|
rgold
Jul 11, 2012, 4:19 AM
Post #26 of 127
(13201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
notapplicable wrote: rgold wrote: I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it. Just curious. If you don't usually tie the butterfly knot in that way, how do you incorporate/equalize the left most strand in to the anchor?
I use the loop of my tie-in knot instead of the butterfly knot power point. Everything else is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 11, 2012, 4:40 AM
Post #27 of 127
(13198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: notapplicable wrote: rgold wrote: I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it. Just curious. If you don't usually tie the butterfly knot in that way, how do you incorporate/equalize the left most strand in to the anchor? I use the loop of my tie-in knot instead of the butterfly knot power point. Everything else is the same.
Nice. Very efficient.
Thanks for sharing your system by the way. I was never completely happy with mine until yours inspired that little change. It seems so obvious now but it just never occurred to me.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 11, 2012, 1:05 PM
Post #28 of 127
(13170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope...
http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html
For me, my method is like the OP's picture but with the free end cloved to my belay loop. When belaying a second I usually use a Münter on the master point. If the second is then going to lead the master point becomes the first redirect with the belay device on my harness.
It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.
(This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 11, 2012, 1:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 11, 2012, 2:33 PM
Post #29 of 127
(13153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
acorneau wrote: Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope... http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html For me, my method is like the OP's picture but with the free end cloved to my belay loop. When belaying a second I usually use a Münter on the master point. If the second is then going to lead the master point becomes the first redirect with the belay device on my harness. It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.
That's pretty simple. I wonder how easy it would be to make that powerpoint higher up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 11, 2012, 3:25 PM
Post #31 of 127
(13136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
acorneau wrote: Here's another method of creating an anchor with the rope... http://climbinglife.com/...mbing-rope-3-57.html It seems like while everyone might have their preference on their variation of the anchor in reality they are all just that, variations on the same concept.
The systems that use sliding x's and bunny ears and start off with 50% of the load on one piece are definitely not the same concept. Whether you like them better or worse than the type of anchor I posted is a matter of personal preference, but they are, as noted above, less adaptable.
I agree that the remaining systems are all variations, but that doesn't make them equivalent. My interest is in something quick, simple, and fully adaptable. You should be able to do essentially the same thing no matter how many pieces in your anchor and how they are situated. In this regard, I think the Bazillion method is the best of the variations posted, but it is my system (*), so I would say that, right?
Compared to notapplicable's method. I get the power point in exactly the position I want it in by a combination of where the butterfly is tied and how the first clove hitch is installed. I've never ever had any need to adjust the position of the power point after that, so the extra loop of slack in NA's system just isn't needed, at least for me.
Compared to Eli Hemuth's method. He's a great guide and climber, but, in my opinion, his method fails at several efficiency and adaptability criteria.
By essentially creating, with the rope, a separately rigged power point, he saddles himself with two equalizing tasks, not one. It is peculiar in the video that he spends time getting his tie-in arms properly tensioned, but does not give anything like the same attention to the power point connections, which after all are more likely to be loaded heavily. Perhaps part of the reason is that his power point is created the same way a cordelette power point is, with an overhand or figure-eight knot, which introduces all the adjustment disadvantages and uncertainties of the cordelette method. (He can't adjust arm tension to the power point via the clove hitches without altering the adjustments to his tie-in---he has to use the overhand knot for those adjustments.)
Other disadvantages of his system are the need to guesstimate how much of a slack loop to leave and a reduced amount of control over the location of the power point relative to his body. Moreover, the system he uses is easiest to deploy when the pieces are vertically aligned, is much more awkward for widely-spaced horizontally aligned pieces, adapts very poorly to four pieces if that need arises, and uses considerably more rope.
There is another advantage of the Bazillion anchor---with its power point---over the Helmuth rigging that I ought to have mentioned in connection with Jim's question about why bother with power points. If the belayer wants or needs to be a long way from the anchor points, the use of the power point in the Bazillion anchor saves a substantial amount of rope, since the rigging can be kept close to the anchor and only one long strand run to the belayer, rather than running three long strands as you have to do without the power point and with the Helmuth system.
__________
(*) When I say "my system," I'm referring to the fact that it is the one I use much of the time. For quality vertically-aligned pieces, I'll often just clove hitch them in series and be done with it. Moreover, although I eventually arrived at this method on my own, it is clear that many other climbers have had the same thoughts, and I make no claims to having "discovered" anything---these methods have been known for years.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jul 11, 2012, 3:59 PM
Post #32 of 127
(13123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
i like this ... havent seen it that way before ... ill have to give it a whirl next time
what people use is up to them ... there are many ways to skin kitty kats ... "better" is always a loaded and relative term
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Jul 11, 2012, 5:45 PM
Post #33 of 127
(13089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
rgold wrote: I agree with Jim about the power point; I put it in my diagram mostly so I wouldn't have to argue about it not being there. I rarely tie it. But I think Jim must be nearly as out of fashion as I am, because nowadays an awful lot of people are using guide-type ATC's to belay the second off a power point. I do not do this as a matter of course, but sometimes, when there are two followers following simultaneously, I'll go over to the dark side and tie the power point so as to do the guide belay. It is true that escaping the belay is easier with a tied power point in place; you'll probably need some extra slings otherwise. Given that the need for such escapes is almost vanishingly small, this really isn't much of an issue.
I´ve only used a guide plate once and that was on a bolted belay anyway, a ghastly idea! Nowadays on a bolt belay I´d be on a Munter directly into the bolt or possibly Grigri if it was multi-pitch sport.
I last climbed with 3 on two ropes in about 1971! If it´s hard then I don´t climb as a 3 as it´s too slow and if its easy then 2 seconds on one rope and a tether, typically dodgy Italian style!
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 12, 2012, 2:43 AM
Post #35 of 127
(13013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: Compared to notapplicable's method. I get the power point in exactly the position I want it in by a combination of where the butterfly is tied and how the first clove hitch is installed. I've never ever had any need to adjust the position of the power point after that, so the extra loop of slack in NA's system just isn't needed, at least for me.
Glad you brought that up because I forgot to mention one (what I consider to be advantageous) feature of my system. If you are inclined to either redirect or belay off of the master point, that master point/redirect can be as adjustable as the belayers attachment.
You can create a "secondary" masterpoint by either cloveing a biner to the free end of the rope opposite the strand anchoring the belayer to the "primary" masterpoint or, if you have used most of your available slack to reach a more comfortable stance below the anchor, you can clove a biner at any point in the rope between the belayer and the "primary" masterpoint.
I personally don't own a device with a "guide mode" but I do like to redirect if I'm sitting down while belaying the second and lot of other folks do like to belay off the master point. For those reasons, I think the versatility/adjustability of my system more than makes up for the few extra seconds and feet of rope it takes to rig.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 12, 2012, 4:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 12, 2012, 4:15 AM
Post #36 of 127
(12998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Well, I still don't get it, but whatever.
A question: in what order to you clove into the three anchor biners (number them left to right as 1,2,3)?
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 12, 2012, 5:04 AM
Post #37 of 127
(12983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: Well, I still don't get it, but whatever. A question: in what order to you clove into the three anchor biners (number them left to right as 1,2,3)?
Mostly, I'm just lazy. Sometimes I like to sit while bringing up the second (assuming the stance permits it) but I always stand while they lead. The adjustability allows for that.
I tie the first 4 in the same order you do. #5 equalizes the belayers strand to the master point and #6 attaches the belayer to the master point. I usually tie the last two in opposite fashion to prevent rope twist.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 12, 2012, 5:37 AM
Post #38 of 127
(12977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Oh, sitting and standing---I get it.
Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner?
It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 12, 2012, 4:04 PM
Post #39 of 127
(12938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rgold wrote: Oh, sitting and standing---I get it. Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner? It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?
No, I think what he's saying is the following (correct me if I'm wrong NA).
BTW, sorry I haven't had time to respond to anything from page 1 yet. Been too busy.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 12, 2012, 4:22 PM
Post #40 of 127
(12934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
cracklover wrote:
I don't want to speak for NA either but the way I tie it is:
First I CH the left piece with plenty of slack to myself, then CH to where I want the PP to be. Then I clove CH myself to the power point. From there I tie it all together by CH the middle piece, come down to PP and CH and back to the third piece for the last CH.
In CL's picture it would be in this order;
1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 4.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Jul 12, 2012, 4:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wivanoff
Jul 12, 2012, 4:53 PM
Post #41 of 127
(12922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2007
Posts: 144
|
cracklover wrote: No, I think what he's saying is the following (correct me if I'm wrong NA). [image]http://i48.tinypic.com/ekixs0.jpg[/image]
If you're going to do this, 1,2,3,5,4,6 makes most sense to me <shrug>
I like the Bazillion. But, mostly I lead multi-pitch on two ropes - so different setup.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 12, 2012, 8:02 PM
Post #42 of 127
(12896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rgold wrote: The now-named bazillion anchor does attempt to equalize all pieces, and unlike the others does not start from a baseline in which half the load goes to one piece.
I think I see that now. The physics is not immediately obvious to me, so let me see if I have it.
At first glance it appears that at the butterfly knot half the force goes to the right, and half to the left. That's why I thought the left-side piece got half the force. But if the two strands that make up the bight of rope coming out of the butterfly to the right are each thought of independently, then you get three strands coming out of the butterfly, each taking (roughly) equal force. Is that the way you see it? If so, then I agree - in a perfect situation, each of the three pieces will feel similar forces.
In reply to: The Bazillianchor: One or two knots, and four clove hitches. That second knot is just an illustration of something that might be done with the slack rope, so for comparison purposes you should say one knot if a power point is desired or else no knots if the biner at position 3 in the diagram is clipped to the tie-in knot loop. But, as indicated in the diagram, if you want to engage the entire anchor while escaping the belay, then you'll need another biner and another clove hitch.
This really doesn't solve a belay-escape, unless the climber wants to get out completely. More often, I want to get out, but remain tied in. For example, if it turns out I'm leading the next pitch. More on that in another post.
In reply to: In reply to: It seems to me that of the three, the Bazillianchor would require more time than the other two for setup and breakdown, due to the number of knots and cloves. Maybe in some cases, but you are talking about seconds, not enough to make a difference even on a twenty-pitch route, and I'm not even sure you are right, since the other methods have knots that have to be adjusted---one or two-looped figure-8's on a bight---and these take longer to get right than clove hitches, and can be harder to untie if they've been weighted.
It may indeed be only seconds of difference. I've not had enough experience in the field with the Bazillianchor to know. But to address your concern - IME the single fig-8 knot in the fig-8 plus sliding-x anchor has never gotten sufficiently tight to be difficult to untie.
In reply to: In other cases, when that first anchor is remote and not near where the belayer wants to be situated, the eight on a bight knots make it harder to get adjustment right and will likely either consume more time than the cloves or else oblige the belayer to settle for a less optimal configuration.
I don't understand where this concern comes from. Tying that first Fig-8-on-a-bight knot on the anchor I posted is no more or less complicated to get the length right than the first clove on yours. It's simply the distance to the piece, plus about six to eight inches for the rope the knot will use up.
Putting aside the question of whether a clove or an eight is harder to get the right length, both the Bazillion and the Eight-on-a-bight-plus-crossed-sling require you to equalize two strands potentially far from your stance. The Notapplicable anchor, if I've correctly pictured the order in which the cloves are tied here...
... only requires one clove be tied at the correct distance - #4. All other strands are equalized at the belayer biner. This is a very nice benefit, IMO.
In reply to: The Bazillion anchor is the only one that adapt to anything that happens in the field. The other two both require that two of the three pieces be very close together.
That is more or less true. I wouldn't use the method I showed where all three pieces are quite far from each other. To be honest, though, I have yet to build an anchor where two of the pieces did not happen to be within three or four feet of each other. When the two pieces that are closest to each other are more than a couple feet away from each other, I extend the higher one with a sling.
In reply to: The double figure-eight/clove hitch seems the least versatile. What happens if you have to place all three anchors essentially at belay-ledge level, for example?
I'm confused about which anchor you're referring to. Do you mean the Bowline on a bight plus clove, or the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x? I'm going to assume you mean the former. But if you mean the latter, this seems to me a rather trivial objection. I measured how much shorter the smallest bazillianchor can get compared to the one incorporating a crossed-sling. Answer: The length of the shorter arm of the crossed sling. So, typically, 3 to 9 inches. I can't see how that makes it "less versatile", unless you're literally sitting on the gear.
In reply to: It also seems to have inferior behavior in a factor-2 fall situation, since the belayer is only directly anchored to two pieces, and, although the rope can be redirected through the power point, the rigging makes it possible that the power point could be too low to be loaded in some cases, not to mention the potential problems caused by possible collision of the belay device and belayer's hand with the power point.
If you're referring to the Bowline on a bight plus clove, these seem like fair and potentially serious points.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
ninepointeight
Jul 12, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #43 of 127
(12886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2012
Posts: 102
|
If you are anchoring with the rope, do you climb with a 70m? I'm picturing a scenario in which you get off course and run out of rope and there is not enough slack at the belay for you to build an anchor. Do you tie a knot 5m or so from the end of the rope before climbing to prevent that?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 12, 2012, 9:06 PM
Post #44 of 127
(12879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
wivanoff wrote: If you're going to do this, 1,2,3,5,4,6 makes most sense to me <shrug> I like the Bazillion. But, mostly I lead multi-pitch on two ropes - so different setup.
The reason I've come to tying it 1, 5, 6, 2, 3, 4, is so I can get myself anchored as quickly as possible. Once anchored to the wall I can place my other two pieces and tie them in without having to guess how much rope I'm going to need.
Before going to this I would anchor into my 1st piece, then after placing the next 2 pieces I'd CH the middle and down to a biner off my tie in loop and back up to the 3rd piece. Yes, there was a small chance of ring loading my tie in loop, I survived. After doing this enough I got tired of not being able to adjust my position at the belay for different reasons and with a little work at home, safely on the ground, came up with this simple add on to make my position adjustable. The anchoring in first was just a carry over of habit.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 12, 2012, 9:14 PM
Post #45 of 127
(12876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
ninepointeight wrote: If you are anchoring with the rope, do you climb with a 70m? I'm picturing a scenario in which you get off course and run out of rope and there is not enough slack at the belay for you to build an anchor. Do you tie a knot 5m or so from the end of the rope before climbing to prevent that?
If you don't have enough rope your going to have to make up an anchor out of slings or cordellette. you could also down climb (if it's an option) to a different place to belay and then use your rope. As I mentioned earlier, using the rope for anchoring isn't the best way if your leading in blocks. You can disconnect from the system and swap ends, but I try to never do that if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 12, 2012, 10:00 PM
Post #46 of 127
(12864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
JimTitt wrote: In reply to: If the piece feeling half the load on any of the three anchor methods were to fail, the method incorporating the sliding x would most likely do the best in distributing the load equally between the two remaining pieces, making further cascade failure less likely. However this is a selective case since you decided which piece would fail, if you randomly select a piece to fail you have a 2 in 3 chance the failed sliding X makes the situation worse. Since the objective in building belays is generally not to achieve the optimum solution for one case but to get the best solution for most or all cases then the X is clearly not desirable.
I'm not sure what you mean by "makes the situation worse".
The point you raise is a key one though: What happens if a piece pulls. So it's worth drilling down into the question a lot further.
Let's take the four anchor methods.
1 - Bowline on a bight plus clove:
--------------------------------------
There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls is the middle one. If this happens, you still have good equalization.
There is a 1/3 chance that the piece pictured on the right pulls. If this happens, again, you still have excellent equalization!
The one remaining piece: If this piece pulls, you will likely still have reasonably good equalization.
So for this anchor, any of the pieces pulling will likely result in good to excellent equalization between the remaining two pieces.
2 - Bazillianchor:
----------------------
There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls is the middle one. If this happens, you still have perfect equalization. Yay!
There is a 2/3 chance the piece that pulls will be an outer one. If the pieces are spread out horizontally (for example your 90 degree angle scenario) then most of the force will go onto the middle piece. The two will be very poorly equalized, but both will probably get some force.
So for this method, there is a 2/3 chance that a piece blowing will result in poor equalization between the two remaining pieces. 1/3 chance of excellent equalization.
3 - Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x:
-------------------------------------------
There is a 1/3 chance that the piece that pulls will be the one pictured on the left. If this happens, you likely still have excellent equalization.
There is a 2/3 chance that the piece that pulls is part of the sliding-x. If this happens, the sling extends to either the end or the limiter knot. Depending on the situation, you may still have quite good equalization, or you may have none, between the two remaining pieces. If you use limiter knots, you will still probably have excellent equalization between the two remaining pieces. If you don't, it depends on the specific anchor.
So, for this anchor, there is a 2/3 chance that you will wind up with equalization that will anywhere from excellent to poor, depending on the specifics of the construction and the angles. 1/3 chance of excellent equalization between the two remaining pieces.
4 - Notapplicable Anchor:
-------------------------
Same as the bazillianchor.
So, of the four, I'd rank the bowline on a bight plus clove as clear winner.
If limiter knots are used, the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x is clearly a second-place finisher, with the other two taking third.
Otherwise, I'd say all three tie for second place, depending on the specifics of the angles and distances in the anchor.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 12, 2012, 10:16 PM
Post #47 of 127
(12854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
moose_droppings wrote: As I mentioned earlier, using the rope for anchoring isn't the best way if your leading in blocks. You can disconnect from the system and swap ends, but I try to never do that if possible.
You just put your finger on what, IMO, makes the Figure-8 on a bight plus sliding-x the most versatile method.
In truth, it is not really in the same category as the other anchors here, because it's a hybrid anchor. It's partly built with the rope, and partly it's external.
This comes in handy because I actually often have to "escape the belay" for completely mundane reasons - after building the anchor with my tie-in rope, I need to lead the next pitch. In such cases, it's very easy to switch out: the second just needs to tie the fig-8 on a bight and clove to the sliding-x. One knot and one clove hitch and we're good to go. Certainly not as easy as an anchor built completely external to the rope, but as I said, it's a hybrid.
This comes up for me fairly often. A few cases:
- The other member of your party arrives at the belay, looks up, gets snail-eye, and says "you mind leading the next pitch?"
- You wind up either running some pitches together, or stopping at a different place than what you anticipated from the ground, and one of your party definitely wants to take a specific pitch or pitches.
- One of your party tries a pitch and then comes back to the belay for one reason or another to switch out.
For these or other reasons, it can be nice not to have to reconstruct the whole anchor (or untie from the ends) to switch who's leading.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jul 12, 2012, 11:37 PM
Post #48 of 127
(12839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
In reply to: The other member of your party arrives at the belay, looks up, gets snail-eye, and says "you mind leading the next pitch?"
Been there.
In reply to: One of your party tries a pitch and then comes back to the belay for one reason or another to switch out.
That too.
In reply to: For these or other reasons, it can be nice not to have to reconstruct the whole anchor (or untie from the ends) to switch who's leading.
Makes sense.
Thanks for pointing those out. It is handy having part of the anchor not made with the rope for those instances, which do happen from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 13, 2012, 2:06 AM
Post #49 of 127
(12821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: Oh, sitting and standing---I get it. Next question: I don't think I understand what you mean by the "same order" I use. In your picture, are you successively cloving the anchor biners left to right or right to left? Put another way, where does the very first clove go, on an anchor point or on the power point biner? It sounds as if you are saying right to left, with the first clove on the rightmost anchor point in your picture. The arrangement of knots on the master point biner also suggests this. If that is the case, then how do you know how much slack to leave in the rope when you are installing the first clove hitch on that rightmost anchor point?
Cracklover has it right in the picture below. #3 & #4 can easily be swapped in the sequence and ofter are, now that I think about it. If I'm gripped and at a poor stance, I'll tie it as Moose described so I can hang if need be. Breaking it down is also slightly more intuitive with the MP biner facing the other way. It's just a personal idiosyncrasy that I prefer to secure myself last under most circumstances.
Like I said. This anchor has evolved with me over time and is tailored for my use. As I would imagine most everyones rope anchor is. IMO that versatility/adaptability is their biggest advantage over the ________elette alternatives.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Jul 13, 2012, 2:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 13, 2012, 2:19 AM
Post #50 of 127
(12816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
cracklover wrote: In reply to: It also seems to have inferior behavior in a factor-2 fall situation, since the belayer is only directly anchored to two pieces, and, although the rope can be redirected through the power point, the rigging makes it possible that the power point could be too low to be loaded in some cases, not to mention the potential problems caused by possible collision of the belay device and belayer's hand with the power point. If you're referring to the Bowline on a bight plus clove, these seem like fair and potentially serious points. GO
If you take the other side of the rope and clove it back to your belay loop like I do then the belayer is in all three pieces. Having the master point high enough is just a matter making it so (which is easy enough).
You can also adjust your master point so that the two pieces on the BOAB is taking a little more of the weight and the single cloved piece is taking a little less (which is what I usually do).
Again, circumstances dictate the best rigging.
(This post was edited by acorneau on Jul 13, 2012, 2:24 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
