the rope with D-shaped biners (with which it is far more sensible to orient the spines on the same side).

And what I also pointed out is that O&O is a vestige of the non-locking oval carabiner days in which this was the only way to create a secure top-rope anchor. A single locking carabiner, properly used, is as safe as two O&O non-lockers, which is why we use a single locker on our harness for belay and rappel, at the belay station and everywhere else that security is required.

The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

So, since two 'biners are necessary to reduce rope friction and wear but opposing lockers are not necessary for security and might create problems unless they are free-hanging, a wise rigger would use his/her noggin and orient the carabiners in the most appropriate way for the particular application.

That was all I said on this subject. No new 11th Commandment. No absolute statement about O&O 'biners. No new mythology to get hugepedro's shorts in a twist.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 1:58 PM
Post #13 of 63 (5663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
If you're using 2 lockers it doesn't matter how you orient them.

At the risk of giving pedro another opportunity to start an endless flame war, I will emphatically disagree with this statement.

Most lockers are screw locks. Screw lock 'biners, if oriented vertically, should always have the gate opening facing downward so that the locking sleeve is less likely to unscrew.

And that's a great mnemonic for teaching nubies: screw it down so you don't screw up.


(This post was edited by rescueman on Aug 25, 2011, 2:00 PM)


JimTitt


Aug 25, 2011, 2:51 PM
Post #14 of 63 (5635 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

However an experienced rescuer, rigger, guide and whatever else you claim to be really should know that adding karabiners increases the friction at the top anchor.

The theoretical reasons for this are well understood and the effect has been known by mountaineers for generations.

The experiment is easy enough, probably you´ll manage it yourself instead of elevating yourself on the shoulders of someone you don´t understand.

Jim


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 2:54 PM
Post #15 of 63 (5633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
If you're using 2 lockers it doesn't matter how you orient them.

At the risk of giving pedro another opportunity to start an endless flame war, I will emphatically disagree with this statement.

Most lockers are screw locks. Screw lock 'biners, if oriented vertically, should always have the gate opening facing downward so that the locking sleeve is less likely to unscrew.

And that's a great mnemonic for teaching nubies: screw it down so you don't screw up.

No need for flames, just show me evidence.

I've not seen any tendency for them to unscrew one way or the other. If there's enough friction against the rock to screw the sleeve it will go up or down. Gravity won't prevent or cause a screwgate sleeve turning. I've seen them unscrew up plenty of times.

They flip. They get flattened against the rocks so the gates aren't facing away. They don't stay in that orientation. I've seen no evidence that orientation of the biners makes any difference in safety.

I orient them the same way you do, not for safety, for convenience. It's just slightly easier to clip the rope into them that way.


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 3:13 PM
Post #16 of 63 (5618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [camhead] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.

Perverted? Pretty vanilla, actually. Unless perhaps one is from Utah.


Partner j_ung


Aug 25, 2011, 3:25 PM
Post #17 of 63 (5608 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [njrox] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

njrox wrote:
opposite and opposed

Ah, that's what I thought. Isn't that redundant... in the language way, not the anchor way? Reversed and opposed is what I've always said. No matter, I guess.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 3:36 PM
Post #18 of 63 (5606 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [JimTitt] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
However an experienced rescuer, rigger, guide and whatever else you claim to be really should know that adding karabiners increases the friction at the top anchor.

Now comes Jim to take on the flaming role. Must be a tag team. If you would like to present an explanation, rather than merely vent, you might actually contribute to this discussion.

As your own published reports indicate, the smaller the sheave diameter the greater the internal friction (and potential exceeding of elastic fiber limit) and the lower the efficiency (more energy lost to internal friction).

As you well know from the capstan formula, friction around a pole varies exponentially with angle of wrap and friction coefficient and is independent of surface area of contact, other things being equal.

Given that the angle of contact (180° for a slingshot belay) is the same with one or two carabiners, and the friction coefficient is the same in either case, perhaps you'd care to explain how double carabiners at a top-rope change of direction increases friction?


(This post was edited by rescueman on Aug 25, 2011, 3:42 PM)


JimTitt


Aug 25, 2011, 4:02 PM
Post #19 of 63 (5590 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

You´ve been reading too many papers by rescuers, if you read all the way to the bottom of what I have written to the bibliography you will find after the link the following:- "Stephen Attaway on friction and deriving Amonton´s capstan formula. Interesting mathematics but flawed."
That was a polite hint that it is completely wrong.

And if you (or he for that matter) bothered to do the experimentation or review bending theory or try some test calculation using the theory and match the results to known experience you (and he) would discover that Amontons capstan theory is inapplicable in a circumstance where the bending object has any moment of inertia.
He is wrong and you are wrong.

The radius of an object doesn´t change by placing another object beside the first, any child can see that. And the result of adding one part of a radius offset to another is that the rope bends, straightens and bends again so the work of bending has to be done twice increasing the resistance.

Get a spring balance, pull a rope with a weight over a karabiner and then add more karabiners. You will see the truth.


Jim


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #20 of 63 (5576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [JimTitt] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
You will see the truth.

Yes, I know that you don't think much of Attaway's friction formulae. And you also acknowledge the math is far too complicated for even the great Titt to come up with a unified theory of everything.

I'll accept your theory. I measure (with crude instrumentation) a 12% increase in friction going from a single carabiner to two.

But I continue to assert that the reason we use two carabiners in a top rope belay, even when no longer needed for security, is to increase the overall bend radius (effective sheave diameter) and decrease the probability of damaging the rope fibers.

Rope manufacturers recommend a minimum sheave diameter of 4x rope diameter.

Let's leave "THE TRUTH" for philosophers and religious fanatics.


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 4:44 PM
Post #21 of 63 (5563 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.


healyje


Aug 25, 2011, 4:45 PM
Post #22 of 63 (5562 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
And what I also pointed out is that O&O is a vestige of the non-locking oval carabiner days in which this was the only way to create a secure top-rope anchor. A single locking carabiner, properly used, is as safe as two O&O non-lockers, which is why we use a single locker on our harness for belay and rappel, at the belay station and everywhere else that security is required.

O&O isn't a 'vestige' of anything and two opposite non-locking biners is still a perfectly fine way to set up a TR today unless you have some sort of commercial or large group activity going on.

And a single locker at the anchor of a TR isn't fine in my book and what happens up at anchors is wholly unrelated to the fact a single locker is used for belaying and rappelling. That application happens on your harness and you can check the status of the gate lock at any time.

And, as a comparative risk in climbing, this whole topic utterly pales compared to the lack of craft and attentiveness in belaying.


Rudmin


Aug 25, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #23 of 63 (5555 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.

I use two because I bought two matching carabiners long ago, and if I only used one I would have to carry around the other and think up an explanation for why I own it.

Also, I am skeptical about the "screw down or you screw up" theory of gravity. I would imagine the weight of the locking ring to be negligible in comparison to the forces that might turn it in either direction.


rocknice2


Aug 25, 2011, 5:16 PM
Post #24 of 63 (5536 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1197

Re: [rgold] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
[

Edit: I missed something with the last comment above. I was assuming gates on opposite sides but both biners oriented normally. I can't see any good reason for also "opposing" them, if that is the appropriate term, and it is true that in that case the narrow end of one of the "D's" will be part of the rope-bearing surface, potentially contributing ever so slightly to additional sheath wear.
.


O&O is kind of a double negative.
If you have one gate facing down and to the right .
The second gate up and to the left.
If 1 biner rotates 180° then both biner gates are pointing in the same direction.

Just Oppose them, gates left and right. That way if 1 spins it will end up with 1 gate up and 1 down.

It should be Opposite OR Opposed


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 5:22 PM
Post #25 of 63 (5531 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [Rudmin] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Rudmin wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.

I use two because I bought two matching carabiners long ago, and if I only used one I would have to carry around the other and think up an explanation for why I own it.

Also, I am skeptical about the "screw down or you screw up" theory of gravity. I would imagine the weight of the locking ring to be negligible in comparison to the forces that might turn it in either direction.

Obviously you aren't a REAL climber. You use the other biner for your key ring, duh!

I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew. But from now on I'll check them every day and I'll be sure to let this forum know if I observe any movement in the sleeves.


TarHeelEMT


Aug 25, 2011, 5:26 PM
Post #26 of 63 (2268 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We're all gonna die!!!


(This post was edited by TarHeelEMT on Aug 25, 2011, 5:26 PM)


billl7


Aug 25, 2011, 5:40 PM
Post #27 of 63 (2257 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [TarHeelEMT] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

TarHeelEMT wrote:
We're all gonna die!!!

Me thinks the word "we" is being used a little too freely in these parts (not you I mean).


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 5:48 PM
Post #28 of 63 (2249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew. But from now on I'll check them every day and I'll be sure to let this forum know if I observe any movement in the sleeves.

Check them after the 5.8 quake.

Nevermind, you're too far out in left field to have felt it.

But for those with a more rational mindset, it's the combination of gravity and the continual vibration from rope moving over metal that causes the screw sleeve to unscrew.

Can it happen against gravity? You betcha. But it's more likely to happen with gravity.




rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 5:51 PM
Post #29 of 63 (2242 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [billl7] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
Me thinks the word "we" is being used a little too freely in these parts.

I agree:

hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 6:00 PM
Post #30 of 63 (2232 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
billl7 wrote:
Me thinks the word "we" is being used a little too freely in these parts.

I agree:

hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.

rescueman wrote:
The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

You were proven wrong on that one too, Mr. 9knAtTheBelay.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 6:03 PM
Post #31 of 63 (2232 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [healyje] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
as a comparative risk in climbing, this whole topic utterly pales compared to the lack of craft and attentiveness in belaying.

Couldn't agree more.

I witnessed a young woman sitting on the ground with her back against a tree, chatting with her friends as she belayed her partner at the Gunks. He took a 30' fall to ground and his belayer didn't seem to notice until he landed between her legs.

Then the first thing she did (after screaming) was lift him up to hug him (putting his spine at risk). He was evacuated by the climbing rangers and transported to the hospital with a spinal injury.

It's for this reason that I wrote an article for Technical Rescue magazine in 2004 called Is Fail-Safe Really Safe? about the almost universal rush among rescue teams toward auto-locking belay devices, such as the Petzl I'D and the Traverse Rescue 540. In the sport climbing world, it's the GriGri.

The problems with relying on technology to prevent disaster are two-fold:
1) the more complex the technology the more potential failure modes
2) reliance on equipment often results in a decrease in attentiveness and craft

The latter is an outcome of what I called the “complacency tendency” and the “distraction factor”.

The KISS principle combined with attention and care is the best approach to safety in almost every field.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 6:08 PM
Post #32 of 63 (2228 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
rescueman wrote:
The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

You were proven wrong on that one too, Mr. 9knAtTheBelay.

Hardly.

Read Titt's report Belay Device Theory, which states that a tight radius bend, such as around a single carabiner, causes strands of rope fiber to exceed their elastic limit.

And read the recommendations of every rope manufacturer about recommended sheave diameter to protect the rope from damage.

But, I suppose that a hot shot climber who has no problem recommending to beginners that they ignore manufacturer warnings against tri-axial loading of carabiners would also recommend ignoring manufacturer warnings against small-diameter capstans.


billl7


Aug 25, 2011, 7:06 PM
Post #33 of 63 (2210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
billl7 wrote:
Me thinks the word "we" is being used a little too freely in these parts.

I agree:

hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.

It was definitely your bad influence that brought pedro to the dark side.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 7:23 PM
Post #34 of 63 (2197 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [billl7] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
It was definitely your bad influence that brought pedro to the dark side.

Well, hey, we gotta go where the cookies are.




bearbreeder


Aug 25, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #35 of 63 (2188 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post







One of the commonly quoted rules for toproped climbing is that one should always use two opposite and opposed lockers at the master point.

The idea is that there is no way that the rope could possibly jump out of two opposite and opposed lockers. And while it may be possible -- however unlikely -- for movement in the system to cause the one of the gates to become unlocked and to open, it would be nearly impossible for the both lockers to become unlocked and to be opened.

In the guiding world, two opposite and opposed lockers are considered to be industry standard. The liklihood of a single locking carabiner becoming unlocked and opening is incredibly low. However, this is one of the rules that you learn when you start to climb and it has become so integral to outdoor groups throughout the world in toproping that it has become the industry standard across the board.

Industry standard is one of those phrases that we should pay attention to in climbing. There are very few things that can be considered industry standard in the climbing world.


http://alpineinstitute.blogspot.com/...-at-power-point.html


its not "unsafe" or even any "less safe" ... if it was all the guiding companies here wouldnt be using 2 opposed lockers for their clients ...

but then what do they know ... theyre obviously not "rescue professionals" Tongue


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 9:23 PM
Post #36 of 63 (2167 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [bearbreeder] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
its not "unsafe" or even any "less safe" ... if it was all the guiding companies here wouldnt be using 2 opposed lockers for their clients ...

but then what do they know ... theyre obviously not "rescue professionals" Tongue


No, the question is why are you continuing your deliberate avoidance of the point of this discussion and repeating ad nauseam the mantra of O&O in every situation - particularly when every pictorial example you've shown is with free-hanging biners.

I've stated clearly that O&O is not a problem when the biners are hanging in air - and that they MAY be problematic when the biners are leaning on the rock.

This is a classic straw man argument that you repeat ad infinitum, since it is based on a complete distortion of my statements.

Your quoted source has the same approach as I:

American Alpine Institute wrote:
Rules in climbing exist to create a wide margin of safety. There's really no reason at all not to have a wide margin of safety in a toproped environment.

Safety requires determining the best configuration for each application - not using rote "rules" in every situation.

One of the reasons that my rigging & rescue training always receives such superlative feedback is that, unlike most instructors who teach rules (such as, in Fire Service rescue: never use a bowline for life safety - always a figure-8 on a bight or follow-through), I teach principles - the "why" behind the "how".

I teach my students to use their brains to choose the best rigging tools from the toolbox, and give them an extensive toolbox of options to choose from, demonstrating the specific applications, advantages and disadvantages for each.

In most circumstances O&O top rope anchor biners are fine - in a few cases, they're problematic and potentially less safe.

But if you're more comfortable with repeating Gospel and living by the ONE AND ONLY WAY, then the world is worse off for your presence. Perhaps you'll be taken up by the next scheduled Rapture.


chilli


Aug 25, 2011, 9:42 PM
Post #37 of 63 (2159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 400

Re: [Guran] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i used to o&o lockers when i was doing more TR. then one day i get to the top and noticed that they rubbed together and unlocked. i figured i just didn't spin the lock down firmly enough... that is until [at a later point] i saw the same thing happen and one pushing the gate of the other slightly open. i have never used 2 lockers as in the masterpoint since; and despite that being anecdotal evidence (with n=1), i don't suggest that anyone else do it either.

then there's the whole argument of torsional effects, but i'm not interested in validating/testing that argument.

2 o&o non-lockers is plenty and has never failed me or caused any of the aforementioned problems.


billl7


Aug 25, 2011, 9:49 PM
Post #38 of 63 (2155 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

I have a hard time getting excited about this when I think of how many raps / lowerings a rope sees in its life. An ATC puts a pretty wicked bend in the rope.


benj


Aug 25, 2011, 10:00 PM
Post #39 of 63 (2144 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 41

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
But I continue to assert that the reason we use two carabiners in a top rope belay, even when no longer needed for security, is to increase the overall bend radius (effective sheave diameter) and decrease the probability of damaging the rope fibers.
No way! The master point on a TR is a single point of catastrophic failure of the system. The amount of motion at that point and the fact that it is unattended is the real reason it often receives two carabiners. Carabiners connecting belay/rappel devices can be checked and managed by the user. A toprope anchor master point cannot. It could be a misguided attempt to avoid friction for you but everyone else I have ever met who uses two opposed biners does so to prevent any event that could free the rope from the system. An experienced climber can understand when two biners are superflous or supersitious. Beginners should continue to learn rules that will ultimately contribute to an increased level of safety in situations they cannot properly judge. Through experience everyone learns why rules can be bent or broken.


(This post was edited by benj on Aug 25, 2011, 10:05 PM)


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 10:07 PM
Post #40 of 63 (2140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [chilli] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chilli wrote:
i used to o&o lockers when i was doing more TR. then one day i get to the top and noticed that they rubbed together and unlocked...2 o&o non-lockers is plenty and has never failed me or caused any of the aforementioned problems.

Thanks for the anecdotal evidence that I might actually have a point that everyone else fails to appreciate.

This is not an uncommon outcome when we take a traditionally good idea - O&O non-lockers - and simply assume that we can apply the same approach to new technology - screw-lock biners - without thinking through the consequences.

The history of the "advance" of technology is a history of unintended consequences, and every "solution" creates yet another set of problems that requires yet another "solution".

Eric Sevareid (CBS news journalist from 1939 to 1977) wrote:
“The chief cause of problems is solutions.”


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 10:08 PM
Post #41 of 63 (2137 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
rescueman wrote:
The primary reason we still use two 'biners at the top rope anchor is to increase the bend radius of the rope and reduce the internal friction from falling or lowering over a tight radius (bend radius is ideally at least 4x rope diameter).

You were proven wrong on that one too, Mr. 9knAtTheBelay.

Hardly.

Read Titt's report Belay Device Theory, which states that a tight radius bend, such as around a single carabiner, causes strands of rope fiber to exceed their elastic limit.

And read the recommendations of every rope manufacturer about recommended sheave diameter to protect the rope from damage.

But, I suppose that a hot shot climber who has no problem recommending to beginners that they ignore manufacturer warnings against tri-axial loading of carabiners would also recommend ignoring manufacturer warnings against small-diameter capstans.

Ropes are used under load over single-biner radius bends all the time. Rapping. Lowering. Falling. Hanging when working routes. Ropes are disposable items, as are most climbing gear. No matter how they get worn, it’s up to us to assess their fitness for use and retire them when appropriate.

If you really think that rope wear is the primary reason for using 2 biners at the anchor, and not the more immediate risk of a single biner being compromised, then you are a bigger climbing dumbass than I thought. And your grasp of risk management, in which you like to portray yourself as knowledgeable, is questionable.

And for the umpteenth time, that argument wasn’t about manufacturer warnings, it was about whether the AMGA anchor rig was unsafe. You lost that argument a long time ago. It’s a pity you didn’t also salvage some of your integrity by owning up to your errors, instead of trying to save face.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 10:15 PM
Post #42 of 63 (2132 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [benj] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

benj wrote:
The master point on a TR is a single point of catastrophic failure of the system.

Actually, the most common single point of catastrophic failure is the rope (it easily cuts on a sharp edge, regardless of its extraordinary tensile strength), and yet we never top-rope on twin ropes.

We use a single harness, a single tie-in knot, a single belay device attached to a single carabiner, and - even in some institutional settings (such as the Outward Bound school where I worked) we typically used a single tree and a single loop of webbing as a top-rope anchor - to support the climber, the belayer, a back-up belayer (using body belays), and an instructor.

Many years with millions of user hours and zero failures.

But I never argued against using two biners at the anchor master point. Just advocated using them intelligently.


rescueman


Aug 25, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #43 of 63 (2128 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

It's a pity that you long ago gave up having an intellectually honest (and mature) debate, and persist with the sole purpose of trashing everything I post.

You are the classic:



benj


Aug 25, 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #44 of 63 (2114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 41

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You may not have argued against using two carabiners but you did incorrectly identify the reason for their use as being more about friction than security. Climbers make regular use of directionals to reduce the possibility of severing/damaging the rope but in some situations where this cannot be properly mitigated use a twin/half rope setup. Noobs may not TR at a crag on halfs, but plenty of people second a leader (essentially TRing) who has climbed on half ropes. Rope severing flakes/edges are usually a more obvious hazard to beginners. The issue is really about understanding how systems work, change and fail; the factors that contribute to odd/surprising/catastrophic behavior of system and their likelihood. Many beginners simply cannot understand that bump on a vertical wall could open a locking carabiner and because of that are admonished to use two biners.

Under proper use harnesses, knots, belay devices and carabiners do not fail. There is no logical reason to treat them as suspect.


(This post was edited by benj on Aug 25, 2011, 10:46 PM)


bearbreeder


Aug 25, 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #45 of 63 (2113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

opposed lockers that still for some reason "unlock" are still opposed ... unopposed lockers that someone has forgotten to lock are definately not "safe" (and everyone has forgotten or caught someone who forgot to lock their lockers, if they claim they havent, well make yr own judgment about that persons truthfulness)

who would you rather listen to .... some "rescue professional" whos always right


or AAI, mr long, and guides .... for newbs, next time you take a course with a guide ... ask them if opposed lockers are "unsafe" and look at what they set up for you for TR

chances are, theyll be opposed lockers

of course i expect a whole bunch of yadda yadda yadda from the "rescue expert" about how unsafe they are ... but then he "knows" whats best for ya even from over the intrawebs

Tongue


hugepedro


Aug 25, 2011, 10:37 PM
Post #46 of 63 (2108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
It's a pity that you long ago gave up having an intellectually honest (and mature) debate, and persist with the sole purpose of trashing everything I post.

You sure whine a lot for someone that fired the first flame salvo in both of these threads. Grow some sack, dude. I'm not trashing everything you post, I'm pointing out obvious factual errors of someone that sprays all day about his qualifications and experience, as though that makes him infallible. Sorry to hurt your feelings, man, but if you're going to post stupid shit you're going to get called on it. And I'm not the only person calling you on this crap, so you might want to consider rethinking some of this shit rather than puffing out your chest even further. Just sayin.


JimTitt


Aug 25, 2011, 11:54 PM
Post #47 of 63 (2086 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [rescueman] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

rescueman wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
You will see the truth.

Yes, I know that you don't think much of Attaway's friction formulae. And you also acknowledge the math is far too complicated for even the great Titt to come up with a unified theory of everything.

I'll accept your theory. I measure (with crude instrumentation) a 12% increase in friction going from a single carabiner to two.

But I continue to assert that the reason we use two carabiners in a top rope belay, even when no longer needed for security, is to increase the overall bend radius (effective sheave diameter) and decrease the probability of damaging the rope fibers.

Rope manufacturers recommend a minimum sheave diameter of 4x rope diameter.

Let's leave "THE TRUTH" for philosophers and religious fanatics.


See, I was right, you were wrong, Attaway was wrong.

"The Truth is a bitter pill to swallow".

Jim


hugepedro


Aug 26, 2011, 12:08 AM
Post #48 of 63 (2084 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [billl7] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
rescueman wrote:
billl7 wrote:
Me thinks the word "we" is being used a little too freely in these parts.

I agree:

hugepedro wrote:
No, the primary reason we use 2 biners is for strength and redundancy.

It was definitely your bad influence that brought pedro to the dark side.

Don't give him credit for that. I've been using the majestic plural for years now. It's fancy.


Partner j_ung


Aug 26, 2011, 3:50 AM
Post #49 of 63 (2072 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I propose we stop using the term O&O, and just call them opposed or the more correct, reversed and opposed.


billl7


Aug 26, 2011, 5:55 AM
Post #50 of 63 (2061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

"majestic plural"

Touché!


areyoumydude


Sep 11, 2011, 4:38 PM
Post #53 of 63 (1432 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [camhead] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.

I've always called it ATM.


areyoumydude


Sep 11, 2011, 4:41 PM
Post #54 of 63 (1429 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy


climbingtrash


Sep 11, 2011, 4:49 PM
Post #55 of 63 (1423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 19, 2006
Posts: 4822

Re: [areyoumydude] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

areyoumydude wrote:
camhead wrote:
j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.

I've always called it ATM.

ATM? Iz that yore "safe" word?


areyoumydude


Sep 11, 2011, 4:57 PM
Post #56 of 63 (1420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [climbingtrash] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbingtrash wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
camhead wrote:
j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.

I've always called it ATM.

ATM? Iz that yore "safe" word?

There is nothing safe about ATM.

My safe word is "TAKE!"


climbingtrash


Sep 11, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #57 of 63 (1412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 19, 2006
Posts: 4822

Re: [areyoumydude] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

areyoumydude wrote:
climbingtrash wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
camhead wrote:
j_ung wrote:
BTW, what is "O n O?"

I dunno. Sounds like some really perverted sexual position.

I've always called it ATM.

ATM? Iz that yore "safe" word?

There is nothing safe about ATM.

My safe word is "TAKE!"

OIC.


hugepedro


Sep 11, 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #58 of 63 (1384 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [areyoumydude] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy

Safety first, duh.


areyoumydude


Sep 12, 2011, 10:29 AM
Post #59 of 63 (1351 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy

Safety first, duh.

Wow, that's pretty safe. Hopefully they weren't O&O.

I've always been more of a "Safety Third" kinda guy.


hugepedro


Sep 12, 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #60 of 63 (1337 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [areyoumydude] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy

Safety first, duh.

Wow, that's pretty safe. Hopefully they weren't O&O.

I've always been more of a "Safety Third" kinda guy.

Yeah well you don't know what goes on in my gear room. On a good night it becomes "The Dungeon".


Partner cracklover


Sep 12, 2011, 11:27 AM
Post #61 of 63 (1327 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9999

Re: [benj] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

benj wrote:
rescueman wrote:
But I continue to assert that the reason we use two carabiners in a top rope belay, even when no longer needed for security, is to increase the overall bend radius (effective sheave diameter) and decrease the probability of damaging the rope fibers.
No way! The master point on a TR is a single point of catastrophic failure of the system. The amount of motion at that point and the fact that it is unattended is the real reason it often receives two carabiners. Carabiners connecting belay/rappel devices can be checked and managed by the user. A toprope anchor master point cannot. It could be a misguided attempt to avoid friction for you but everyone else I have ever met who uses two opposed biners does so to prevent any event that could free the rope from the system. An experienced climber can understand when two biners are superflous or supersitious. Beginners should continue to learn rules that will ultimately contribute to an increased level of safety in situations they cannot properly judge. Through experience everyone learns why rules can be bent or broken.

This^^^

I'll just add that the experienced climber will eventually run into the situation in which the two rope-end biners prefer to sit in such a way that their gates are both facing straight out away from the wall. I've most commonly found this at the top of sport climbs with closely spaced anchor bolts.

In such a situation, the experienced climber will recognize that they're not doing anyone any favors by following the default, and will instead orient both gates *away* from the rock.

Cheers,

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Sep 12, 2011, 11:37 AM)


areyoumydude


Sep 12, 2011, 11:56 AM
Post #62 of 63 (1314 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 1971

Re: [hugepedro] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy

Safety first, duh.

Wow, that's pretty safe. Hopefully they weren't O&O.

I've always been more of a "Safety Third" kinda guy.

Yeah well you don't know what goes on in my gear room. On a good night it becomes "The Dungeon".

Oh my. I'd go with auto-lockers for that type of thing. Just to be safe.




hugepedro


Sep 12, 2011, 1:12 PM
Post #63 of 63 (1299 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [areyoumydude] O-n-O lockers unsafe? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
areyoumydude wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
I've had lockers hanging in my gear room for years and gravity has yet to unscrew.

Why do you lock your 'biners that are hanging in your gear room?Crazy

Safety first, duh.

Wow, that's pretty safe. Hopefully they weren't O&O.

I've always been more of a "Safety Third" kinda guy.

Yeah well you don't know what goes on in my gear room. On a good night it becomes "The Dungeon".

Oh my. I'd go with auto-lockers for that type of thing. Just to be safe.

[image]http://movieimage1.tripod.com/pulpfiction/pulp15.jpg[/image]

See? Now you're not so much a safety third kinda guy, are ya.


Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$40.46 (10% off)
$8.55 (10% off)
$8.96 (10% off)
$141.75 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook