Forums: Climbing Information: The Lab:
$40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure.
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Lab

Premier Sponsor:

 


dead_horse_flats


Jan 31, 2012, 8:27 PM
Post #1 of 92 (13190 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

$40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure.
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.


sittingduck


Jan 31, 2012, 9:56 PM
Post #2 of 92 (13144 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

It takes more than 40$ to tell you how on this troll infested site Crazy


jae8908


Jan 31, 2012, 9:59 PM
Post #3 of 92 (13141 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 15, 2011
Posts: 270

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I almost want to double that amount to the person who proves you wrong. lol. Unfortunately I am now broke from the purchase of a crash pad.


jt512


Jan 31, 2012, 10:20 PM
Post #4 of 92 (13126 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Not much profit left over after having to break two biners.

Jay


jt512


Jan 31, 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #5 of 92 (13125 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:

4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Why would the rope have to escape? Shouldn't failure also include both biners breaking, or one biner breaking and the rope escaping from the other?

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 1, 2012, 1:35 AM)


JimTitt


Jan 31, 2012, 11:49 PM
Post #6 of 92 (13103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 977

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

It has happened more often than you think, one cause is failure to tie in correctly.


climb-high


Feb 1, 2012, 12:19 AM
Post #7 of 92 (13094 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Posts: 14

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bolts break, doesnt matter what is on there. you fall and die! slings break, you fall and die. your retard sport head friend doesnt correctly load his Gri-Gri, you fall and die! not to mention all of the other random shit that happens for no good reason, no matter how safe you thing you are being. you fall, you die!

I WIN!!!


Urban_Cowboy


Feb 1, 2012, 3:01 AM
Post #8 of 92 (13070 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 219

Re: [JimTitt] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
It has happened more often than you think, one cause is failure to tie in correctly.
That wouldn't be a "two non-locking biner anchor fail", that would be a tie in fail.


USnavy


Feb 1, 2012, 4:29 AM
Post #9 of 92 (13044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Post deleted by USnavy [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  

 


USnavy


Feb 1, 2012, 4:32 AM
Post #10 of 92 (13040 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Not much profit left over after having to break two biners.

Jay
There is if you climb in Yosemite. There are biners all over the place there. In one month alone I found over 20.


guangzhou


Feb 1, 2012, 4:46 AM
Post #11 of 92 (13032 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.
Open your wallet because your bet is already lost. Here is how I do it: First I set up the anchor with a double strand of 2" webbing and any selection of two O&O biners. Next I thread the rope through the master point biners. I am going to pretend to be a super paranoid Majid and use 5/8" static rope to TR on. Next I anchor one end of the static line to the ground because being Majid I cant find any partners to give me a catch, so I am going to TR solo. Last but not least, I connect the climber end of the rope to my friend's F-450, drop the b**ch in 4x4 low and smoke all four tires on the cement. Biner failure. I win $40. Wink

Other than that, its not going to happen, I think you will end up keeping your $40.

I an willing to bet the binner outlast the rope or webbing on this.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 1, 2012, 7:00 AM
Post #12 of 92 (12971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Thanks to several responses for the lack of perception. Here is a clarification:

1. The theory is that the two non-locking biners at the power point provide a source of failure.

2. This discussion is "NOT" about:
a. failures of the belayer or leader.
b. equipment failure other than the two biners.

3. I will accept broken biners as part of the bet as long as you can demonstrate it in a realistic situation without using an F450.


(This post was edited by dead_horse_flats on Feb 1, 2012, 7:18 AM)


dead_horse_flats


Feb 1, 2012, 7:07 AM
Post #13 of 92 (12961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:

4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Why would the rope have to escape? Shouldn't failure also include both biners breaking, or one biner breaking and the rope escaping from the other?

Jay

I will accept broken biners. Prove that it can happen. No theories.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 1, 2012, 7:10 AM
Post #14 of 92 (12959 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Not much profit left over after having to break two biners.

Jay

OK, $40 plus the cost of the biners.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 1, 2012, 7:15 AM
Post #15 of 92 (12952 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

....ail you $40.
Open your wallet because your bet is already lost. Here is how I do it: First I set up the anchor with a double strand of 2" webbing and any selection of two O&O biners. Next I thread the rope through the master point biners. I am going to pretend to be a super paranoid Majid and use 5/8" static rope to TR on. Next I anchor one end of the static line to the ground because being Majid I cant find any partners to give me a catch, so I am going to TR solo. Last but not least, I connect the climber end of the rope to my friend's F-450, drop the b**ch in 4x4 low and smoke all four tires on the cement. Biner failure. I win $40. Wink

Other than that, its not going to happen, I think you will end up keeping your $40.


Your mistake was using a ford. Irrefutable and copious statistical evidence has shown that chevys dont have that problem.


(This post was edited by dead_horse_flats on Feb 1, 2012, 7:16 AM)


jt512


Feb 1, 2012, 3:02 PM
Post #16 of 92 (12820 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:

4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Why would the rope have to escape? Shouldn't failure also include both biners breaking, or one biner breaking and the rope escaping from the other?

Jay

I will accept broken biners. Prove that it can happen. No theories.

"Prove that it can happen" and "No theories" seem to contradict each other. Do you mean that the only proof you'll accept is the demonstration of an actual failure, say, by using a drop tower? And that an argument based on logic and physics, if someone could construct one, would not be acceptable as proof?

Jay


Player


Feb 1, 2012, 11:18 PM
Post #17 of 92 (12711 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2011
Posts: 56

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Use 2 of these biners and fall as normal.


Please just donate the $$$ to the access fund.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 2, 2012, 7:50 AM
Post #18 of 92 (12666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:
jt512 wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:

4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Why would the rope have to escape? Shouldn't failure also include both biners breaking, or one biner breaking and the rope escaping from the other?

Jay

I will accept broken biners. Prove that it can happen. No theories.

"Prove that it can happen" and "No theories" seem to contradict each other. Do you mean that the only proof you'll accept is the demonstration of an actual failure, say, by using a drop tower? And that an argument based on logic and physics, if someone could construct one, would not be acceptable as proof?

Jay


Yes. Exactly.

Being an engineer myself who has actually created and used many such simulators, I understand there is a difference between theory and actual application. The calculations you did in physics101 usually had an intro that contained " assume zero friction".

On the other hand I am talking about serviceable, non deformed biners. If you build an anchor with a compromised* set of biners then thats just simple darwinism.

*bent, grooved, etc.


(This post was edited by dead_horse_flats on Feb 2, 2012, 7:55 AM)


mattm


Feb 2, 2012, 8:16 AM
Post #19 of 92 (12655 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

IS there a point to this? You're saying that setup is fine? People are saying otherwise? What's the motivation here?

dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 2, 2012, 9:03 AM
Post #20 of 92 (12632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [mattm] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mattm wrote:
IS there a point to this? You're saying that setup is fine? People are saying otherwise? What's the motivation here?

Good question.

OK here's my last post on this and then I'm done and gone.

I believe that the failure as described of two non-locking biners has never occurred and will not occur. Since I do trust my life to this, if I am wrong, I would like someone to prove it. The proof to me is easily worth $40 plus cost.


(This post was edited by dead_horse_flats on Feb 2, 2012, 9:18 AM)


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 2, 2012, 3:18 PM
Post #21 of 92 (12544 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
mattm wrote:
IS there a point to this? You're saying that setup is fine? People are saying otherwise? What's the motivation here?

Good question.

OK here's my last post on this and then I'm done and gone.

I believe that the failure as described of two non-locking biners has never occurred and will not occur. Since I do trust my life to this, if I am wrong, I would like someone to prove it. The proof to me is easily worth $40 plus cost.

By doing so, you seem to be taking a flamethrower to a strawman, since nobody has said such failure has occurred or will occur. A situation was identified in which everyday usage pushes certain wiregate biners outside of their normal working configuration, and the general consensus was that OK, it's probably a good idea to avoid using wiregates in that situation. Nobody's getting hysterical. Nobody's running around screaming that if you use them that way you're going to die. But, why tempt fate by using gear in a way it's explicitly not designed to be used?


Partner cracklover


Feb 2, 2012, 4:04 PM
Post #22 of 92 (12524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

I just did it. Am I the first? Do I win? What proof do I need to submit in order to claim my $40?

Unfortunately, I need a second pair of hands to get video of the scenario, but I could easily give you still shots and a description.

GO


dead_horse_flats


Feb 2, 2012, 7:28 PM
Post #23 of 92 (12463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

I just did it. Am I the first? Do I win? What proof do I need to submit in order to claim my $40?

Unfortunately, I need a second pair of hands to get video of the scenario, but I could easily give you still shots and a description.

GO

I would be thrilled to see what ever evidence you can provide in photos or video. Can you post it here for others to see also?

This is fabulous if you actually did it. I thought for sure the whole deal was a no-go. However, let me remind you of the rules, especially 2 and 3, so you dont waste your time.


Partner cracklover


Feb 3, 2012, 8:35 AM
Post #24 of 92 (12401 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
cracklover wrote:
dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

I just did it. Am I the first? Do I win? What proof do I need to submit in order to claim my $40?

Unfortunately, I need a second pair of hands to get video of the scenario, but I could easily give you still shots and a description.

GO

I would be thrilled to see what ever evidence you can provide in photos or video. Can you post it here for others to see also?

This is fabulous if you actually did it. I thought for sure the whole deal was a no-go. However, let me remind you of the rules, especially 2 and 3, so you dont waste your time.

Okay, but we got a foot of snow last night, and it's going to keep dumping all day today, so it will be some time before all this melts and I can take real photos outdoors. Would you prefer to wait, or shall I simulate it as well as I can indoors?

At some point, I will try to recruit someone to shoot video, because actually watching the rope wiggling out from the first biner is much different than just seeing still pics of the progress. The escape from the second biner is more straightforward.

Just the same, I'm confident that between text and photos, you should understand it well enough to be able to recreate it yourself.

Anyway, please spell out your terms - what do you need from me? Real situation outdoors, or simulated indoors? Photos and instructions enough, or do you need video? Because if you need real video from outdoors, it could be a long time. (As I said, I'll try to do the video at some point even if you accept still shots now. Maybe my wife will agree to help if I split the $40 with her).

GO


ablanchard17


Feb 3, 2012, 1:47 PM
Post #25 of 92 (12321 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 22, 2011
Posts: 41

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Watch as someone with a pull rig applies 20+ kn and has the rope fail.

a failing rope would count as the rope escaping both biners by your testing parameters.


dead_horse_flats


Feb 3, 2012, 2:11 PM
Post #26 of 92 (6599 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
[
Okay, but we got a foot of snow last night, and it's going to keep dumping all day today, so it will be some time before all this melts and I can take real photos outdoors. Would you prefer to wait, or shall I simulate it as well as I can indoors?

At some point, I will try to recruit someone to shoot video, because actually watching the rope wiggling out from the first biner is much different than just seeing still pics of the progress. The escape from the second biner is more straightforward.

Just the same, I'm confident that between text and photos, you should understand it well enough to be able to recreate it yourself.

Anyway, please spell out your terms - what do you need from me? Real situation outdoors, or simulated indoors? Photos and instructions enough, or do you need video? Because if you need real video from outdoors, it could be a long time. (As I said, I'll try to do the video at some point even if you accept still shots now. Maybe my wife will agree to help if I split the $40 with her).

GO

You wont get a little wet and cold for $40. Actually go ahead and try the pictures indoors for a start and we'll see if it works.


Partner cracklover


Feb 3, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #27 of 92 (6587 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[
Okay, but we got a foot of snow last night, and it's going to keep dumping all day today, so it will be some time before all this melts and I can take real photos outdoors. Would you prefer to wait, or shall I simulate it as well as I can indoors?

At some point, I will try to recruit someone to shoot video, because actually watching the rope wiggling out from the first biner is much different than just seeing still pics of the progress. The escape from the second biner is more straightforward.

Just the same, I'm confident that between text and photos, you should understand it well enough to be able to recreate it yourself.

Anyway, please spell out your terms - what do you need from me? Real situation outdoors, or simulated indoors? Photos and instructions enough, or do you need video? Because if you need real video from outdoors, it could be a long time. (As I said, I'll try to do the video at some point even if you accept still shots now. Maybe my wife will agree to help if I split the $40 with her).

GO

You wont get a little wet and cold for $40. Actually go ahead and try the pictures indoors for a start and we'll see if it works.

Nothing to do with cold and wet. I have no exposed rock.

Yea or nay on pics indoors? I'm not going to go through the trouble for "we'll see". I already know the answer to your question. You want to know it too, then you tell me the parameters you need.

GO


dead_horse_flats


Feb 3, 2012, 8:47 PM
Post #28 of 92 (6557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Indoors or out, I dont care. What matters is if you can adequately demonstrate and explain the process. If you can do that with photos, fine. If not then do a video. Pound some nails in your kitchen wall and build an anchor off those. The only thing that matters to me is that you explain it in a way that others can understand.


Partner cracklover


Feb 4, 2012, 10:10 AM
Post #29 of 92 (6510 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Okay. It'll take some time to do right. But unless things get crazy at work, I should have it for you within the week.

GO


dead_horse_flats


Feb 4, 2012, 3:48 PM
Post #30 of 92 (6474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

PM sent with terms and conditions for using a 3rd party judge.


jae8908


Feb 16, 2012, 7:25 PM
Post #31 of 92 (6335 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 15, 2011
Posts: 270

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Okay. It'll take some time to do right. But unless things get crazy at work, I should have it for you within the week.

GO

Did you succeed?


Partner cracklover


Feb 17, 2012, 8:46 AM
Post #32 of 92 (6280 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [jae8908] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jae8908 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Okay. It'll take some time to do right. But unless things get crazy at work, I should have it for you within the week.

GO

Did you succeed?

My bad - haven't made it a priority. Between work, climbing, and VDay, I've been busy. Will work on it today after work and see how far i get.

Thanks for the reminder.

GO


jae8908


Feb 17, 2012, 9:54 PM
Post #33 of 92 (6238 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 15, 2011
Posts: 270

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
jae8908 wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Okay. It'll take some time to do right. But unless things get crazy at work, I should have it for you within the week.

GO

Did you succeed?

My bad - haven't made it a priority. Between work, climbing, and VDay, I've been busy. Will work on it today after work and see how far i get.

Thanks for the reminder.

GO
Good Luck!


tower_climber


Apr 4, 2012, 10:07 PM
Post #34 of 92 (5931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 25, 2010
Posts: 157

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Did this thing ever happen?


moose_droppings


Apr 4, 2012, 10:30 PM
Post #35 of 92 (5925 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3352

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I already know the answer to your question. You want to know it too, then you tell me the parameters you need.

GO

The parameters seem to get more rigid for each possible scenario offered up.


Partner cracklover


Apr 5, 2012, 9:01 AM
Post #36 of 92 (5856 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [tower_climber] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

tower_climber wrote:
Did this thing ever happen?

Sorry, I've been crazy busy. I'll try hard to get at least a few pics up today.

Charging camera battery now...

GO


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Apr 5, 2012, 6:42 PM
Post #37 of 92 (5785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm curious to see the results.


Partner cracklover


Apr 6, 2012, 9:50 AM
Post #38 of 92 (5730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [squierbypetzl] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

squierbypetzl wrote:
I'm curious to see the results.

Ha! Ya gotta love tempting fate. Of course I had to say I'll get to it today. Then all hell breaks loose at work, and I'm pulling 18 hour days. I *think* (knock on wood) I have all the fires put out, now. So, hopefully, today.

GO


ianmeister89


Apr 6, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #39 of 92 (5678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 140

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post



-Ian


Partner cracklover


Apr 6, 2012, 3:35 PM
Post #40 of 92 (5657 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [ianmeister89] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ianmeister89 wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18005541.jpg[/image]

-Ian

That literally made me LOL!

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 6, 2012, 3:38 PM
Post #41 of 92 (5656 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Okay, so I tried photos, but they're meaningless. All it looks like is a rope unclipping from biners. So I had to go with video. I have no idea how well it will come out, since it's me operating the rope, and the video. But hopefully my explanations will be the main thing, and the video will just be explanatory.

The video is captured, but editing and loading may take some time...

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 7:46 AM
Post #42 of 92 (5600 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

Okay, here ya go.

Note - this post is getting quite long, so I'm going to split it up into sections. Here's the first part....

Setup - anchor configuration:
------------------------------------
- Two non-locking wiregate oval biners, opposite and opposed, with gates facing down and out
- Static rope anchor, tied in a fig-8 knot on a bight.



Step one - biner location:
-----------------------------------
Two things have to happen, in no particular order:
- The gates wind up inside the spine of the other biner. When you jostle the biners around, the gates will always settle either inside or outside the spine of the other biner.
- The biners wind up sitting on the edge. A few things that could cause this are that one of the anchor points snags on something, shortening that arm, or that the anchor was set up poorly, such that when weighted, the biners are over the edge, but when some of the weight is released, the biners get pulled up onto it.



Step 2 - gate opens:
--------------------------------
If the edge is rough, the gate on the inner biner can get caught on even a small jut. Then a downward pull on the anchor can cause that gate to open. This can happen even without any sideways pull in the direction of the jut. Once the gate gets caught, the biners can rotate onto the bump on the rock, making it so that any force will cause the gate to open.


link to video 1

Let's step back for a second - Why should it matter all that much if, when the climber's weight comes off the anchor, it can wind up sitting on the edge, and then if the weight goes back on it, it causes the gate to open momentarily? After all, I'm sure plenty of you are thinking, the biners are plenty strong enough to hold a small toprope fall, even with one gate open. And if a fall on the anchor causes it to get pulled all the way back over the edge, the gate will close on its own.

All true!

But... what if there were something that could cause the rope to escape the biner while it's open? Well it turns out that, given the following scenario, that's exactly what can happen.

Read on...


(This post was edited by cracklover on Apr 7, 2012, 10:44 AM)


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #43 of 92 (5568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

... continued from last post.


Step 3 - rope gets caught in first biner
---------------------------------------------
If, while the gate is caught open on the rock, the climber goes up and to the right, the rope can get caught in the open gate.

Why would this happen? Well, perhaps the leader of the group, who set up the toprope, asks the person climbing to check on the anchor, noticing that the biners seem to be sitting on the edge. Perhaps they remembered seeing something that might snag one of the arms of the anchor up on the right.


link to video 2


Step 4 - rope escapes first biner
-------------------------------------
Once the rope is caught under the gate, I noticed two ways it can wind up getting pulled out completely. In this step, I'll demonstrate the first way.

With the climber still above and right of the anchor, the belayer takes in a couple of inches of slack.


link to video 3

Let's step back again and see where we are. Okay, so the climber is slightly above the anchor and to the right, and is now clipped into only one biner. Technically, they're still safe, though. And, because the other biner is oriented in the opposite direction, it cannot get levered open on that nub of rock no matter how much the climber thrashes around trying to fix the anchor. And even if it did, the rope running up and to the right would never wind up going through the open gate on the *left* side.

So let's say this climber doesn't notice what's happened (the anchor might be under his body) - he would lower safely to the ground. After all, both biners are still clipped to the power point, and unless he looks carefully, he might not see that one of the biners (remember, it's the bottom one, and might be slightly hidden by the top one) is not clipped to the rope. But again, he's still safe.

Now the next climber to go up on the TR is another story. Read on...


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #44 of 92 (5557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

... continued from last post.

Step 5 - Biners flip over
----------------------------
If the next climber to do the TR ties into the other end of the rope, something interesting can happen. If the second climber does the same thing as the first climber (going up and right of the anchor) - let's say because this climber hopes to fix the problem the first climber didn't, the biners can be flipped over when they climb over the anchor, and will orient themselves like they were in the beginning. Sorry, I didn't think to video this step, and I broke down my setup yesterday. But if you want, I can set it up again and video it.

Step 6 - rope escapes from second biner
-----------------------------------------------
In step 4 I showed one way that the rope, caught in the gate, can escape the biner completely when the belayer takes in a little slack. I mentioned that I had noticed a second way for the same thing to happen. In this step I'll show that second way. Of course in real life, either way could happen either time.

The second way the rope can escape the biner completely: If there is a little bit of tension on the belayer end of the rope (it only took a few pounds when I tried), and the climber moves up, the biner scrapes on the rock and gets held in place while the rope moves out of it. This shot shows the whole thing happening at once:

link to video 4

So there you go. In six steps, a scenario in which a toprope setup for a standard slingshot belay fails completely, leaving the climber on belay from below, but completely unanchored.

Cheers,

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 11:26 AM
Post #45 of 92 (5545 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post



Cheers!

GO


iknowfear


Apr 7, 2012, 11:55 AM
Post #46 of 92 (5539 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 638

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,


billl7


Apr 7, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #47 of 92 (5523 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [iknowfear] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:
Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Not so fast. I always thought that the definition of leading was climbing above the anchor. So, by definition, this is not a standard sling-shot belay.Tongue


healyje


Apr 7, 2012, 3:02 PM
Post #48 of 92 (5498 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Two points of failure - a) don't use wiregates for TR anchors and b) never have a TR located where the rock can significantly impose on the biners.

Absent those points there are no circumstances where a TR of two opposed, non-locking biners is going to fail. The odds are about a billion to one better that you will die going to and from that TR anchor in your car.


Mark_Hudon


Apr 7, 2012, 8:26 PM
Post #49 of 92 (5460 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Following my oath of "NO SNARK" I shall not make a comment.


healyje


Apr 7, 2012, 8:40 PM
Post #50 of 92 (5456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Mark_Hudon] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Mark_Hudon wrote:
Following my oath of "NO SNARK" I shall not make a comment.

You are a prince of Snarklessness and should not dare a dimming of your true light...


Mark_Hudon


Apr 7, 2012, 8:48 PM
Post #51 of 92 (4412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So true, I rise above it.

Tongue


Partner cracklover


Apr 7, 2012, 8:51 PM
Post #52 of 92 (4412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [iknowfear] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Well, the jury is still out, so it's a bit presumptuous of me to do so, but it *is* fun to think about. It would be nice to keep the money in The Lab. I wonder if anyone would like to host and judge the homemade cam competition this year. I could offer the $$ as a first prize, maybe even chip in another ten to make it an even $50.

I dunno, anyone have other interesting suggestions (assuming the OP forks over the $$)?

GO


USnavy


Apr 8, 2012, 5:17 AM
Post #53 of 92 (4381 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2660

Re: [] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Interestingly enough, I actually had two O&O biners open up on me the other day. I set up a slackline with solid gate ovals connecting the slackline to my master point. When I walked across the line I noticed both gates were open as they were being compressed together by the slackline. The back and fourth swinging of the slackline pushed the gates in the open position and the biners were further compressed which held them in the open position. Granted I still had 2,700 lbs of strength which is not something I am going to exceed on a 50 foot slackline. But it was interesting that I was able to inadvertently open two O&O oval solid gate biners.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 8, 2012, 5:18 AM)


Mark_Hudon


Apr 8, 2012, 8:47 AM
Post #54 of 92 (4365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 6, 2010
Posts: 80

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So what are the chances of anyone dying due to this "problem", oh, let's say in the next 30 years vs. me driving 775 miles to Yosemite this spring?


bill413


Apr 8, 2012, 2:43 PM
Post #55 of 92 (4324 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Very well explained & illustrated.


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #56 of 92 (4315 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [bill413] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

And irrelevant.


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 3:42 PM
Post #57 of 92 (4313 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [USnavy] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
But it was interesting that I was able to inadvertently open two O&O oval solid gate biners.

This isn't an application where I'd ever employ two stacked biners in any configuration.


Partner cracklover


Apr 8, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #58 of 92 (4289 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
And irrelevant.

Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Thanks!

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 8, 2012, 5:57 PM
Post #59 of 92 (4288 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [bill413] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bill413 wrote:
Very well explained & illustrated.

Thanks!

GO


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 7:32 PM
Post #60 of 92 (4269 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Apr 8, 2012, 7:51 PM
Post #61 of 92 (4255 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.


(This post was edited by squierbypetzl on Apr 8, 2012, 8:20 PM)


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #62 of 92 (4240 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [squierbypetzl] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

squierbypetzl wrote:
healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.

You'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber the better the gear gets. The perceived prioritization around safety seems to be getting completely ass-backwards as time goes on instead. Look, there is just no circumstance where rope is going to come out of two opposed non-locking biners without doing something stupid and ill-advised in the setup. The whole thread is a 'the sky is falling sort of deal' and a real disservice to those who don't know any better.


(This post was edited by healyje on Apr 8, 2012, 8:44 PM)


jt512


Apr 8, 2012, 9:24 PM
Post #63 of 92 (4225 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
squierbypetzl wrote:
healyje wrote:
cracklover wrote:
Dude, nobody is forcing you to post here. Feel free to piss on somebody elses's picnic.

Not when threads like this one convey to less experienced people the wrong impression, which in this case is that there is any disadvantage to using a couple of non-locking biners or draws as a TR anchor.

Having the rope can come free from the anchor is a pretty significant disadvantage in any system, and if cracklover proved it can happen then his claims warrant some looking into.

Personally, I've always used and will very likely continue using 2 opposed non-locking (non wire gate) biners on an equalized cordelette for any toprope anchors I have to set up. Knowing that it's not only possible but plausible for the rope to come free in certain scenarios can only make me safer and therefore a better climber and instructor.

You'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber the better the gear gets. The perceived prioritization around safety seems to be getting completely ass-backwards as time goes on instead. Look, there is just no circumstance where rope is going to come out of two opposed non-locking biners without doing something stupid and ill-advised in the setup. The whole thread is a 'the sky is falling sort of deal' and a real disservice to those who don't know any better.

I disagree with you that this thread is doing a disservice to anyone, including beginners. If a new failure mode is discovered, then we become smarter; if not, we're exactly as dumb as we ever were. In no case do we get dumber as a result of seeking a previously unknown failure mode.

Even if we discover no realistic failure mode in this thread (and I don't think we have), at least we reinforce to beginners the importance of not loading the carabiners over an edge and the advantage of giving the anchor a second look when you get the chance.

Jay


healyje


Apr 8, 2012, 9:37 PM
Post #64 of 92 (4214 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [jt512] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

We'll have to agree to disagree - setting up situations that are inherently dangerous and then point out they are inherently dangerous isn't really doing anyone any favor when the thread title is what it is.


billl7


Apr 9, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #65 of 92 (4171 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L


rtwilli4


Apr 9, 2012, 6:45 AM
Post #66 of 92 (4159 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
"healyjeYou'd think that climbing would get smarter over the decades, but instead it seems to be getting dumber...

Sadly, that seems to be the case with most things in the world these days.

I think cracklover did a good job or proving that anything is possible, but I wouldn't call it the "discovery of a new failure mode."

I''ll group this in with all of the other people out there who think they are making climbing better by adding this sort of nonsense to a discussion. Sure, the rope came out of both biners; but look how many dumb shit things would have had to be done for there to even be a chance of that happening in real life.

I'll admit, this was entertaining, but it is a complete waste of time to discuss whether or not you have discovered a safer way of TRing (lockers, solid gates, etc). I will continue to use whatever two biners I might have for a TR setup and make sure that my partner doesn't wander all over the entire wall and then climb above the anchor and then ask me to do the same whilst tied into the other end of the rope.


lonequail


Apr 9, 2012, 7:40 AM
Post #67 of 92 (4144 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 8, 2004
Posts: 65

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nicely done GO. It was a fun and mostly academic question which was asked and satisfactorily answered.

The post-submittal banter as to the probability and relevancy to the climbing community misses the obvious deficiency with how the anchor is set up: The biners are over an edge! ShockedAlthough this setup is within the parameters of the game, it is a good illustration of one reason why the biners should be hanging straight and free. Avoiding lateral loading on the biners is the prime reason.


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #68 of 92 (4117 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [lonequail] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

lonequail wrote:
Nicely done GO. It was a fun and mostly academic question which was asked and satisfactorily answered.

The post-submittal banter as to the probability and relevancy to the climbing community misses the obvious deficiency with how the anchor is set up: The biners are over an edge! ShockedAlthough this setup is within the parameters of the game, it is a good illustration of one reason why the biners should be hanging straight and free. Avoiding lateral loading on the biners is the prime reason.

Thanks!

And yes - good point, that even without the rope escaping from the system, this anchor is already seriously compromised as soon as the biners sit on an edge.

I have to say, I was entirely prepared for folks to try to poke holes in my procedures or what have you, but I never expected this much concern.

It seems that the only people claiming the sky is falling are those who seem to find my post to be a threat to the way you do things.

My post makes no claims beyond the facts. If you think it does, you are reading into it more than I intended. It certainly does not claim that any time you use two opp-and-opposed biners for a TR anchor that you're likely to have an issue. In fact, if you actually read it, it shows how many specific things have to happen for this particular failure mode to occur. Of course there may be other failure modes. If someone else discovers one, that could be interesting, too.

And for those still foolish enough to think that I'm on a crusade against using two non-locking biners as an anchor: Yesterday I went sport climbing, and used two plain old sport draws at the top of every route I did. Yep, that's means I had a TR anchor with two non-locking biners. And felt perfectly fine about it.

If you're not capable of integrating a potential failure mode into your world view without getting all freaked out, then pardon me for saying, but I think you're wound a little tight, lol.

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #69 of 92 (4114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [billl7] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

billl7 wrote:
I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L

Huh? Sorry, but this is exactly what The Lab is for, as I understand it. Mostly academic discussion and documentation of climbing and gear related subjects, for the purposes of entertainment and enlightenment. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but like I said, nobody's making you read it.

GO


Partner cracklover


Apr 9, 2012, 8:58 AM
Post #70 of 92 (4110 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree - setting up situations that are inherently dangerous and then point out they are inherently dangerous isn't really doing anyone any favor when the thread title is what it is.

Well that's for each reader to decide for him or herself, no? Like the Lone Quail pointed out - this TR already has issues even before my specific failure mode. If you don't care about the issues I added, then that's fine.

GO


billl7


Apr 9, 2012, 9:48 AM
Post #71 of 92 (4085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1888

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
billl7 wrote:
I'll continue sitting on the fence as to whether the failure mode you have identified should have been posted. This is not the "Beginner" forum after all. At the same time, I can't say the thread as it is (hind sight) belongs in "The Lab" either. Maybe in Campground?

Bill L

Huh? Sorry, but this is exactly what The Lab is for, as I understand it. Mostly academic discussion and documentation of climbing and gear related subjects, for the purposes of entertainment and enlightenment. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine, but like I said, nobody's making you read it.

GO
Hopefully it is not a problem for RC.com as a whole that I did read it and did comment.Smile

Bill L


Partner cracklover


Apr 22, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #72 of 92 (3820 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [iknowfear] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO


squierbypetzl
Moderator

Apr 22, 2012, 8:43 PM
Post #73 of 92 (3783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO

Good man, the level of pawwnage you wraught unto his arse was priceless. You completely and legitimately wrecked some know-it-all's argument and advanced the science of climbing. I commend you.


iknowfear


Apr 23, 2012, 2:16 AM
Post #74 of 92 (3753 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 638

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
iknowfear wrote:
cracklover wrote:
[image]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/18053429.jpg[/image]

Cheers!

GO

Fair and square win.

what are you going to spend your 40$ on?

Cheers,

Looks like it's a moot point.

It would appear that dead_horse_flats (the OP) has fled. His last logon was two days after I posted my proof, and he has had no posts here since Apr 2, 2012.

Bummer. But, I suppose, not terribly surprising.

GO

meh. weak. but there should be a dead horse joke somewhere...

anyway, thanks for the work and the proof.

cheers!


Gmburns2000


Apr 23, 2012, 5:37 AM
Post #75 of 92 (3728 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15128

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dead_horse_flats wrote:
This is a $40 offer to anyone who can demonstrate a scenario of the failure of a top rope anchor using two non-locking opposed biners at the power point.

Disclaimers.
1. Opposed means opposed.
2. No manually holding the biners to force the rope thru them.
3. No wrapping the rope around the biners unless you can create a situation where this could happen un-intentionally.
4. Failure means the rope escaped from BOTH biners. Both means both.
5. No theories, microfractures, CE marks, or alien abductions.

Prove it and I will mail you $40.

another anonymous loser in the end, eh?


tradmanclimbs


Apr 23, 2012, 5:40 AM
Post #76 of 92 (4002 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy's senario will not work unless the biners are loaded ove an edge in which case lockers will also break. in a straight direction of pull the rope always breaks at a knott even with retired non locking biners in the system.


NikNak


Aug 3, 2012, 3:38 PM
Post #77 of 92 (3782 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2012
Posts: 38

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Apologies to all for digging up a done and dusted thread, but I have a lot of catching up to do (being a complete noob)

Thanks to various thread on these forums I became aware of the story relating to Lynn Hill, I know all of the people here already know the story, and being a complete noob I do not have the qualifications, expereince, skill or knowledge to dare point out that the tragic accounts of accidents or misjudgements of expereinced climbers happen far too often.

But the fact is the simplest of noob errors are not restricted purely to noobs. I would like to thank cracklover for the demonstration of how this might occur, it has certainly reinforced in me a drive to not become complacent in my new found passion for rock climbing.


Syd


Oct 28, 2012, 2:37 AM
Post #78 of 92 (3480 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [NikNak] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

How about giving double the money for locking biners ?

It takes a bit of fiddling, but set up 2 opposed locking biners in a top rope situation. Rotate one of the biners, so they are still opposed but gates are on the same side. Now push one through the other till it jams, with the rope passing over the locked gate. The rope can be shredded ! It has actually happened.


Syd


Feb 22, 2013, 1:32 AM
Post #79 of 92 (3214 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Where's my $40 ?


bearbreeder


Feb 22, 2013, 1:39 PM
Post #80 of 92 (3153 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

the gyms here use 2 opposed non lockers ... they see millions and millions of laps a year

the ropes havent gotten shredded Wink

toppu roperu tofu guys are the "climbers" who will tell you the many ways youll die ...

Tongue


virial


Feb 22, 2013, 3:06 PM
Post #81 of 92 (3138 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Posts: 9

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

possible both gates open weaken binner 'gate slap'
In reply to:
, anybody think about setting up anchor on multi pitch what if the anchor is the top rope....failure of the system could happen, not sure which part would fail first, they have books on climbing accidents, and I have seen binners that have failed....overussage of the binner can cause a groove to form and weaken the binner further. I have also seen binners that have been bent...probably from falling on them many times or overusing them to the point where the gate no longer catches right, but you sounded like you were talking brand new gear with no wear


Syd


Feb 22, 2013, 4:48 PM
Post #82 of 92 (3113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

A rope was shedded this way some time back in Queensland Australia. I thought it was impossible but there is a configuration where it can happen. Very rare but possible. It takes seconds to check.


bearbreeder


Feb 22, 2013, 5:37 PM
Post #83 of 92 (3109 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2009
Posts: 1960

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink


healyje


Feb 22, 2013, 5:59 PM
Post #84 of 92 (3105 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4199

Re: [Syd] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

The whole topic is way over-wrought even by genuine first world problem standards.


justroberto


Mar 18, 2013, 8:18 PM
Post #85 of 92 (2951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [healyje] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

healyje wrote:
The whole topic is way over-wrought even by genuine first world problem standards.

Hasn't that been the MO for the Lab for years now?


Syd


Mar 22, 2013, 2:15 PM
Post #86 of 92 (2850 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink

My comments are in relation to the bet. Unfortunately he did say "non locking", otherwise I'd be demanding $40. He obviously assumed lockers were totally safe.


distantThunder


Aug 2, 2013, 7:41 AM
Post #87 of 92 (2133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 4, 2012
Posts: 43

Re: [dead_horse_flats] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.

cheers,
dT


(This post was edited by distantThunder on Aug 2, 2013, 7:42 AM)


marc801


Aug 2, 2013, 7:57 AM
Post #88 of 92 (2127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [distantThunder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

distantThunder wrote:
just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.
It's so emotional because a certain percentage of rc posters live there entire life mitigating against "what if" events, no matter how remote or unlikely the occurrence of a given event. Underlying this is the misinformed and breathtakingly naive idea that risk in rock climbing can be reduced to zero.


Partner cracklover


Aug 2, 2013, 9:12 AM
Post #89 of 92 (2116 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [marc801] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
distantThunder wrote:
just checking late on this thread. not sure why it's so emotional.

I understand cracklovers set of circumstances. strange things could happen to a pair of biners if they are protruding over an edge like that.

but practically - that type of set-up is a safety violation. a TR should NEVER be set up so the biners just poke over the top of the rock. the biners should always hang loose and free - beyond the edge.

i'll leave it to people to debate the in's and out's of the argument. cracklover's scenario simply reinforces that the age-old safety standards are true - if you don't use bad set-ups with your hardware - you don't get bad results.

BTW - I always used oval biners for TR's, and generally preferred locking biners anyway. if I used the oval biners, I usually set it up as 3 biners (not two), with the middle opposed to the two outer ones. the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.
It's so emotional because a certain percentage of rc posters live there entire life mitigating against "what if" events, no matter how remote or unlikely the occurrence of a given event. Underlying this is the misinformed and breathtakingly naive idea that risk in rock climbing can be reduced to zero.

I didn't see any such scaredy-cat posters getting emotional in regards to this thread. The only folks who seem to be up in arms are people like you and Healyje, tilting at windmills.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Aug 2, 2013, 9:13 AM)


Partner cracklover


Aug 2, 2013, 9:15 AM
Post #90 of 92 (2113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10000

Re: [distantThunder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Not sure if you mean to imply by the following...

distantThunder wrote:
the reason for choosing oval biners is that D-biners can do slightly odd things, just like cracklover showed - they are a bit more prone to working their way inside of each other.

... that the biners used in my demo were Ds? If so you are mistaken, they were actually ovals.

GO


marc801


Aug 2, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #91 of 92 (2075 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2744

Re: [cracklover] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I didn't see any such scaredy-cat posters getting emotional in regards to this thread. The only folks who seem to be up in arms are people like you and Healyje, tilting at windmills.
Up in arms? Hardly, as that has been my only post in this thread. I was merely reacting to the "emotional" comment by dT. Some of the others in the thread, though, are completely wrapped around the axles about this mythical situation.


Syd


Aug 2, 2013, 3:02 PM
Post #92 of 92 (2057 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2012
Posts: 300

Re: [bearbreeder] $40 bet - two non-locking biner anchor failure. [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

bearbreeder wrote:
So make sure the anchor is nice and good and move on Wink

Prior to doing some testing I thought that the biners only had to be in opposite rotations, that is it was OK for gates to be facing the same direction as long as one biner could be rotated so that the gates could be opposed with both wide ends towards the climbing rope. The gates must also be facing in opposite directions to prevent the chance of rope shredding. It's easy for one biner to rotate if rapping past it over an edge.


Forums : Climbing Information : The Lab

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook